Fuck “NSFW”. I refuse to say “NSFW”. The term “NSFW” must die.

[Meretrix]

This is my declaration of independence from a bad (non-)word, and my repudiation of compelled speech.

What if you work in a porn studio, a strip club, or a brothel?  For that matter, what if you’re an academic researcher at the Kinsey Institute?  Sexually explicit materials are SFW.  But the term “NSFW” implies that you don’t have a real job.  “NSFW” binds you to the rules of working at JPMorgan Chase (a notoriously prudish company).  “NSFW” delegitimates your work, ghettoizes your workplace, and degrades you as socially nonexistent.

I refuse to contribute to that prejudicial effect.  To me, it is no different than avoiding racial slurs.

To put this in Bitcoin terms:  The “NSFW” embedded assumption that sexual images are “unsafe for work” is analogous to language assuming that everyone uses only KYCed bank accounts and/or CEXes.

“NSFW” is a values-loaded dysphemism.  It passes moral judgment on the content in question.  A requirement that people use the term “NSFW” is a dishonest equivalent of labelling nudity “Sinful”, and labelling porn “Mortally Sinful”.  With these latter terms, the value-judgment is overt.  “NSFW” sneaks in the same value-judgment by the backdoor—well, you can shove that value-judgment up your “backdoor”!

Moreover, I have no fucking idea what “Not Safe For Work” is even supposed to mean—and on principle, this is another instance where I refuse to learn, because it’s wrong to learn.  In the entire course of my life, I myself have only ever held one job where I could’ve gotten in trouble for viewing sexually explicit materials at work.  It was a part-time job when I was 18 years old, and I only had the job for three months before I was fired for—surfing libertarian political websites on the clock!  At the same time, a coworker was reprimanded, but not fired for surfing porn at work; he was a senior full-time employee, and I was expendable.  The only lesson I learned is that thou shalt not scam the boss into paying you hourly wages to goof off surfing the Web; I think that’s a good lesson.

I’ve never used used Reddit or Twitter or any of those other idiot-sites, so I was thankfully never acculturated to their slang.  Insofar as I can recall, the very first time I ever used the term “NSFW” was on the Bitcoin Forum in 2018.  I used this term, because that’s what the rules say.  Well, I refuse ever to use it again!


I just spent three hours searching the Web for any similar opinions.  I didn’t find much.  Are people so thoughtless about their use of language, or is my search engine censored?

⚠︎ Some of the below-linked sites may contain nudity and/or sexually explicit content.

Bacchus, 2003-10-02:

If it’s not safe for you to view ErosBlog where you work, it’s your work that’s not safe for ErosBlog. Just because some of my readers live in the United States and choose to work in environments where they are treated like horny fifth-graders and assumed to be unable to make responsible choices about viewing and displaying sexual material, there’s no reason to call the blog unsafe, especially when other readers and potential readers live or work in less repressive societies (or environments, such as their own office or home) where the blog is perfectly safe. Folks, if your work isn’t safe for ErosBlog, consider getting some different work! And if you can’t do that (and I know a lot of folks feel stuck in their lives) at least don’t assume that everyone else in the world is in the same boat. Modest proposal: Try saying “not safe for sex-hostile environments” or some such.

Susie Bright, 2007-03-08:

NSFW has no meaning in print—in paper journalism or publishing.  It has no place in a newsroom or the bookstore.  It only exists on the Internet—which is ironically notorious for its libertarianism.  NSFW, whoever dreamed it up, is a Bowdlerization of the Web, a Scarlet Letter.  It exists because fearful people believe in it, like a bad fairy.  It says more about the psychological fears and prejudices of the person using it, than it does about the content in question.  Why do web authors put up with it?

Dan Savage, interview published 2017-08-02:

The acronym for “not safe for work,” NSFW, when I use it, I do NSFYW: “not safe for your work.”  Fine for mine.  I look at these websites constantly.  I have to, it’s my job.  It’s not safe for your place of employment most likely.

More and better links and citations would be appreciated.  Perhaps in academia and not on the Web, someone out there must have written the definitive takedown of “NSFW”!


Local rules:

• No express or implied preaching of any religion I don’t believe.
• No sex-negativity, according to my own judgment.
• No low-value posts.
• Civil, intelligent discussion only.  You can be a righteous cunt, but don’t be an asshole.
• I can bend, break, or change any of these rules if I want.

