like you know “pansexuals” didn’t just pop into existence circa 2010’s right. “pansexual” and “bisexual” were considered semi-synonymous by a lot of activists— very well known bi activist Robyn Ochs id’d as pan as well as bi, activists like Wendy Curry and more talked abt pansexuality. “everything made for bisexuals” was technically made for pansexuals too, and also made by some people who id’d as pansexual.

I think that Lori consented, but I don’t think it makes it somehow not pedophilia or an unethical decision on David Bowie’s part. Like, not all sex that meets the bare minimum standard of ‘not being unconsensual’ is ethical

Like, first of all, that actually doesn’t align with my experiences as a person sexually abused as a child, and while I respect someone’s ability to re-understand their consent and ability to consent retrospectively, I don’t hink that’s what Lori was doing. I think she still considers her acts consensual. Which like, I feel similarly about my CSA stuff too.

And I think it’s important to like, not strip away people’s agency and ability to consent, while still not condoning the behavior on the part of the adult. Like, I think treating children as ‘unable to consent’ to bodily choices actually has major consequences for children re: medical choices (for example, trans-ness) and peer-level sexuality.

I also think that for some people it might actually be different insofar as, being someone who has had consensual sex while a minor (that fucked me up) and also having been sexually assaulted (i.e. nonconsensual), those had different issues and affected me much differently.

I guess I’m also like, wary of decrying anything that is exploitative and wrong as ‘nonconsent’ because beyond the fact that it takes away agency from a group of people already without a lot of agency (children), it confuses exploitation for coercion. There’s a clear difference between Lori’s experiences with David Bowie and her experiences with Jimmy Page. I think that both men are pedophiles who were doing fucked up things, but I think from a survivor’s perspective, those circumstances would have very different effects on me at least.

Am I going to call it rape? No, because she didn’t and you can’t condemn the guy for rape when the person involved doesn’t call it that. You can’t stand on both sides of the fence like that. That’s no different than going “oh honey i believe you” to a victim’s face and then behind her back going “yeah she’s a golddigging liar trying to ruin his life”. You don’t do that, you don’t do this. Both are fake. You either believe her or you don’t. No half-measures.

And that feeds into the pedophile stuff too. He didn’t groom her. He didn’t stalk her. It wasn’t rape. He didn’t “go after” others. Again, it’s slimy to have taken the chance it may be damaging and had sex with someone so young, but it was consensual and it turned out fine. If he wanted to take that risk, that’s his stupidity to choose. It doesn’t make him a rapist, it makes him rash. She didn’t have any problems with it, now or then. If it’s pedophilic and coercive/rape because he was a celebrity, then stars can’t ever be around anyone but other stars because even adults are idiotically starstruck. That thinking is absurd. Consent is possible or it isn’t–can’t have both.

But I can’t believe that real people are using some fucking Lolita Temptress idea here. Literally no one is forcing adult men to have sex with 13 year old children. And I don’t know about you, but like 13 year olds look like literal fucking children to me, and did after I was like getting out of high school.

But beyond that, of course when someone dies is when shit like this gets brought up, because it is the time we look at someone’s legacy and their life in a totalistic way. And like, it’s also the time that people start mythologizing and romanticizing people, which in the case of people who have sex with children I am for disrupting that process.

That romanticization and “don’t speak ill of the dead” shit particularly angers me because that was a really difficult part of my father (who emotionally + sexually abused me) dying, and having to listen to a million people talk about how great he was and being pressured to offer positive evaluations because of ‘respect for the dead’

Unironically true. Thank you for the compliments.

Anyway here’s some further reading for people interested. I know the above wont read any of it, because its research and thus acts like garlic to a vampire but for anyone interested in understanding the history of censorship in the Third Reich and its antecedents in Weimar Germany (as well as an implicit rebuttal of the myth that Weimar was all wild libertine hedonism prior to 1933). They also discuss the political and cultural climates as well as attempts by groups such the Communist Party of Germany to combat the implementation of the law and how the frustrations of groups such as various church organizations at the such opposition contributed to their throwing support behind the NSDAP regime

The Harmful Publications (Young Persons) Act of 1926. Literary Censorship and the Politics of Morality in the Weimar Republic by Klaus Petersen

It’s ironic how a post that mentions “firsthand accounts of historical atrocities” (btw I have no fucking clue what this person is talking about and am certain is just speaking out of their ass because when I hear “covering up historical atrocities” and “Nazism” I think of Holocaust denial which obviously wasn’t a thing in the 1930s) the OP is going out of their way to provide a false description of what was targeted by Nazi book burning campaigns simply because they think historical truth somehow conforms to their gut feeling and instinct.

