Camming to be featured in Hot Girls Wanted: Turned On

[heybarkeep]

The above comment could be taken the wrong way. Not a shot at the looks of radfems or whatever. More a joke about @Guy finding an avatar he didn't find hot and randomly needing to comment on. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Mila_]

can go through it with love and care. But, no one should be forced to.

Nobody is "forced" to go through a pregnancy. Dont want to go through a pregnancy? Dont get pregnant. There are a million ways to avoid it from abstinence to 1000 different contraceptive methods. But once you are pregnant, what you have inside you is a human being. And "pregnancy is difficult and bothersome" is not an excuse to end their life

Also... a human becomes a person when they are given birth to? That makes no sense from a philosophical stand point. If you argue that a baby can be aborted because while being human he isn't a person, then it means that there is a fundamental or an essential difference between the concept of human and the concept of person. The difference should be important enough for one to be killed without a second thought and the other to be considered "murder". Now, a thing doesn't completely change at it's core because of the action of a third person. How does giving birth change the baby in a fundamental way? babies born prematurely often survive even when they are born at 6 months of gestation and live perfectly normal lives. Surely, it cant be that oxygen has a magical capacity to turn a human into a person just by breathing it. When I have this discussion with progressives the usual answer is "consciousness". A human turns into a person when they gain consciousness of themselves... okay, I can accept that as a fundamental difference. But a change of location? That is not a difference worth killing for.

 

[JickyJuly]

I didn't mean given birth to or even necessarily just in relation to abortion. I meant once they have a mother who chooses to carry them with love and responsibility. Usually, this happens before the end of the first trimester. To me, once the mother is putting care into a potential human, it is her baby. If she loses it, it will be mourned. Even if she were to find rare issues and choose to end the pregnancy, it will likely be mourned. I'm not the one suggesting life begins at birth.

 

[Mila_]

I didn't mean given birth to or even necessarily just in relation to abortion. I meant once they have a mother who chooses to carry them with love and responsibility. Usually, this happens before the end of the first trimester. To me, once the mother is putting care into a potential human, it is her baby. If she loses it, it will be mourned. Even if she were to find rare issues and choose to end the pregnancy, it will likely be mourned. I'm not the one suggesting life begins at birth.

What does that have to do with a human becoming a person?

A lemon tree doesnt become an orange tree if I water it with love. My dog will never be a cat no matter how hard I wish it.

 

[JickyJuly]

What does that have to do with a human becoming a person?

I don't really understand this question or your analogy. A fertilized egg has the potential to become a person if gestated. A tree can't switch fruits and an animal can't switch species. Once a woman accepts the job of carrying a fertilized egg, that egg has everything it needs to continue. It becomes a baby. A baby is a person. I'm totally fine with being disagreed with, but what I'm saying is not outlandish. I'm making the trajectory of a fertilized egg dependent on the mindset of the mother as it is also dependent on her body.

 

[SMuser69]

I'm pro-choice. That doesn't mean I want people to be flippant with abortions. The opinion of what is medically viable pregnancy should be left with a doctor. I always felt abortion is a medical tool that doctors use when the patients life is at risk. Banning abortion takes a medical tool away from doctors. We don't need another Savita Halappanavar incident. I don't think that choice should extend to the whims of the mother either. Abortion should never be used to correct a "mistake". Abortion shouldn't be considered "elective" surgery.

As a male I've personally been hurt because the current laws on abortion. I remember telling my parents they would be grandparents to find out my fiance had went out two days before, signed a sheet and had the pregnancy terminated and I didn't even have to be notified. Her decision hurt a lot of people and caused years of heartbreak. My kid would had been seven right now. I understand why the law is the way it is however it hurts good people as much as it protects women from the bad people.

 

[Mila_]

I don't really understand this question or your analogy. A fertilized egg has the potential to become a person if gestated. A tree can't switch fruits and an animal can't switch species. Once a woman accepts the job of carrying a fertilized egg, that egg has everything it needs to continue. It becomes a baby. A baby is a person. I'm totally fine with being disagreed with, but what I'm saying is not outlandish. I'm making the trajectory of a fertilized egg dependent on the mindset of the mother as it is also dependent on her body.

