0
17

[–] QuaffWhileThouCanst 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

My wife occasionally likes it when I spank her, but only when she's tied up!

0
2

[–] am 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I think this one comment is better than the entire thread below.

Both disputants below seem to be assuming that people can never consent to violence. But people do it all the time, for religious, sexual, or other reasons. Maybe people can use the subverse to have a vote about which type of consent is the best.

0
2

[–] QuaffWhileThouCanst 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Thanks! Violence is not some boogy-man, it's a valid method of communication. It can also be a tool for pleasure. Making all violence "bad" is like saying all niceness is "good", just doesn't hold true. Most if not all moments of creativity involve some sort of violence.

Consent is a big idea, and think becoming more and more important in our society. There are big questions in BDSM, clinical research, governance etc... that revolve around the idea of consent, who can give it and when. "Consent" implies that the consenting person has agency, and the right and ability to make informed decisions for their own benefit, in-spite of what any other person(s) might want to decide for them.

Rock on my metaphorical siblings!

1
9

[–] Mumberthrax 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

I'm one of the people who opposes the support of these sorts of subverses. I oppose them not because I believe that we should be censorship-happy, shutting down anything that might offend the sensibilities of the most thin-skinned people, nor because I am some kind of SJW SRS shill (it has been implied on this page and elsewhere that those who oppose the creation and use of /v/beatingwomen and /v/jailbait are nothing more than totalitarian SRS SJW scum).

I oppose them because I do not support spousal abuse (whether against men or women), sexualized pictures of children, nor do I believe it is proper to support communities or groups of people who DO support those things. I do not believe that censoring things which violate the spirit of the user agreement is a slippery slope to willy nilly censorship. I believe it is effective moderation.

I want to say right now though, this subject/issue is a troll's paradise. Everyone has such ramped up emotions here it is incredibly easy to provoke people. I think the best thing we can do here is to be calm and rational, to not call names or sling insults. I've been open since this whole thing started to changing my opinion, and I still haven't seen a strong enough argument compelling me to do so.

1
3

[–] flyawayhigh 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

To throw a little complication in, I wonder how much "freedom of speech" is lost by a woman who is beaten into submission? Why do beatings occur? One key reason is to block freedom of speech. And not just to block talk-back to the perpetrator but to assure that she knows the threats of escalating violence against the woman should she seek help or justice are real.

Therefore, although I agree with the sentiment of OP, I would never consider this kind of protest.

1
4

[–] Clayton [S] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Here is the thing though. /v/wifebeater doesn't have to be about discussing women being beaten. Because it is an open censor-free environment, people can use it to draw attention to the issue of violence against women in modern society. Spouses who abuse their wives can come to /v/wifebeater to seek help in kicking the habit. Women who are being abused can come there to seek help in getting away from their partners.

The whole idea being that censoring things doesn't help anything. It is like that out-of-sight out-of-mind argument. /v/wifebeater could be used to shame people who post images about beating their wives. It is up to the people who visit to decide what to use it for.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Clayton [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

No legal subject in this universe should be out of bounds. - "About" Voat

I believe it is clear how the admins feel about censorship. The issue here is that people are taking over subs that offend them and then shutting them down, when really they should just be ignoring the subs. It is nobody's job to play moral police and start taking over and shutting down subs that are "offensive" and/or are "immoral".

0
0

[–] shouldbeprogramming 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Are they already here then? If so, why have an exodus to voat if reddit is going to go down?

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A SAFE SPACE ON THE INTERNET AWAY FROM THIS SCUM!?

0
0

[–] Mumberthrax 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm not sure I understand who you are referring to. Are you asking if SRS people are here? Or the people who post on /r/beating women and /r/jailbait?

1
0

[–] kchmiel 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Do you seriously not see the hypocrisy?

11
8

[–] PrometheusX 11 points 8 points (+19|-11) ago 

So, you disagree with beating women, yet you create a sub so that others can talk about beating women because - free speech. How terribly noble of you. You are an idiot.

What about human rights?

2
23

[–] Clayton [S] 2 points 23 points (+25|-2) ago 

Free speech is a human right. Squatting on a subverse about beating women isn't going to stop women from being beat, it is only serving to censor things that people see as immoral. It is nobody's job to play moral police.

