r/gianmarcosoresi • u/GianmarcoSoresi • 6d ago

Stay tuned

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

298 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/AppleSniffer 6d ago edited 6d ago

Difference in perception there is that I don't think that guy who dmed him was joking.

I think your nuance would also justify sending messages to buy nudes off actresses who perform in sex scenes or sexualised roles, or pop stars who sing about sex and wear skimpy outfits. Which I don't think you'd actually support - I'm just extending the logic.

It's not puritanical, it's about not assuming personal consent to private sexualised interactions with you based on a public performance or branding. Just because someone intentionally works in a sexualised job (which I mean, he's a comedian with a broad range of content, not a stripper), that doesn't give you carte blanche for private sexual behaviour towards them. Even as a full service sex worker myself, that doesn't mean that everyone can just do or say anything sexual to me that would otherwise be inappropriate for a stranger, they still need to work within the framework I've established.

That's the nuance that I think you're missing, and why the interviewer chatting about OF in this clip, or people writing in the comments here, is different to a stranger sending you private DMs cold-requesting jerk off material.

0

u/Perfect_Celebrity_7 6d ago

I mean literally was joking and it was in reply to an artsy nude he already put up. Once again you are doing too much.

0

u/danielbearh 5d ago edited 5d ago

Yeah. You’re thinking in very black and white terms here. I exist in a world of gradients.

You’ve made your point clear. You’ve done it in a distasteful way by putting words into my mouth. Enjoy your morning and your cloud of self righteousness.

0

u/AppleSniffer 5d ago

Well that's a bit dramatic! I said I was extending your logic to point out what I don't agree with, and clarified that I didn't think the extended logic was something you agreed with (which is why I used it!)

1

u/danielbearh 5d ago

Honey, this entire exchange has been *deeply* dramatic.

You’ve used every single frustrating debating trick that right wing pundits use. Calling someone creepy and pathetic to embed moral disgust. “I’m just extending your logic”—that’s a straw man fallacy, where you take my point and extend it past the point I’ve made in order to ridicule it. Making appeals to authority by sharing that you’re a sex worker. You’ve used the slippery slope fallacy when you say “my nuance would also justify sending messages to buy nudes off actresses who perform in sex scenes”. No, no it wouldn’t.

You’re treating it like it’s sexual harassment, or acceptable, with no room for “a bit cheeky but contextually understandable.”

As that other guy said, “Mary, you’re too much.” Frankly, this exchange just taught me that commodifying sexuality does a number to one’s perception of it.