Ethel Cain Posts Her D1k Pic On Insta

[TheSine 6,519]

2 hours ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

That's the thing. As I mentioned before: a cis man *did* post on insta with his erect penis with splash emojis in the caption, the post was mentioned on here, and (as far as I remember) there were no members discussing for days on end how inappropriate it was or how kids could come across it. Just thirsting after him. So why are we jumping at the trans person and not the cis person?

I know you weren't just talking about me in your post, but I'm personally defending it not for the simple fact that she's trans, not only because I don't see anything wrong with non-sexual nude imagery on social media, but because there is such a noticeable discrepancy of reception on here between a cis man posting sexual nudity and a trans woman posting her body on Trans Day of Visibility. 

I'm not gonna touch on whether or not it was an effective way to participate in the event; that's not exactly my place. I'm saying if we kept the same energy either for or against nsfw imagery I'd just let it ride with my mouth shut, but the difference is fishy and should be called to attention so we can reflect on why that is. 

Thank you for being respectful. I agree with your point actually, I don't know what that post looks like (nor do I want to see), but that's crazy how people hold double standards. People should keep the same energy then, because again, I'm not too fond of that stuff all throughout no matter who it is. So that's why I'm so stuck on my opinion.

I hope I didn't come across as rude or any phobic of the sort there. I don't have a problem with non-sexual nudity in certain settings either, and believe in artistic freedom. Definitely with you on that one.  

[Bronco 18,833]

15 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Could you expand on this? 

Look at the singular talking point used by political groups when it comes to opposing the following:

Free school meals/targeted food suport for children in poverty etc - they say its not the taxpayers responsibility to feed kids, that parents shouldn't have children they can't feed.

Children social transitioning in schools & teachers being forced to inform parents even when there are legitimate child safeguarding concerns - they say the children belong to the parents and only parents can make the decision, even when teachers have evidence to support protecting the child from their parents. 

Bans on smacking children - they oppose it, again, because its not for the state to tell parents how to parent. Even though physical punishment like spankings are proven to be Adverse Childhood Experiences that cause lifelong trauma which costs society millions. 

Bans on educational materials featuring same-sex couples or any form of sex ed etc - repeatedly argued for decades, and on many occasions banned on the principle that its a parent's responsibility to teach the subjects to children and to actively teach harmful things to children as part of it. 

Parental responsibility should not be seen as gospel truth. I work with young people in the care system, every single one of those young people are in the system because of failed parents. And there are thousands of kids in the system - in the city based charity I work for we worked with over a 1000 last financial year. 

So yeah, I don't think we should sit here and palm off all responsibility to parents and ignore it ourselves. I will always think it is selfish because I personally know of 1000s of examples of parents who don't take responsibility.

And if we all swallow the selfish libertarian bollocks that we have no responsibility to others in society, especially young people, then we are passively facilitating their neglect and/or abuse. 

If my colleagues and our organisation didn't exist, it social services didn't exist. We all know what happens to those kids. And it is only because we recognise that for a healthy society to function we all have to pitch in that those young people get any form of support and protection. 

So yeah, I will always say that whether its our child or not. If we are in a space where a young person can be in accordance with the law and rules of the space that everyone in that space has responsibilities placed on them by society. That applies to kids and adults. Because without the social contract, we are all put at risk. 

Libertarian ideals are morally repugnant and based on the rejection of personal responsibility to others. They are inseparable from selfishness. And they are the tool of oppressors who seek to isolate, control and abuse those unable to defend themselves.

[princedeeblebleble 2,754]

2 hours ago, Bronco said:

Some of y'all have never worked in any form of child support/social service role and its beyond clear. 

This whole "leave it up to Parents and no one else should be responsible" is just nonsense. Its fundamentally selfish, and its a right wing talking point promoted by groups with a vested interest in enabling the abuse of children to further their own political interests. 

Like its crazy y'all are trying to defend a trans woman's body by using the exact talking point used by transphobic bigots to justify their attacks on trans children. 

Sorry but I'm tired of everything being censored and watered down because of the "safety of children". I feel like we're turning time to the prohibition era where everything is inherently bad for fake moral ground. And even with all new policies and stuff children predators will always find a way, and in realistic ways its up to the education system and parents to educate and prepare kids for such things. Kinda like with cyberhacking of the older generations who are often tricked out of their money for simply not knowing of the dangers and how to spot them. 

[Bronco 18,833]

2 hours ago, princedeeblebleble said:

Sorry but I'm tired of everything being censored and watered down because of the "safety of children". I feel like we're turning time to the prohibition era where everything is inherently bad for fake moral ground. And even with all new policies and stuff children predators will always find a way, and in realistic ways its up to the education system and parents to educate and prepare kids for such things. Kinda like with cyberhacking of the older generations who are often tricked out of their money for simply not knowing of the dangers and how to spot them. 