The question had to do with our previous interaction. You quoted a question I asked @JizzyJezebel: "what turns a human into a person in your opinion" and you replied that it was the work that a birth mother puts into the pregnancy. So this is why I pointed out the inconsistency of that argument



My point was... that the essence of a thing doesn't change just because someone watered it with love, or gestated it with love. If you consider a baby is a baby after the mother "accepts the job of carrying it" then it must also be a baby before the mother "accepts the job". Because the essence of the being doesn't change depending on how you feel about it. It is an objective reality that you can see, and measure. If you do not believe a fertilized egg is a baby but you do consider a born baby to be a baby, then at some point during the pregnancy there must be a magical transmutation akin to an apple becoming a chair, I am simply asking when that magical transmutation takes place.

 

[Val Vega]

What turns a human into a person in your opinion?

Since you are saying that mothers should have the right to abort babies as long as they are in their womb, are you okay with aborting babies in the 9th month of pregnancy?

A woman's right to her own body is not more important than a person's right to their own life. Still, a pregnant woman made a choice to use her body for sex and the natural consequence of sex is pregnancy. So she did, in fact, excercised her right to her own body which is what landed her with a baby.

I don't really care what turns a fetus into a person, to be honest. I do, however, know that no fetus has sapience and that even consciousness is often not observed until almost half a year after birth. And those are very much required for personhood. Ultimately, all I care about is a woman's right to her body and her life, which is paramount to me over any fetus at any stage of its development.

 

[Mila_]

I don't really care what turns a fetus into a human being. I do, however, know that no fetus has sapience and that even consciousness is often not observed until almost half a year after birth. Ultimately, all I care about is a woman's right to her body and her life, which is paramount to me over any fetus at any stage of its development.

This is not true. From what we know so far, consciousness in babies arises around the 5th month of gestation. They are capable of hearing sounds, feeling touch, seeing changes in light intensity, hearing their mother's voice, and they have the capacity to interpret the data and react to different stimuli. Which is why babies "kick" their mothers when certain things happen, for example, when the mother takes a hot shower, they are capable of feeling the temperature of the water through the belly. The voice of the mother also soothes them, we know from their heart-rates.

What I think you are referring to is self-consciousness or awareness of our own's existence. It has been proven already that babies are born with some self consciousness, they are aware of their bodies. Higher forms of self-awareness develop slower... the mirror test shows that depending on the race, babies start to recognize themselves when they are around 1 year old. Awareness of your own distinct identity isn't developed until adolescence, and as you grow old you start to lose these too. So humans exist in a spectrum of self-awareness that begins inside the womb.

But let's pretend what you said is true. Let's pretend babies have no consciousness or sapience until 6 months after they are born. If you consider this to be a reason why abortion is okay, would be okay in your opinion to murder anyone who falls into a comma just because they don't have consciousness or sapience? What about severe mental retardation? Is it okay to murder a severely retarded person just because they lack self-awareness?

At least you are capable of recognizing that you consider "a woman's right to her body and her life" the only thing you care about, basically you accept that you live by a hedonistic moral system... the seeking of pleasure and personal gain as the ultimate moral barometer against which to judge everything else. I don't agree with it, but I appreciate your honesty.

 

[JickyJuly]

My point was... that the essence of a thing doesn't change just because someone watered it with love, or gestated it with love.

It does. If you take a fertilized egg out of its mother, its prospects end. Gestation is what takes it from fertilized egg to actual human.If a fertilized egg was really considered equal to a baby, pro lifers wouldn't use IVF, and we'd see protests outside of IVF facilities equal to those outside of Planned Parenthood. We'd at least hear the constant hum of conversation in support for all of the eggs destroyed or donated to science.

I feel like you're saying that human life is so valuable that it begins at conception, that a woman who becomes pregnant already accepted that pregnancy by having sex. I'm saying human life is so valuable that if a woman has sex and cannot commit to carrying a child lovingly/responsibly, she shouldn't. Babies deserve better than to be a consequence. Womens' bodies and the process required to take an egg to a baby deserve more reverence. I agree that the loss of a potential child is sad. I just accept that the details of the mother's life and medical matters are outside of my wheelhouse and best left to her and her doctor.