[nullius]

If this poll goes well, then despite my general dislike for editing old posts, I intend to edit the topic title of Ciphersex 101 to change its “NSFW” marking.

[joker_josue]

But the term "NSFW" isn't limited to just sexual content.

It may include:
Graphic violence - Serious injuries, mutilations, corpses, excessive blood
Disturbing content - Serious accidents, shocking images, extreme suffering
Explicit language - Serious insults, sexual or extremely offensive language
Other sensitive content - Certain content related to drugs or dangerous behavior


It's true that sometimes the term NSFW is used in such a generic way, or interpreted in such a generic way, that it can create a broader idea of ​​what it really is.

Naturally, there are workplaces where one regularly deals with content that is commonly classified as NSFW. But that doesn't make the term inappropriate or meaningless.

I think the problem is focusing this term solely on pornography.

For example, in a pornographic film production studio, this type of content is perfectly suited to the professional activity. However, graphic images of crime scenes may not be.
In a police station, the situation may be reversed. Images of crime scenes may be part of the daily work, while pornographic content would, in principle, be inappropriate.

That's precisely the point: the term NSFW relates to the context and appropriateness of the content, not just to whether it's sexual or offensive.

[Vod]

NSFW is a universally recognized way to warm about opening a link in public.   It applies to all public events and not just your place of employment.  I appreciate being able to type NSFW instead of wasting space using a more precise warning.

appropriateness

See?  Joker just summarized my entire statement in one word.  

[nullius]

To avoid discussing “nullius and his adventures” in the third person, I’ll need to take up two parts of this, then leave the rest for OP.  (My apologies for the delayed response; I was awaiting the creation of a prerequisite thread to link.)

But the term "NSFW" isn't limited to just sexual content.

[...]

Explicit language - Serious insults,

A troll^* created a topic on this forum’s reputation section, titled, “Reputation: nullius is a cunt ✔”, and kept it running for about two years.  The whole thread had no purpose whatsoever but to insult, degrade, and humiliate me personally, ad hominem.  Should I have reported it to the moderators as unmarked “NSFW content”, in violation of the forum’s Rule 10?

10. No embedded NSFW images anywhere. NSFW content must be marked accordingly.

There isn’t even a way to “mark” it:  The topic’s title is “NSFW content” against Rule 10, according to your personal definition of the absurdly subjective, vague, arbitrary, and capricious term “NSFW”.

^* I don’t give a fuck if someone is DT1, etc., etc.  A person who creates an ad hominem harassment thread titled, “so-and-so is a cunt”, is a troll by definition and nothing but.

I didn’t report it.  Of course, I didn’t; I’m on record as opposing rules against “offensive language”.  But from the above quote, I take it you’d urge me to complain to the moderators that someone called me a cunt.

Further illustrating the absurdity of the term “NSFW”:  In the thread that called me a “cunt”, I had a post mod-deleted because in my attempt to roll with the punches and deflect the insult, I’d embedded a famous fine-art painting of a cunt [⚠︎ MARKING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FORUM RULES because this is a financial forum, and in finance, Compliance is an important buzzword: linked museum webpage contains an image of a painting of a cunt, which a Bitcoin Forum moderator has actually adjudged “NSFW”—whatever the fuck that means].

According to you, the the topic’s title is “NSFW” (“explicit language—serious insult”); according to me, a famous fine-art painting is not “NSFW”.  Forum moderators evidently disagree with both of us:  The cunt-titled thread is there and my cunt-painting post is gone.  Besides the principle of the matter, how is the term “NSFW” even useful in practice?

For former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, surely NOT a paragon of Bitcoin Forum free speech values, things Not Safe For his Work included bare-breasted statues on U.S. Federal property...

When the Taliban blew up the historic Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, free people around world were stunned by the censorship.  Now it’s our turn.

Two partially nude statues in the Department of Justice’s Great Hall, the “Spirit of Justice” and the “Majesty of Law,” are apparently too risque for U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, so the department spent $8,000 on blue drapes to hide them.

...and of course, that raises the question of why some other people would deem bare-female-breast art “Safe For Work” at the US-DOJ—but not bare-vulva art.

