You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
7

[–] BrutalJones 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I have a bone to pick with this article.

>also moderates the soft-porn subreddits gentlemanboners

/r/gentlemanboners is softcore porn? Are you kidding me? What a hilariously wrong statement. This author needs to look up softcore pornography on wikipedia, and then browse /r/gentlemanboners for a bit. Photos of elegant women dressed up is not "softcore pornography", and it's ridiculous to suggest that it is. Otherwise every wedding you've ever been to could be appropriately described as a "softcore pornographic event". Utterly absurd.

Secondly, /r/gentlemanboners is described as part of "bad reddit", yet there's no mention of /r/ladyboners, which was created before /r/gentlemanboners. Hell, the latter's name is a play off of /r/ladyboners, and /r/ladyboners is frequently far more racy than /r/gentlemanboners, with men frequently featured half-naked; you'd never see a topless woman on /r/gentlemanboners.

This article touches on some important issues with Reddit, but it's clearly tainted by sexism in its exploration of them.

0
0

[–] ronintetsuro ago 

They put up a screenshot of r/earthporn's frontpage to indicate that porn is pervasive on reddit. That's when I closed the article, myself. That author doesn't have a clue what they're talking about, too focused on the agenda they are working to inject into the conversation.

0
0

[–] wulf-focker ago  (edited ago)

These are modern day puritans we're dealing with. And hypocrites.