We've had 20 years of relying on parents to educated children on the internet.

And CSAM production rates have never been higher. Child exploitation by cyber gangs is only getting worse. 

Because we're expecting parents to keep up with tech that is constantly evolving while providing zero education or support to them. 

You may be tired of "increasing censorship".

I'm tired of children being exploited by criminal gangs and people like you refusing common sense things like "don't post uncensored nudes on unfiltered social media sites with userbases beginning at 13 years old".

Are you that determined to see nudity on the internet that you think moderating spaces open to teens isn't worth it? 

You are exactly the type of person I was describing when I talked about people being too selfish to deserve a space in society.

[StrawberryBlond 15,257]

5 hours ago, Bronco said:

So yeah, I don't think we should sit here and palm off all responsibility to parents and ignore it ourselves. I will always think it is selfish because I personally know of 1000s of examples of parents who don't take responsibility.

And if we all swallow the selfish libertarian bollocks that we have no responsibility to others in society, especially young people, then we are passively facilitating their neglect and/or abuse. 

If my colleagues and our organisation didn't exist, it social services didn't exist. We all know what happens to those kids. And it is only because we recognise that for a healthy society to function we all have to pitch in that those young people get any form of support and protection. 

So yeah, I will always say that whether its our child or not. If we are in a space where a young person can be in accordance with the law and rules of the space that everyone in that space has responsibilities placed on them by society. That applies to kids and adults. Because without the social contract, we are all put at risk. 

Libertarian ideals are morally repugnant and based on the rejection of personal responsibility to others. They are inseparable from selfishness. And they are the tool of oppressors who seek to isolate, control and abuse those unable to defend themselves.

I totally agree with a lot of what you're saying. The amount of apathy shown towards children these days is deeply concerning. I thought the Epstein scandal was really waking people up to the reality of what happens when children aren't looked out for, when adults around them aren't responsible, how children are targeted because there's not enough safeguards in place. But apparently not. Millions of parents are irresponsible, children shouldn't be thrown to the wolves because their parents couldn't be bothered. Those kids are then going to become victims of society and are highly likely to end up in further cycles of abuse and maybe even becoming criminals themselves. When society abandons a child, the child abandons society. When you point out that some children don't have responsible parents (or indeed any parents), for the reaction to still be: "Not my kid, not my problem" points to a massive cultural issue.

I daresay some of this nonchalance comes from people who were also exposed to inappropriate stuff in their childhood, so they believe it to be normal. The whole "I went through this when I was a kid and look at me, I turned out perfectly fine." But if they actually examined their life choices they'd see that they're actually not fine. What I went through as a kid is small fry compared to what others endured but that doesn't mean I'd want the same for my children or anyone's children. Just because someone may not want kids doesn't mean they have no basic level of adult responsibility to them. Being an adult isn't just about being responsible for oneself, it's also about looking out for others who are smaller, weaker and in need of assistance. 

[Elohim 1,908]

Ethel’s Cane 

[VTV 13,333]

Its funny how some members here think IG is a SFW platform. Its not. You are just not into it cuz you didnt think it falls under TOS. This is no different than those mums who post their aereolas while breastfeeding.

This also is censored by IG and all discretion to view is up to the user. THis is obv not gonna be appropriate for minors but there's a warning before viewing the post. There are tons of NSFW stuff in IG that you just dont see and GAF about.

 

some bedtime reading for those hurt of Ethel's post and for those wondering why its still not taken down:
https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/adult-nudity-sexual-activity/

[Ladle Ghoulash 39,050]

14 hours ago, Bronco said:

Some of y'all have never worked in any form of child support/social service role and its beyond clear. 

This whole "leave it up to Parents and no one else should be responsible" is just nonsense. Its fundamentally selfish, and its a right wing talking point promoted by groups with a vested interest in enabling the abuse of children to further their own political interests. 

Like its crazy y'all are trying to defend a trans woman's body by using the exact talking point used by transphobic bigots to justify their attacks on trans children. 

Ironically, I’d say the internet censorship angle is genuinely more right wing, tbh, given that right wingers have been the ones using “child safety” legislation online to justify both deplatforming queer content online, but also imposing puritanical censorship on the broader population 

[Ladle Ghoulash 39,050]

9 hours ago, Bronco said:

We've had 20 years of relying on parents to educated children on the internet.

And CSAM production rates have never been higher. Child exploitation by cyber gangs is only getting worse. 

Because we're expecting parents to keep up with tech that is constantly evolving while providing zero education or support to them. 

You may be tired of "increasing censorship".

I'm tired of children being exploited by criminal gangs and people like you refusing common sense things like "don't post uncensored nudes on unfiltered social media sites with userbases beginning at 13 years old".

Are you that determined to see nudity on the internet that you think moderating spaces open to teens isn't worth it? 