Indeed, I’ve posted many images of bare-breasted statues on this forum^** (all now broken due to imgur); none of them was ever deleted as “NSFW”, despite the potential use as arousal material by agalmatophiles.  My one post of an image of a vulva painting was deleted.  How does this not imply a moral judgment that the vulva is the pudendum, < L. pudenda, “place of shame”?

^** That raises a question about Talkimg’s rule against “NSFW”.  If Bitcoin Forum moderators allow an image under Rule 10, but John Ashcroft would forbid it due to nudity similar to the U.S. Department of Justice statutes he spent U.S. taxpayer money covering up, does Talkimg allow it?  Oh, and I now see that OP is openly mocking Talkimg’s anti-“NSFW” rule with “hardcore CS porn”.

- NSFW images are not allowed.

In the case of the deleted vulva painting, “NSFW” passed from the absurd to the surreal—and the misogynist.  The person who’d mod-reported the painting of vulva outed himself (not naming names here, as my purpose is to make a political point and not to gripe about any particular individual).  Whereupon he (I’m pretty sure he) called it “Not Safe For Wife”.  That interpretation of “NSFW” implies that the forum is a place for (a) men, who (b) are married (c) to churchlady Madonnas, in accord with Victorian-era standards of chaste womanhood.

What kind of a woman faints from offense to her delicate sensibilities at seeing a famous fine-art painting of a vulva?  The “Not Safe For Wife” interpretation of “NSFW” is loaded with so many gendered assumptions about men, women, the relations between them, female virtue, and the inherent offensiveness of the female body, a Gender and Sexuality Studies grad student could surely make a dissertation of it.


Vague, arbitrary censorship term vaguely, arbitrarily expands to “drugs or dangerous behavior”

Other sensitive content - Certain content related to drugs or dangerous behavior

Say what?  I’ve never before seen the term “NSFW” applied to “drugs or dangerous behaviour”.  Once again, it’s a subjective term that each person makes up as they go along—totally unsuitable for defining a rule.  But, well, hmmm...

Merited by suchmoon (4), strawbs (2), vapourminer (1), sirazimuth (1), DireWolfM14 (1), OutOfMemory (1), 600watt (1), P_Shep (1), soullyG (1)
warning: nullius-sized post follows; I tried my best to keep it engaging

nullius, all you are doing is highlighting your ignorance of the subject. have a fantastic morning.

No doubt more than a few people would call me “ignorant” of Jesus.

The difference between Jesus and drugs is drugs are real.

[...]

Since you're big on editing peoples' quotes to make them say what you want them to say:

Who the fuck would be sufficiently moronic to believe the opinion of somebody who has used hallucinogenic substances been to France, on the subject of hallucinogenic substances visiting France?

You've never tripped on LSD or mushrooms, you've never been to France, so there's no possible way you could know what its about more than someone who has. All the books in the world - all your personal assessments of friends who have visited France - are no substitute for first-hand, real life experience.

And I should know because I graduated from a fairly prestigious university with a neuroscience degree and worked in a number of laboratories/clinics; specifically relating psychopharmacology and psychiatry. I learned quite a bit about drug toxicity, which drugs effect what categories of neurotransmitters, dosages, psychological effects, etc. But nothing can prepare you for or educate you like the first-hand experience of trying a drug out for yourself.

[...long drug advocacy rant...]

nutildah is clearly advocating drugs I believe are dangerous and harmful—even calling me ignorant, and insinuating that I’m uneducated because I’ve never tried LSD and shrooms.  Should I report that to moderators as “NSFW”, and scream for them to censor it?  To be clear, I think that that would be almost as ridiculous as nutildah’s whole post is.  But according to the joker_josue definition of “NSFW”, it is “NSFW”.

Furthermore, I’ve seen some WO regulars embed in the Wall Observer images that glorify cocaine usage.  (Humorously—but glorify, nonetheless.  No example linked just because it’s very hard to search for a potentially broken image in that massive thread, based on my recollection of things I saw a half-dozen years ago.)  Are those images “NSFW” in violation of Rule 10, per your definition?

To be extra-clear, as I have always and everywhere said consistently:  I absolutely oppose the War on Drugs.  “Against stupid, oppressive laws” != “must condone the half-pretextually purported object that those laws ban”.

