And you missed my point - which, to be fair, I struggled to make in any kind of coherent manner. It wasn’t about what she did as a job, it’s about what she does to remain good at that job.

You’re forgetting an important detail: LeeLee Sobieski was able to leave the industry and become a painter without sacrificing much because she married a multi-millionaire. Her husband also quit his fashion design career around the same time so he could be a good dad and husband which is great but it’s also a lot…

This isn’t some grand revelation, nor do I think the authors - either Megan or Emily - are treating it as such.

Men looking at women isn’t toxic masculinity. Men not caring whether or not the women being looked at consented is toxic; men harassing and stalking women is toxic; men saying gross things about women to seem more manly around other men is toxic. 

I think Emily isn’t complaining per se because she is directly profiting and benefiting from the system. I interpret what she’s saying as:

It’s not the same. And while I don’t know his finances, I have to imagine that modeling is not his main source of income. For a model whose career is modeling, it’s different.

I mean she still lives in a capitalist society.

I don’t think Adrien Brody’s looks/body were ever commodified (not like Leelee Sobieski or Emily Ratjkowski anyway).

100% into helping victims, I think the vast majority of people are too.

Ever hear the expression: an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure?

This is so fucking stupid. Certain subjects make people completely irrational and reactionary, and this is certainly one of them.

Indeed, this seems to be the type of thing that needs the tenure system and its protection for, not right-wing attempts to call racism/bigotry/a return to 1950's ‘Murica or earlier the sort of thing that needs protection.

So you’re in favor of them abusing children, thereby creating victims worthy of help?

The whole point is that they DON’T want to harm a child, which is why they never act on it. But that doesn’t stop the attraction. Allyn’s working is stating that destigmatizing non-abusers allows them to seek help that would prevent them from possibly becoming abusers.

“I do not believe those are similar struggles at all.” That’s fine but do you disagree with the idea that you can work to prevent harm to children AND help those who are harmed? Or are you saying that you should you only try to help children after they’ve been harmed?

Lol you know, I originally ended my first comment by calling you an idiot, and now I regret deleting it. Luckily, it’s not a mistake I have to live with.

Far too many people think that a pedophile is a person who has sex with children, not a person who is sexually attracted to children. Since the university president said “the phrase ‘minor-attracted people’ is inappropriate and should not be utilized as a euphemism for behavior that is illegal, morally unacceptable,…

Right, just like we shouldn’t bother trying to prevent gun violence, as a better use of one’s time would be spent helping shooting victims.

“I don’t think it should be a struggle not to drink. We should help the victims of drunk drivers instead.”

Isn’t helping potential abusers before they start to abuse helping victims?