I was taught the shame was not in me. It was on the man who assaulted me.
As long as women can be shamed and blackmailed and no amount of trying to "be good" is ever adequate protection, you will see things in this vein. No woman should ever be characterized as a "whore." We don't do that to men. Men who get around have bragging rights for "being a stud" or whatever.
I understand some of the reasons it gets treated differently. In a nutshell, men can walk away from a one-night-stand and never know a pregnancy resulted. In contrast, a woman can end up a single parent and not know the father's name and it can trap her and her child in poverty for life.
But doubling down on saying it's the woman's responsibility to "be moral" and high fiving men for being able to get away with it just deepens the problem.
Prudish cultures, where "good girls don't," see a lot more prostitution. Studies show that availability of porn tends to drive down the incidence of rape.
Human sexual need -- both physical and emotional -- is very powerful. It really doesn't work to insist everyone just say no to sex. Without socially acceptable outlets that help keep all parties safe and help mitigate the inherent risks (such as disease and unexpected pregnancy), you just compound problems and actively create problems.
I have mixed feelings about seeing this on HN. People tend to get outraged and want revenge and so forth. This can deepen these problems.
We must, collectively, find ways to build bridges and foster healthy and safe avenues for sexual expression and sexual satisfaction. That's the actual antidote to rape culture and it's nigh impossible to read something like this and respond to it in that way. Instead, people get very understandably angry and want someone's head on a platter.
Yes, the law needs to go after these people. But fostering a better culture is mostly going to come from somewhere else and you don't get there by focusing on lurid stories and revenge fantasies.
No, since "whore" tends to be derogative. But we should make it socially acceptable for a woman to be a prostitute, lady of pleasure, hetaera, etc. These can be highly skilled, honest businesspeople that deserve our respect. Calling one a "whore" should be like calling a physician a "sawbones", which is often not meant derogatively.
> Without socially acceptable outlets ... you just compound problems and actively create problems.
And one important such outlet is prostitution, by and for all sexes.
Hopefully some day we could call someone a whore and they'd honestly respond with something like "well I'm not actually a professional at it, but I generally admire them, so thank you."
I intentionally did not mention that because the current climate means an awful lot of men would like to strongly advocate for a woman's right to say "yes" while not just as strongly advocating for her right to say "no," this is an overwhelmingly male forum and this article is not a good jumping off point for having a good discussion about that topic.
I've spoken before about my pro decriminalization stance. That's not news.
I don't think this is the right time and place to focus on that. So I didn't bring it up.
This canard, along with much of the rest of your post, is wildly separable from "let's not molest and rape children".
Sexual morality is a subtle thing. Plenty of people have sexual trauma they associate with a culture of licentiousness or libertinism, which to the untrained eye is indistinguishable from one in which we "build bridges and foster healthy and safe avenues for sexual expression and sexual satisfaction". Or perhaps more cynically / realistically, over time, as a sense of security grows, the latter shades into the former.
When a company name gets mentioned like this it makes me feel the real story is that someone is trying to frame them as "bad guys" or make an example of them.
Edit: to be clear, the story of course does and should get attention, that's not what I'm saying. But I get the impression that including "telegram" in the story when really it should be "instant messaging" takes away from it.
Details on the great content firewall: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/south-korea-i...
South Korea is one of the few countries that explicitly prohibit any form of pornography.
Studies show that availability of porn reduces incidence of rape. It's not something most people want to hear. They want to believe all rapists are evil monsters, not that at least some are men with no socially acceptable means to meet their needs.
Openness about sex allows two things: first, abusers can actually be caught, and stopped from re-offending; second, the unacceptable nature of sex offenses is on public display.
When all sex is censored / hidden from view, there is no social distinction between normal and criminal behavior. Consider, when having sex with your fiancée before marriage is supposed to send you to hell, what's worse about diddling the little cousin? Of course, not to normal humans, but that's the kind of things that goes into cluster B's heads.
I remember I read a news article once about a man who battered his girlfriend to death with an iPod for messing with his playlist. The article had embedded advertisements to buy iPods.
It's really hard to get this right.
It doesn't stop people from publishing results based on cutting-edge automated sentiment analysis, though. It's amazing what people will believe if you just lie loudly enough.
They also, as fair play, put in some examples from offline (physical newspaper) advertising.