With that, I’ll butt out and leave the rest to OP.

[Meretrix]

But the term "NSFW" isn't limited to just sexual content.

[...]

It's true that sometimes the term NSFW is used in such a generic way, or interpreted in such a generic way, that it can create a broader idea of ​​what it really is.

And that’s a big problem:  The term is vague, arbitrary, and capricious—totally subjective.  If, hypothetically, the forum rules were a public law (instead of a private entity’s policy on private property), then in its U.S. constitutional jurisdiction, Rules 10 and 31 against “NSFW” would be declared “void for vagueness” in an ACLU free speech lawsuit.

Indeed, any First Amendment lawyer would tear “NSFW” to shreds with a facial challenge as “void for vagueness”, if the term were used in a censorship law—or even any first-year law student who aspired to constitutional law.  This is First Amendment 101.

Moreover, the vagueness of the term causes chilling effects on speech.  I lack psychic powers to read the moderators’ minds.  When I need to guess what meaning moderators will ascribe to “NSFW”, I must self-censor within smaller boundaries than what’s actually allowed—or else take the risk of potentially violating the rule, as nully did with the vulva painting he truly had no idea would be prohibited.

It [“NSFW”] may include:
Graphic violence - Serious injuries, mutilations, corpses, excessive blood
Disturbing content - Serious accidents, shocking images, extreme suffering

I believe that’s all what the forum’s Rule 31 calls “NSFL”:  “Not Safe For Life”.  Well, I guess.  Who the fuck knows?  The terms are meaningless—which is a part of my point.

Explicit language - Serious insults, sexual or extremely offensive language

Why is “sexual” grouped together with “serious insults” and “extremely offensive”?  I don’t share these moral value-judgments, and I don’t accept them being imposed on me.  Please question your own premises, and examine the sex negativity embedded in your assumptions.

Other sensitive content - Certain content related to drugs or dangerous behavior

Censorship rules have such a tendency to expand in their ambit, especially when the rule is defined so vaguely.

It's true that sometimes the term NSFW is used in such a generic way, or interpreted in such a generic way, that it can create a broader idea of ​​what it really is.

So, it’s designed to be vague and over-broad.

The term needs to die.  If we need labels for censorship purposes, then the labels should at least be precise and descriptive.

Naturally, there are workplaces where one regularly deals with content that is commonly classified as NSFW. But that doesn't make the term inappropriate or meaningless.

It is prejudicial against those workplaces, as I stated in OP.  The language is a values-laden dysphemism which invalidates “not-safe-for-work” workplaces.

I think the problem is focusing this term solely on pornography.

For example, in a pornographic film production studio, this type of content is perfectly suited to the professional activity. However, graphic images of crime scenes may not be.

That’s an intriguing hypothetical, but I doubt that anyone uses the term this way in practice.

In a police station, the situation may be reversed. Images of crime scenes may be part of the daily work, while pornographic content would, in principle, be inappropriate.

That's precisely the point: the term NSFW relates to the context and appropriateness of the content, not just to whether it's sexual or offensive.

Police agencies deal with a ton of sexual content, to police it.  What a job, the sex police!

Inter alia, they seek illegal porn; in this forum’s U.S. jurisdiction, that’s (a) child pornography and (b) obscenity, as (vaguely!) defined by law.  Along the way, they need to look at lots of legal porn, too.  The DOJ/FBI have various departments devoted to this [⚠︎ link to U.S. Federal police agency].  What’s “NSFW” at their job?

NSFW is a universally recognized way to warm about opening a link in public.   It applies to all public events and not just your place of employment.  I appreciate being able to type NSFW instead of wasting space using a more precise warning.

It’s not “universally recognized”.  It’s universally vague and subjective; everybody has a different definition.  Words used in rules need to have precise meanings.

appropriateness

See?  Joker just summarized my entire statement in one word.  

To some people, an animated cartoon of a man licking his own breast and the phrase, “licking my boob” are inappropriate.  Oh, how “inappropriate”!

Licking my boob since 1970

* Meretrix swoons from the inappropriateness, which is definitely Not Safe For Wife.