Most “sugar daddies” and other people who take on providing roles like that aren’t legit and either don’t have the cash to back up their claims or they’re looking to take advantage of someone who doesn’t know what red flags to look out for.

Stripping is physically exhausting and requires a lot of athletic skill. Money can also be inconsistent, and it can be difficult to find a place that is trustworthy and works to take of the dancers.

Cam-work takes a lot of , well, work. Equipment is not only expensive, it’s also necessary to get a decent start. It can take years to build up a regular fan base and even longer to make any decent money off of it. It’s also very difficult to find sites to host your streams.

Selling your own porn, whether it’s pics or videos, is a very inconsistent source of income, especially if you’re first starting out and don’t have regular customers. There’s also very, very few sites that will let you host your content and very few payment programs that can be used for purchasing or selling sexual content.

Making professional porn can be risky in itself. A lot of studios purposely select inexperienced workers who don’t have the ability to refuse scenes they aren’t comfortable with, and abuse is rampant in the industry. Not because porn is inherently bad, but because abuse is rampant in EVERY industry and sex workers don’t have protections that people doing other jobs have. Porn is also frequently stolen and shared for free, which means much less pay.

Full service sex work is not only physically and emotionally exhausting, it’s also incredibly dangerous. It’s built on trust that clients will respect the worker’s boundaries and not take advantage of them or hurt them. If something happens, the worker can’t go to the police. They have no legal protections, and would likely face more abuse from authorities. There’s also the very real risk of being arrested just for existing as a sex worker.

Then there’s the specialty sex work, like professional domming, which might seem easy but requires extensive skill sets unique to each job and usually a lot of equipment.

the problem isnt w the idea that child abuse is bad - people can agree with that who dont believe in conspiracy theory thinking. Like, I believe that the sexual abuse of children is bad, but I however don’t believe that a secret ‘cabal’ (antisemitic dogwhistle) of celebrities and hillary clinton are torturing children under the ground to get the secret chemical released from torture in the pineal gland so that they can use it to live forever or not age or something (this is what Qanon believes). I for example, believe that people like parents and religious leaders and teachers and cops abuse children, and this is demonstrably true

This is how shit like this works for conspiracy theorists and manipulative groups. Of course, things like “trying to not need drugs if you want to stop” (Narcanon) or “believing in the modern science of mental health to treat trauma” (Dianetics) at their most broad are things that are goodin most people’s minds. But does critiquing the organization or belief system behind it (Sc*entology) mean that you love people being miserable and traumatized? Obviously not.

I think that Lori consented, but I don’t think it makes it somehow not pedophilia or an unethical decision on David Bowie’s part. Like, not all sex that meets the bare minimum standard of ‘not being unconsensual’ is ethical

Like, first of all, that actually doesn’t align with my experiences as a person sexually abused as a child, and while I respect someone’s ability to re-understand their consent and ability to consent retrospectively, I don’t hink that’s what Lori was doing. I think she still considers her acts consensual. Which like, I feel similarly about my CSA stuff too.

And I think it’s important to like, not strip away people’s agency and ability to consent, while still not condoning the behavior on the part of the adult. Like, I think treating children as ‘unable to consent’ to bodily choices actually has major consequences for children re: medical choices (for example, trans-ness) and peer-level sexuality.

I also think that for some people it might actually be different insofar as, being someone who has had consensual sex while a minor (that fucked me up) and also having been sexually assaulted (i.e. nonconsensual), those had different issues and affected me much differently.

I guess I’m also like, wary of decrying anything that is exploitative and wrong as ‘nonconsent’ because beyond the fact that it takes away agency from a group of people already without a lot of agency (children), it confuses exploitation for coercion. There’s a clear difference between Lori’s experiences with David Bowie and her experiences with Jimmy Page. I think that both men are pedophiles who were doing fucked up things, but I think from a survivor’s perspective, those circumstances would have very different effects on me at least.

the use of “barely legal” as a descriptor, of school uniforms, the presence of braces and bright colors and teddy bears in porn shoots, the means by which one considers the babysitter or the college girl, fantasies of student and teacher in classrooms that are somewhere permanently between high school and college, are all developed out of a clear vocabulary of pedophilic desire. it is specifically in realizing a prohibition that the means of its violation are established and structured so that in this way, the sexualization involved in pedophilic flows of desire can be justified by claiming a recourse to these symbols, to an acceptable structure of transgressing prohibition. It is through normalization that these standards of “beauty” are developed and made into a means by which sexual violence may be regulated and repeated.