 

[CharlieCharma]

What turns a human into a person in your opinion?

Since you are saying that mothers should have the right to abort babies as long as they are in their womb, are you okay with aborting babies in the 9th month of pregnancy?

A woman's right to her own body is not more important than a person's right to their own life. Still, a pregnant woman made a choice to use her body for sex and the natural consequence of sex is pregnancy. So she did, in fact, excercised her right to her own body which is what landed her with a baby.

Oh, and you wont mind if I give you poops in all your posts then regardless of their content? I wonder how @AmberCutie feels about this

A fetus is a person when it can survive outside of the womb.

I never understand why so many pro-life folks look at children as a consequence. That sounds like a terribly bitter life for the mother and child. "Welp, guess I have a kid now. Didn't want one, but since I fell into temptation one time guess I'm stuck with it."

You might not like abortion. That's fine. Most pro-choice people don't LIKE abortion. It's just the best choice a lot of people can make when in that situation(because now they are in that situation and no amount of shaming and "you shouldn't have had sex" will change that). The adoption system in America is broken. Growing up in a single parenthood household or in poverty is not easy and a hard hole to climb out of. Also, rape, incest, etc. Those pregnancies were forced on a woman and outlawing abortion will hurt those women as well. Or women who wanted a baby, but then something ended up being not quite right and the life of the mother is threatened.

Outlawing abortion won't stop abortion. It'll just cause back alley abortions which are dangerous for women. Don't tell me you're pro-life when really the only life you care about is the unborn.

 

[Val Vega]

I made it very clear I don't care. As long as the fetus is within the woman, she should be able to do with it whatever she pleases. Her body, her choice. The only thing that matters. The difference between someone falling into a coma/being mentally disabled and a fetus is that the former is not gestating within someone. Pretty weird to not see the obvious difference there.

Do not put words into my mouth. There is nothing hedonistic about what I have said and nor do I hold that to be the case. You do and I hold your estimation of what I think with very low regard.

 

[Mila_]

It does. If you take a fertilized egg out of its mother, its prospects end. Gestation is what takes it from fertilized egg to actual human.If a fertilized egg was really considered equal to a baby, pro lifers wouldn't use IVF, and we'd see protests outside of IVF facilities equal to those outside of Planned Parenthood. We'd at least hear the constant hum of conversation in support for all of the eggs destroyed or donated to science.

If you club a cat over the head 60 times, it's prospect ends as well. A fertilized egg is already a human and it's place is inside the womb. By taking it out of the womb you are effectively killing it. Which is why it is a form of murder. Some "pro-lifers" do consider IVF a horrible thing, maybe you haven't heard of it. The reason they focus on Planned Parenthood is because it is a more pressing matter. Maybe you don't have much contact with people who are against abortion in principle and not just in feeling.

I feel like you're saying that human life is so valuable that it begins at conception, that a woman who becomes pregnant already accepted that pregnancy by having sex. I'm saying human life is so valuable that if a woman has sex and cannot commit to carrying a child lovingly/responsibly, she shouldn't. Babies deserve better than to be a consequence.

This is doubletalk. "A human life is so valuable that if it doesn't have an ideal life from the get go it is better to murder it" What?

Circumstances change. Someone might not be happy about their pregnancy but after giving birth they can fall in love with their child. Financial situations also change. Someone might have a baby under less than ideal situations and then their life changes. Many people are born in difficult households and have terrible childhoods and I bet my arm they wouldn't choose death over life simply because of it.

In the same way there are people who are born into stellar circumstances to parents that love each other and wanted the baby, with a comfy financial situation and their lives can change suddenly. Their parents divorce, or they lose all their money, or they become orphans. Are their lives not worth having then? Why would anyone want to make that choice for someone else?

Aborting a baby is killing someone without giving his life a chance just because you believe their life wont be comfortable or easy. If you cared about the baby you would realize that precisely because they didn't ask to be born their life should be respected. If someone doesn't like their life they can always end it, but you can't make that choice for them.