7
5

[–] PrometheusX 7 points 5 points (+12|-7) ago 

What about the person receiving the beating? What about them? What about their right to live their life without pain?

OH! Free speech is more important, now I remember. You are sick.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

2
5

[–] PrometheusX 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Why would you want to talk about beating women unless you are beating women? What about their rights? Or is free speech more important?

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

4
2

[–] PrometheusX 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

The fact that you even asked that question tells me there is zero point in talking to you.

0
1

[–] Jimzslimz 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Those women that are getting beat have just as much of a right to make their own sub-whatever to speak against being abused. Heck, they could even make their own category for abusing men. You could go even further and say that it's not just women that are abused. I get the feeling that the OP wanted to make a legit place for those few people (I hope) that wanted to talk about doing that because anywhere else they would be criticized horrendously. They would be called names, ignored and made to feel like shit, and people don't like to feel like shit. A category like the one OP made would make them feel like they "fit in". But that's where I'm a little torn because I also feel that the creation of subs like these would facilitate those abusive acts and encourage those people that it is okay because "Hey, there's others out there just like me. Let's all share how much we have in common." It would make me uncomfortable if new posts were appearing saying something like, "Check this out guys, I did it again. Here's why and how and the results." These people would obviously need help, lot's of it. Then why not make a sub-category called "abusive couples help" or something. Voat is about freedom of speech and no censorship. Based on that, I RELUCTANTLY agree with this. I just really hope that those couples get help one way or another. That's all I have to say on the matter.

0
4

[–] TempestuousBinary 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I haven't read all the comments, but I think most people are taking a binary approach to this (ignore my username).

I know someone who was harmed by their spouse during a bad fight. This person is capable of self-defence, but nevertheless ended up with some minor damage, and shared pictures of the result with me. I've never shared these pictures with anyone, but I haven't deleted them, either, because every now and then I want to look at them and remember that losing your temper even once can have consequences.

Yes, you know that violence (against male, female, pet, anything) is wrong, but meaning is often lost in abstraction. People in first-world countries know of third-world hunger, but it doesn't stop them from throwing half-eaten food away - because they've never experienced or witnessed such hunger. People are always told of the miracle of childbirth, but they don't truly get it until it's their own child being born. There are times when you need a stark reminder that something is not just "wrong" because people say so, but because you have seen the consequences with your own eyes.

So, while I don't think I will be participating in /v/wifebeater because I have no interest in the subject, I want people to consider why they think it's a sub for glorifying violence against women, but not one for exposing the consequences of poor judgement or unbridled anger or ignorance. Why is it not a sub for posting pictures of people wearing wifebeaters (whether funny, sexy, or not)? If it's a sub for free speech, why are we ignoring the gamut of possibilities and confining expression to a yes or no?

Instead of attempting to stop someone else from speaking, think about using the liberty you've been given to speak out. Consider not stopping the dissemination of distasteful content, but explaining the moral implications of the acts it depicts.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
2

[–] Clayton [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Where does free speech end and abuse begin? What if an abusive husband posts pictures of his beaten wife, without her consent? Would you remove that? Or makes a direct threat against someone else?

None of these are illegal own, distribute, or say and will stay up.

Would you post links in the sidebar for victims of abuse (like where to get help)?

I have not thought about that, but now that you bring it up, yes I will be glad to.

Would you post links in the sidebar for perpetrators to seek help for their issues?

Absolutely.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
3

[–] 123_456 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

I will subscribe, not for the wife beating but for the free speech!

0
3

[–] Mumberthrax 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

How does subscribing help free speech?

1
-1

[–] Clayton [S] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

It is more of a symbolic "Fuck Censorship" gesture.

2
0

[–] nroslm 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

I'm there for the beatings to be honest.

0
2

[–] deadbeef 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

1
2

[–] GeorgeBurns 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Yes, it's better this way. If you sweep it under the rug you're abandoning hope for progress. Sometimes people just need a place to work through their emotions, it can happen on an online forum. Two abusive people who have a desire to stop could communicate and actual change could happen.

Yes, some people could find comradery with other abusers, in this instance, with a negative result. I'm still convinced it's better to allow these discussions to happen publicly. Censorship doesn't solve the problem.

load more comments ▼ (10 remaining)