After I learned about her childhood, a lot of her most odious writing online, particularly coming up with poll after poll about hypotheticals in which it might be ok for an adult to have sex with a child [1] [2] [3], made much more sense. She is still dealing with the trauma, trying to bargain with it (the polls on Twitter), trying to gain control over it (much of her personal sexual expression involves simulating what happened again in a controlled setting), and completely in denial about it which means that she's causing harm to people who read these kinds of discussions and don't know this, whether she understands it or not.
You don't think that being molested by your grandfather might have something to do with replaying that molestation obsessively throughout your life, and trying to come up with hypotheticals in which it can actually be ok?
I'm just operating at the preponderance of evidence level here, and it seems far more likely to be to case that extreme childhood sexual caused the extreme sexual deviation. Do your P(A|B) work here, it's not hard, given the small probability of both of those things.
Even if you're correct that her being abused in her childhood is related to her choice of career, what do you think you're adding to the conversation by bringing that up?
What are you actually trying to do here besides shame her for having been abused as a child? That's really the only takeaway from your comment here, that people shouldn't read her writing about prostitution as a business because she was abused as a child. That seems particularly nasty on your part, even if unintentional.
>Warn others that she is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Is this post dangerous? You certainly didn't refer to any particular dangerous content, just shouting about a couple of weird tweets doesn't seem very useful.
I really don't get it, unless you're specifically upset by her quite reasonable post about AI generated child pornography, but that'd be weird.
> However, the science is that childhood sexual abuse is an antecedent to prostitution.
Even if a causal relationship has been proven, that doesn't mean any correlation implies causation.
It's a bog-standard guide to escorting, similar to how some people post how-to:s on LinkedIn or corporate blogs.
You can find hundreds or thousands of these floating around, commonly among ex-escorts who are trying to pursue some adjacent but less corporeal career.
I'm sure some of these are written by more sensible people.
>Even if a causal relationship has been proven, that doesn't mean any correlation implies causation.
This is HN, not a psychology conference or a therapy session. Feel free to accept or reject my level of epistemological rigor. I just know my priors, and honestly I don't see the value in continuing this conversation if you don't (or pretend you don't). If a lifetime alcoholic died of liver failure, it's entirely possible that he got hepatitis, but I'm going to go ahead and say it was the alcohol and treat any quibbling about causation and correlation as an irrelevant diversion.
Regardless of whether or not your assessment of her internal mental state is true (and I think this is a very hard thing to be sure you're assessing correctly), I don't think that anyone is harmed in any meaningful way by reading her discussions about hypothetical sexual situations, even if you personally find them distasteful.
>I don't think that anyone is harmed in any meaningful way by reading her discussions about hypothetical sexual situations
She advocates for the value of AI generated CSAM, and her hypotheticals are attempts at deluded rationalization, the rationalization of could easily sway the actions of others. When I read her rationalizations and hypothetical moral scenarios, I am just reminded of the arguments from the New Left, including many of the voices of the French petition to remove the age of consent, that offered specious sophistry to not just sway others into allowing them to prey on children, but to encourage others with similar predilections to do so without moral qualms.
A good specific example was the placing of orphans in the homes of known sex offenders in East Germany, with the rationalization that it's better than the orphans endure a bit of sexual impropriety than to suffer negligence, which is a very Aella style argument.
You think Aella lived in East Germany? Obviously I was giving an example of a different situation in which her kind of specious moral reasoning resulted in the enablement of child sexual abuse.
If you cannot see the shared characteristics of the two cases, then I really have nothing to say to you. It would be impossible to sufficiently simplify the analogy.
In the future, if you don't understand, ask for clarification rather than wasting my time with a disingenuous question that requires a full comment round trip to get past.
> She advocates for the value of AI generated CSAM, and her hypotheticals are attempts at deluded rationalization, the rationalization of could easily sway the actions of others.
You have no idea how many men are going to find this and be emboldened by it. Men seek permission from women when it comes to pushing sexual boundaries.
I don't care what her mental state is. She needs to be banned from the Internet.
Ignoring that I think spending money on prostitutes is unethical as labor is coerced (either work or starve), meaning that sexual labor is sex obtained through coercion (there is a terser name for this), the things Aella likes to defend include things like AI generated CSAM, as well as trying to push the boundaries on what might be considered ethical ways to engage sexually with children. I have said it elsewhere, but this kind of specious moral pondering was employed extensively by groups like NAMBLA and others in the 20th century to provide moral cover for themselves.
> meaning that sexual labor is sex obtained through coercion (there is a terser name for this)
In a world where all labor is slave labor, rape presumably isn't particularly frowned upon. If I'm going to accept your premise that basically everything I have in life is obtained through coercion, why would I object to obtaining sex that way?
