“Get me some oil so I can tap this tight hole. You’re going to need to screw it hard, and then drop a double nut on it. Make sure to keep your bush clean, or you can try sticking your finger in and twisting it around, otherwise you’ll never get this hard shaft into it. And remember: if it’s walking funny when you drill, try putting the tip between a pair of nuts.”

Maybe a bit more machining, but it’s not even a stretch to make it sound absolutely terrible. Those are all even pretty reasonable statements in context (if you know zero slang), not just isolated words.

I’m definitely not honest with myself, though usually in unrelated matters, so perhaps I need handholding here. Taking the statement in reverse, non-lesbian porn is unenjoyable because either

-A. It doesn’t show women recieving oral sex, or

-B. It doesn’t center on female pleasure.

Is that more substantial than just a preference in content? Is being in the minority of video viewership and recieving minority market attention the embedded misogyny? Or is it more about the participants/subjects than the viewers, as the other poster suggested? What connection am I missing?

I don’t think I disagree with the point you’re making on misogyny, but I’m having a hard time following the argument. To my understanding, the original claim about “bodies existing for sexual gratification” frequently applies to men in male-male content as well (including as being viewed by women, to complete the mirror image). So the thing that makes it misogyny, as opposed to general misanthropy or class exploitation, is that female-female content is included under the “straight” label while male-male isn’t?

Taking those stats on video viewership though would seem to support a claim that a site is assuming a male viewer, and using the “straight” label as applied to the (male) viewer would select any content containing their desired sex (women), both male-female and female-female. That assumption of male viewer and self-applied label would also support seeing male-male but not female-female under the “gay” label (though with male-female missing, perhaps explained with something about self-insert or observer vs recipient, but maybe that goes toward your point). Having a misleading UI and making not-unprobable assumptions about viewers feels less problematic though?

I’m trying not to take a position that would vilify pornography or those involved by default, but maybe I’m holding onto that too strongly or letting too much of my own bias in. Am I missing the point entirely or just seeing it the wrong way?

An “error” could be like it did a grammar wrong or used the wrong definition when interpreting, or something like an unsanitized input injection. When we’re talking about an LLM trying to convince the user of completely fabricated information, “hallucination” conveys that idea much more precisely, and IMO differentiating the phenomenon from a regular mis-coded software bug is significant.

There’s more light during the summer because it all leaves the people, duh.