In your opinion, does it violate “appropriateness” for a woman to lick her bare breast in public?  Do you think that a female-presenting version of your cartoon avatar would violate Rule 31, which prohibits “NSFW” avatars?  If so, the rule is structural gender discrimination, and it enshrines male privilege.  You can cartoonishly lick your boob all you want.  If I have a cartoonist illustrate me licking mine, do you suggest that I could use that as a forum avatar?

If I try it, and I get in trouble, will you stand up for me, honey? 

The word “inappropriate” is another pet peeve of mine.  It’s a weasel-word, as meaningless as it is moralistic.  So is “decency”, as in the “Communications Decency Act”; if the CDA hadn’t been struck down as unconstitutional in the U.S. in 1997, then this forum could never have existed.

[joker_josue]

Bearing in mind that TalkImg was mentioned, I would just like to add some context.

TalkImg was created for exclusive use on Bitcointalk, and therefore I sought to follow the terminology and rules used by the forum itself. Since an image uploaded to TalkImg cannot be used elsewhere, it makes no sense to upload images to TalkImg that cannot be used on Bitcointalk.


As I mentioned, the term NSFW is very broad, and it can create some ambiguity when used in moderation guidelines. However, creating a detailed list of prohibited content may not necessarily solve the problem, as it would be difficult to foresee all situations. This is where I consider common sense and context interpretation important, in order to understand what is or is not included in the term in each case.

Therefore, the term NSFW may be suitable for communicating a general idea, without being, by itself, a sufficiently precise definition to resolve all cases of moderation.


Returning to the original topic, the criticism of the term "NSFW" and the various proposed alternatives are related to content of a sexual nature. But the term NSFW encompasses many other types of content. It's not me saying this, it's what even the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary mentions:

"used to show a link to a website that contains images, text or video that people may find offensive"

We can even agree that the term is either too broad or unclear in its essence. But its usefulness lies precisely in this breadth of application. Ultimately, it leads to consideration for other people, acknowledging that not all content is suitable for all contexts. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the content, context, or terms used.

I have no objection to the use of other terminology, provided it is equally comprehensive and understandable. But what would that alternative be?
Because we can't reduce this to just a sexual context, as it applies to many other situations, even though most people only remember it in a sexual context.


A final note on artistic observations. I studied art and am familiar with the representation of the nude throughout art history.

For example, we can recall Titian's "Venus of Urbino," painted in 1538, or "The Bacchanal of the Andrians," from around 1523–1526.

^{https://www.museodelprado.es/en/easy-to-read/the-andrians-titian/f58c436b-f905-3dff-8db0-2803fa217302}
These works present clear representations of nudity, whose interpretation and acceptance have varied over the years, depending on the historical, cultural, and social context. What might have been considered inappropriate at a certain time may be interpreted very differently today. This type of interpretation does not apply only to nudity or sexuality.

This doesn't mean that any individual interpretation should determine the classification of content. That's precisely why I think common sense and a reasonable assessment of the context are important.

The term NSFW is not intended to resolve all these issues. It is merely a practical and widely recognized way of indicating content that may be inappropriate in certain circumstances, from some people's point of view.


Just one more example. The game GTA has an age rating of 18+, but we know it's played by younger teenagers, often with their parents' knowledge. In other words, the rating doesn't determine what each family considers acceptable, but it remains a useful reference for informing about the type of content.

Similarly, an NSFW warning doesn't need to match the individual sensibilities of every person to fulfill its purpose. It serves as general guidance, allowing everyone to make informed decisions, without preventing certain spaces from establishing their own rules.

[Meretrix]

Thanks for your thoughtful essay, joker_josue.  Although I disagree with you, I think it’s important to engage in a dialogue with reasonable people who see this differently—and I respect your study of art.  However, I think I’ll need to punt that to nullius for a reply.  I guess that after he catches up with some other topics, he’ll probably return here with a nullius essay in response to yours.

Whatever his thoughts may be, I’m the ideal character for activism on this issue.  After all, wherefore am I Meretrix?

meretrix, noun, plural meretrices

: prostitute

Etymology: Latin, from merēre to earn, gain

Whilst we’ve been discussing this, I, Meretrix (u=1935564), had a text-only post deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator from the Wall Observer.  At this time, it’s the only post the Meretrix account has had mod-deleted.  It accidentally showed in practice that the “NSFW” rule is too vague and subjective; for the record, since it is only text, I had no idea that this post would judged to be in violation of forum rules by a moderator:

• Delete reply: XXX hardcore (double-/triple-)penetrating market insights.  Make WO sexy again! (message #67330090) in topic #178336 by member #1935564

The auto-PM I received about this was timestamped November 10, 2026, 10:17:02 PM.