Outlawing abortion won't stop abortion. It'll just cause back alley abortions which are dangerous for women. Don't tell me you're pro-life when really the only life you care about is the unborn.

Outlawing murder didn't stop murder, so let's make it legal!

 

[CharlieCharma]

Outlawing murder didn't stop murder, so let's make it legal!

Abortion and murder aren't even comparable. That is a cheap and empty argument.

 

[Mila_]

Abortion and murder aren't even comparable. That is a cheap and empty argument.

In this case I wasn't comparing murder to abortion in nature. What I was doing is showing you that just because a law wont stop all undesirable acts from happening doesn't mean we should get rid of the law.

 

[CharlieCharma]

In this case I wasn't comparing murder to abortion in nature. What I was doing is showing you that just because a law wont stop all undesirable acts from happening doesn't mean we should get rid of the law.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/
A list of logical fallacies, like the one you used in your argument. When you keep these out of your argument, then it holds its weight a lot better.
Outlawing murder didn't stop murder, so let's make it legal! is a logical fallacy which is why I told you your argument was cheap and empty and told you to leave MURDER, a crime, out of an argument about abortion, a legal medical procedure.
And currently, the law states that abortion IS legal, so we really shouldn't get rid of that law.

 

[Mila_]

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/
A list of logical fallacies, like the one you used in your argument. When you keep these out of your argument, then it holds its weight a lot better.

And currently, the law states that abortion IS legal, so we really shouldn't get rid of that law.

Which fallacy do you consider my argument to be? It's not clear to me.

Your argument was: "besides if you outlaw abortion it wont stop abortion from happening" so that is what I was addressing.

 

[CharlieCharma]

Which fallacy do you consider my argument to be? It's not clear to me.

Your argument was: "besides if you outlaw abortion it wont stop abortion from happening" so that is what I was addressing.

I would count it as an either/or, slippery slope, or straw man. It's such a versatile statement, really.

I am arguing that abortion should not be illegal because abortion will still happen, but rather than in a safe environment it will put women at risk again. It won't be saving any precious fetuses, it will be killing women. That does not have anything to do with "Outlawing murder didn't stop murder, so let's make it legal!" That argument is empty and reaching for straws.


https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2004/01/public-health-impact-legal-abortion-30-years-later
"The replacement of unsafe, illegal abortions by safer, legal procedures meant that women experienced fewer serious complications. Studies performed at the national, state and local levels revealed that hospitalization of women with complications from illegal abortion decreased gradually after Roe v. Wade.17 Estimates from the National Hospital Discharge Survey between 1970 and 1977 also demonstrated a general decline in the number of women treated for complications of illegal abortions; a disproportionate decrease occurred in the year of Roe v. Wade.18 Moreover, reports from individual hospitals on the East and West Coasts documented similar declines in abortion complications.19

 

[Kokoro]

I see this and laugh. She tried to smear Hussie Models in the first Hot Girls Wanted and since then it's gotten tons of exposure and has grown into a more legit agency whose models are frequently hired by producers. I can't believe Rashida Jones has the audacity to claim she is a feminist. She is nothing more than a fake

 

[Gen]

I can't believe Rashida Jones has the audacity to claim she is a feminist. She is nothing more than a fake

I feel the same about radfems and anti-sex work feminists as I do about many pro-lifers, in that I think both are coming from a place of wanting to help or do right, in a way that aligns with their values.

Radfems believe that pornography and prostitution are harmful to women as a whole. There's certainly some evidence to support these ideas in some ways. If we can accept that they are trying to reduce harm to vulnerable women and women as a broader group, even if we disagree with their ideas/tactics, they're still fighting for women *in the way they think is best* and I don't think dismissing them as unfeminist (or just as misogynists) is accurate or fair. They feel the same way about liberal/choice feminists, lol, nobody's feminism but that which aligns with our own is valid.

Is there a definition of feminism that we can all agree on that makes her a fake?