> the things Aella likes to defend include things like AI generated CSAM, as well as trying to push the boundaries on what might be considered ethical ways to engage sexually with children
One of these is not like the other. People advocating for AI generated child pornography are generally doing so as a means of reducing the frequency of people actually having sex with children.
"AI generated CSAM" is an oxymoron FWIW, it's impossible to sexually abuse a child which does not exist.
Where do you think the training data came from, you pedophilic dolt? If you have kids and have posted their image online, some dude is cranking it to an image inspired by them, with your enthusiastic consent apparently. Bleak!
A previous post asked: "Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy?"
And then YOU answered with the following:
> Why would it not be OK? There is nobody being harmed.
The problem with your argument is that you could have made the exact opposite argument in reverse as well, e.g. saying that all work is sex work, since the only goal of work is to reproduce.
The coercion framework is useless, because you don't actually care about coercion at all. If there is a parallel world without coercion but prostitution, you would probably still argue that prostitution is coercive.
This is because your argument fundamentally rests on the idea that you can just pick whatever situation has the fitting "moral consequence" and ascribe it to the thing you don't like to hide your own subjective opinion under the pretense of objectivity.
What reality tells us is that prostitutes don't need help getting their profession banned. They need help with switching careers and since society is built on musical chair economics, there aren't enough chairs to for them to sit on.
>If there is a parallel world without coercion but prostitution, you would probably still argue that prostitution is coercive.
If no one needed to work to survive and live a dignified life, then I would not think seeing a prostitute was an act of rape, yes, but I would expect a dramatic drop in people who choose to have sex with random strangers in exchange for resources without those motivating needs.
>This is because your argument fundamentally rests on the idea that you can just pick whatever situation has the fitting "moral consequence" and ascribe it to the thing you don't like to hide your own subjective opinion under the pretense of objectivity.
Aww, you've discovered the is-ought problem. Spoiler: Every moral judgment has this problem.
>They need help with switching careers and since society is built on musical chair economics, there aren't enough chairs to for them to sit on.
I guarantee that in developed countries, there are enough chairs. The main obstacles are mental illness (often as a result of childhood trauma) and substance abuse stopping them from engaging in the economy legally. Instead, they end up joining the lumpenproles, just like men in similar situations turn to various petty crimes.
>If no one needed to work to survive and live a dignified life, then I would not think seeing a prostitute was an act of rape, yes, but I would expect a dramatic drop in people who choose to have sex with random strangers in exchange for resources without those motivating needs.
If a prostitute is charging $1000 per hour, are they only being raped for the first couple of hours in a month?
No. They are being raped for the entirety of it. They need to not just make ends meet, but ensure they'll be able to survive the rest of their life when the prime earning years are past.
Even when they're spending most of their income on luxury holidays, designer bags, clothes and shoes? In my experience that better reflects the typical lifestyle of an higher-end escort.
Someone who's good can relatively easily manage a 20 year career at well above $500k/pa, it's really not that unattractive gig. A big chunk of that will also tend to go unreported and remain tax-free.
I don't believe for a second that any high-end escorts are doing the job to "survive", those girls will be charging far less.
This is an awful lot of very puritanical armchair psychiatry from a random man on the internet. She's doing something she finds interesting, in a surprisingly data driven way, and seemingly not harming anyone, you can put the pitchfork and handmaid's tale fantasies away.
If you think posting sporadic 4 choice polls about sex to a population consisting of gooners following a porn actress and prostitute on Twitter constitutes "data driven", then I can see how you would find Aella to be an intellectually engaging person.
Yes that constitutes being data driven, why wouldn't it? It's tautological that if a person who works as a porn actress and prostitution puts out polls on Twitter, the population of people who answer those polls will consist of people who follow a porn actress and prostitute on Twitter, but why does that affect the quality of the data? How can you evaluate whether someone counts as a "gooner" or not based on whether they follow a specific person on Twitter or answer a poll about sex?
If I poll only insurance company executives on whether the country should do away with private insurance and switch to universal healthcare, I haven't really done anything "data driven", have I? Taking a fat shit in my toilet "generates data", but I wouldn't call that visit to my bathroom "data driven", would I? Collecting sex poll responses from people who follow porn stars who specialize in rape and similar fantasy porn does not collect any data except what extreme porn consumers think about sexuality, which is of little use to making generalizations.
>How can you evaluate whether someone counts as a "gooner" or not based on whether they follow a specific person on Twitter or answer a poll about sex?
Following porn stars is absolutely gooner behavior, so yes, it makes a person a gooner.
Thought that this Aella at first, too bad that this is indeed her. Pretty sad and bleak story, hope her life will become better and more fulfilled, I genuinely do.
Best to just avoid her altogether online.
1: https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/1643703433516441602
2: https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/1721238228458430785
3: https://substack.com/home/post/p-161405272