You are exactly the type of person I was describing when I talked about people being too selfish to deserve a space in society.

I mean, I’d say censoring nudity on IG is a pretty far cry from the distribution of CSAM and child sex trafficking, no? 

[phantasmas 11,774]

Wow. What a powerful statement. I'm actually about to cry. 

[Bronco 18,833]

8 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Ironically, I’d say the internet censorship angle is genuinely more right wing, tbh, given that right wingers have been the ones using “child safety” legislation online to justify both deplatforming queer content online, but also imposing puritanical censorship on the broader population 

But its not censorship.

I'm not advocating a ban on nudity or ****ography (I'm actively opposed to it as prohibition makes things more dangerous for everyone).

I'm just pointing out we should moderate content in accordance with the platform.

Its like how in most UK cities, there a by-laws against drinking alcohol in public spaces. It isn't prohibition, its targeted moderation. It maintains safe spaces, and funnels traffic into specific venues that make the consumption of alcohol easier to monitor (by bar staff) and reduces the potential hotspots for alcohol based problems making it easier for emergency response by paramedics/police etc. 

Where as on insta - this post was up without any form of moderation by the platform for nearly 48 hours (it now has an optional censor warning screen). And unlike other platforms, it cannot be manually flagged for a sensitive content warning by the user who posted it. So all I'm saying is, when the platform is absent in its duties - the onus is on the poster to do what is right. That didn't happen on this occasion imo. 

[Bronco 18,833]

8 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I mean, I’d say censoring nudity on IG is a pretty far cry from the distribution of CSAM and child sex trafficking, no? 

No.

Because its used as part of the grooming process. 

The normalisation of nudity & thirst traps on insta is regularly used by groomers to manipulate their victims into replicating that behaviour. 

Groomers often share posts like & accounts dedicated to platforming nudity/thirst traps with their victims as a way of convincing the victim that there is nothing unusual or wrong with doing it. 

They then start getting the victims to post semi-suggestive pictures that can be equally brushed off as "normal" on instagram. Boys are often encouraged to post pump progress pics after working out for example. 

Then they use other abusers/fake accounts to lovebomb the target so they start to seek the attention more. Which then opens them up to further exploitation avenues (like video calls etc). 

So yeah. We all should be careful and sensible about what we post online in spaces which are famously compliant with child abusers and actively undermoderate. And we should all recognise that when we are existing on a platform legally and legitimately used by under 18s, that we should behave accordingly. 

Like I said previously - its not about censorship. Its actually about avoiding wholesale censorship by just using some common ****ing sense. 

[Bronco 18,833]

8 hours ago, VTV said:

Its funny how some members here think IG is a SFW platform. Its not. You are just not into it cuz you didnt think it falls under TOS. This is no different than those mums who post their aereolas while breastfeeding.

This also is censored by IG and all discretion to view is up to the user. THis is obv not gonna be appropriate for minors but there's a warning before viewing the post. There are tons of NSFW stuff in IG that you just dont see and GAF about.

 

some bedtime reading for those hurt of Ethel's post and for those wondering why its still not taken down:
https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/adult-nudity-sexual-activity/

Under the TOS the post should have been removed.

But it is also hilarious that you think citing Meta's own PR documents are proof that Meta does things properly.

When there have been multiple whistleblowers in recent years who have highlighted that Meta actively cuts corners on its moderation and digitial safety tools for young people. And whistleblowers have said that Meta actively promoted harm on their platforms as it has generated greater profit for them. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 39,050]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

No.

Because its used as part of the grooming process. 

The normalisation of nudity & thirst traps on insta is regularly used by groomers to manipulate their victims into replicating that behaviour. 

Groomers often share posts like & accounts dedicated to platforming nudity/thirst traps with their victims as a way of convincing the victim that there is nothing unusual or wrong with doing it. 

They then start getting the victims to post semi-suggestive pictures that can be equally brushed off as "normal" on instagram. Boys are often encouraged to post pump progress pics after working out for example. 

Then they use other abusers/fake accounts to lovebomb the target so they start to seek the attention more. Which then opens them up to further exploitation avenues (like video calls etc). 

So yeah. We all should be careful and sensible about what we post online in spaces which are famously compliant with child abusers and actively undermoderate. And we should all recognise that when we are existing on a platform legally and legitimately used by under 18s, that we should behave accordingly. 

Like I said previously - its not about censorship. Its actually about avoiding wholesale censorship by just using some common ****ing sense. 

I mean, again, I think the grooming described here is horrific, but I’m more inclined to argue that the emphasis should be on targeting the perps through moderation and law enforcement than it should be on the general public to consider that there’s a remote possibility that their thirst trap might be used to normalize sexual abuse (because that causal link isn’t fully their responsibility). 

[Roughhouse Dandy 12,804]

Day 4.