 

[JickyJuly]

Radfems believe that pornography and prostitution are harmful to women as a whole. There's certainly some evidence to support these ideas in some ways. If we can accept that they are trying to reduce harm to vulnerable women and women as a broader group, even if we disagree with their ideas/tactics, they're still fighting for women *in the way they think is best* and I don't think dismissing them as unfeminist (or just as misogynists) is accurate or fair. They feel the same way about liberal/choice feminists, lol, nobody's feminism but that which aligns with our own is valid.

Is there a definition of feminism that we can all agree on that makes her a fake?

For me, the fact that they're fighting for women in the way that they think is best is what makes them misogynist. If a woman is going about her life in a way that they would not, she must be uneducated, an unknowing victim. I feel the same way about the "feminists" who think women who want to be mothers are controlled. To believe in feminism requires at least respecting women as fully capable adults who can make their own way in life even if you don't like what they're doing. Both sides of extremism seem to ignore that.

Also, I love that you brought this thread back to the initial idea. @Guy threads always take such fun twists and make their way back around.

 

[Shia]

Welp, just finished the new series..I think it wasn't all bad. It touched a lot more topics than I originally thought it would. I went into it thinking it was just about camming and that is definitely not the case. I think some things were portrayed very accurately for the situations/lives of those shown. Some negative- but there is a negative side to this industry for some people.
I'd give it maybe a 6/7 on a scale of 10. I personally think it would've been better to create a full documentary for each one of these separately rather than doing the 30 min episodes. I feel that if each got their own spot to show more it would have been better.

 

[AerynShade]

Welp, just finished the new series..I think it wasn't all bad. It touched a lot more topics than I originally thought it would. I went into it thinking it was just about camming and that is definitely not the case. I think some things were portrayed very accurately for the situations/lives of those shown. Some negative- but there is a negative side to this industry for some people.
I'd give it maybe a 6/7 on a scale of 10. I personally think it would've been better to create a full documentary for each one of these separately rather than doing the 30 min episodes. I feel that if each got their own spot to show more it would have been better.

Looks like they used periscope footage from a couple models without asking for permission...or even telling them.

 

[Shia]

Looks like they used periscope footage from a couple models without asking for permission...or even telling them.

Yep! I was the one who asked Effy is she knew. I saw it and immediately tweeted her cause I had a feeling she wasn't aware. Im sure anyone who was shown on the show that wasn't interviewed directly has no clue they used their footage.

 

[AerynShade]

Yep! I was the one who asked Effy is she knew. I saw it and immediately tweeted her cause I had a feeling she wasn't aware. Im sure anyone who was shown on the show that wasn't interviewed directly has no clue they used their footage.

That is so fucked up. Guess it's one way to get views: force models to watch it to see if their content was stolen and used.

 

[Shia]

That is so fucked up. Guess it's one way to get views: force models to watch it to see if their content was stolen and used.

Yeah it's total bullshit. One of the main reasons I watched it was to see which girls were in it. Hopefully they will face legal action, perhaps it will force them to remove the documentary until all those featured sign off on it. Which hopefully they don't and they just have to trash a large majority of their doc

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Yep! I was the one who asked Effy is she knew. I saw it and immediately tweeted her cause I had a feeling she wasn't aware. Im sure anyone who was shown on the show that wasn't interviewed directly has no clue they used their footage.

In which episode were they shown? If it is short segment it is probably covered under fair use, although I agree they should have contacted the girls as a courtesy.

 

[Shia]

In which episode were they shown? If it is short segment it is probably covered under fair use, although I agree they should have contacted the girls as a courtesy.

Episode 6, 3 minuets and about 10 seconds in. It depends as far as fair use goes. They cannot be making a profit on it for it to be fair use. The girls are looking into it though and figuring out what they can do.

 

[EspiKvlt]

Episode 6, 3 minuets and about 10 seconds in. It depends as far as fair use goes. They cannot be making a profit on it for it to be fair use. The girls are looking into it though and figuring out what they can do.

I don't think that's true. This is a constant debate on Youtube. As long as the content is transformative, you can make money on it. And obviously, this is transformative, as the goal is to educate, not get people off.

 

[EspiKvlt]

To be clear: I am totally against the uncredited use of sex workers' shows in a documentary. That is sketchy and creepy and goes against everything this show is trying to promote.

However, legally, I don't think there's anything people can do