Acoustic on Nostr: **RESULTS & ANALYSIS** Only three options received a significant number of votes, so ...
**RESULTS & ANALYSIS**
Only three options received a significant number of votes, so the rest will be disregarded in this analysis.
The vast majority of respondents (65%) showed a desire to simply hide content behind content warnings. The only sexual content which had a significant number of votes for removal was cutie posts.
**CONCLUSION**
The desire to remove cuties entirely (which were explicitly stated to be legal in the option) rather than simply hide them behind content warnings demonstrates the great amount of discomfort associated with specifically said cuties, rather than just sexual content as a whole. This aligns with the tendency for complaints about nsfw in general to increase when cutie posting increases. Given the other variables disqualified through the design of the poll, I identify two explanations: Pedophobia, and a lack of desire to turn on options to collapse sensitive media just because of cuties.
The sexualization of real images children, so long as it is legal and is not done in ways that violate consent, is a very important part of normalizing pedophilia and should be “shouted from the rooftops” so to speak. It can be compared to people’s reactions to homosexuals being “I don’t care I just don’t want to see it.” Pedophobia is not acceptable, but it is very understandable, and can generally not be stopped simply by saying as much. The community should take care to advocate heavily for the freedom to cutie post within reasonable legal and ethical bounds, but should also be wary of scaring away those who are newer to the space or have more heavily engrained pedophobic feelings.
Between this and the clear desire for posts to have content warnings, it seems clear that some method of enforcing or heavily encouraging content warnings is the best option for the community.
Only three options received a significant number of votes, so the rest will be disregarded in this analysis.
The vast majority of respondents (65%) showed a desire to simply hide content behind content warnings. The only sexual content which had a significant number of votes for removal was cutie posts.
**CONCLUSION**
The desire to remove cuties entirely (which were explicitly stated to be legal in the option) rather than simply hide them behind content warnings demonstrates the great amount of discomfort associated with specifically said cuties, rather than just sexual content as a whole. This aligns with the tendency for complaints about nsfw in general to increase when cutie posting increases. Given the other variables disqualified through the design of the poll, I identify two explanations: Pedophobia, and a lack of desire to turn on options to collapse sensitive media just because of cuties.
The sexualization of real images children, so long as it is legal and is not done in ways that violate consent, is a very important part of normalizing pedophilia and should be “shouted from the rooftops” so to speak. It can be compared to people’s reactions to homosexuals being “I don’t care I just don’t want to see it.” Pedophobia is not acceptable, but it is very understandable, and can generally not be stopped simply by saying as much. The community should take care to advocate heavily for the freedom to cutie post within reasonable legal and ethical bounds, but should also be wary of scaring away those who are newer to the space or have more heavily engrained pedophobic feelings.
Between this and the clear desire for posts to have content warnings, it seems clear that some method of enforcing or heavily encouraging content warnings is the best option for the community.
quoting note1xjc…7mxrPeople who don’t like how much sexual content floods their timelines, where is the line in terms of what you want to see gone/significantly reduced?