Mod deletions don’t give a reason.  However, the Wall Observer doesn’t follow the usual rules about “off-topic” and “low-value” posts.  WO regulars not infrequently make humorous remarks about ChartBuddy and consecutive Buddy posts.  Moreover, I’ve seen in WO almost all manner of controversial content—from overt racism to frank advocacy of the alleged benefits of illegal drug usage.  By process of elimination, the only possible rule that my post could have violated is sexual “NSFW”—whatever the fuck that term means.

Although the post does not embed any images, visual context is required.  It was forum art!  At November 10, 2026, 09:00:40 AM, I sniped ChartBuddy to make sure I got my post sandwiched between two consecutive Buddy posts at November 10, 2026, 08:01:07 AM and November 10, 2026, 09:01:08 AM, respectively.  It took me over two hours to get that posted, for I missed a prior opportunity at November 10, 2026, 07:01:08 AM by literally about two seconds—and then, someone else posted in the next hourly interval between Buddies.  I set an alarm clock to make sure I’d be ready to click “Post” at the right moment!

Alas, it is prohibited for me to show you on this forum what slutty, whorish remarks I made to sexualize ChartBuddy.

🤐

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

🡅︎  🡅︎  🡅︎

XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX!  XX XX XXXX, XXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX, XX XX XXXXXXX, XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XX XXXXX X XXX XXXX XXXX.  XXX, XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX XX X XXX XXXXX XXXXX, XXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXXX.

XXXX, XXX, XXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXX XXXXX XX XXX XXX XXXXXXX, XXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXX?

* Meretrix XXXXX forum art.

🡇︎  🡇︎  🡇︎

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

However, there do exist public copies of ⚠︎ WARNING: This post is a cardinal sin according to Bitcoin Forum moderators; thou shalt not click: ⚠︎ →→→ CENSORED message #67330090 in a web.archive.org snapshot of a loyce.club archive, because lots of fucking copies keeps stuff safe ←←← ⚠︎ WARNING: This content is on the Bitcoin Forum’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum; THOU SHALT NOT CLICK, BITCHES!!! ⚠︎.  I hope that clear warning suffices to satisfy rules about marking links to “NSFW” content off-forum.

Because people who want to censor sex are stereotypically unintellectual, I need to elucidate a few key phrases in that totally uncreative sex-spam post which nobody should ever look at:

• “Algorithmic number theory” (ANT) is a mathematical specialty that gets me totes turned on for ciphersex [sexual thread].
  
  

  What is Algorithmic Number Theory?
  
  [...] So that’s why NSA and various commercial computer-security outfits are interested in large prime numbers, and in even more esoteric number-theoretical artifacts like “elliptic curves”. [...]
  

  
  For introductory ANT-porn, I recommend Joe P. Buhler and Peter Stevenhagen (eds.) (2008), Algorithmic Number Theory: Lattices, Number Fields, Curves, and Cryptography, Cambridge University Press.  Oh, fuck, that book is big and hard—sooo big and hard, some parts pretty much need grad-school level maths as a prerequisite.  TBH, it makes me cry in a good way like extreme BDSM.  I just need to flick my hair and say, “Math is hard.  Let’s go shopping!” 
• The phrase, “a man named Kelly” refers to John Larry Kelly Jr., the mathematician who discovered the Kelly criterion; the Kelly criterion is super-hot in mathematical finance, a.k.a. quantitative trading.
• Two of the terms in that post are porn industry jargon.  One is marked with [abbr] hover-text as “porn industry jargon”.  I fear to explain further—even in a cool, didactic tone—lest I run afoul of the “NSFW” rule.

But that’s all girly-talk.  Methinks I’d better fuck off and let nully mansplain the serious social and political issues motivating my activism for free speech for porn.  For my part, I’d better go do things to get paid!

* Meretrix inserts a ⚫️ ball gag into her own mouth, and ties herself up in a corner.  Oh, yeah, I get paid for that.