ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
No bio...
User ID: 822
You're thinking boils down to me to be the motherfuckers and the motherfucked, don't bother getting male and female involved.
Yes. There's really no other reason to do otherwise.
You can only talk about the third category, those beyond that dichotomy, if this foundation exists.
Pretending that top-gays and bottom-gays are the same actively confuses the issue, but we've been pretending top-straights and bottom-straights are the same orientation for a while now so it's only natural we'd use that language/model for everyone else too.
As for "but most other people use these categories", well, most people do what I've described instinctually [whatever they are] and most of the other definitions are intellectual navel-gazing. They don't need to think about it, they just do it.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
1d ago
I think I can just say "no, it didn't".
if it didn't you wouldn't need a law telling people not to do it
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
1d ago
I think we can define what a woman is.
Can you really? Because I don't think you can, or rather, what you define as 'woman' is wrong.
A woman is 'one whose social role is to be the bottom in the relationship', as contrasted to men which are the designated tops. This was true up until the early 20th century, though early efforts to limit bottoming to women have existed since roughly 1000 BC (that's what the 'you must only fuck XX chromosome-havers' Abramic law does).
There are some valid reasons to do this; if you force this kind of bottoming on future designated tops (as opposed to sexually mature women only, where the technology to make this state of affairs untenable would come about around 1900 or so) they won't necessarily work properly after that. And you need your future tops willing to die to maintain your society, so if you make it so they won't, then enemy men eventually come and fuck you. So we'd expect cultures with that meme to dominate.
Now, you'll probably complain, and argue that a woman actually means 'XX chromosome-havers', but you'll need to explain to me why that state had to be imposed rather than the default state of nature for human beings. You'll also note that my definition covers all edge cases [including the men who act as women anyway, or fags for short] while you're forced by angry women/bottoms to equivocate about chromosomal abnormalities and pregnancy.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
Oh, so that's why the Brits say "God save the King".
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
The link's broken. If you link to the page the image is on and not the page directly it should work though.
It's situational. Apologies for the Reddit link; pointing at the image directly ends up breaking the link.
Note that, assuming the reactor is a man, there are 2 different "orientations" hidden in here. They're not the ones you'd expect.
First is the straight obligate woman-fucker one, where the fact it's a man doesn't really come up or have much relevance. See girl physical features, fuck those features, the fact he's not a girl is secondary to the experience.
Last is the gay obligate man-fucker one, where the fact it's a man is both not only central to the experience but focuses just as hard on the physical features of the participant(s). It's just that it's focused on the physical features of him being a man. The fact he's not a girl is also secondary to the experience.
The space in between them is the weird one, where the fact he's not a girl is primary to the experience. These works tend to be focused far more on the emotional aspects of the difference (and, like, not actually being a girl) rather than merely the physical ones.
These traps also tend to intentionally de-emphasize primary and secondary sexual characteristics, so you could probably rather accurately term it asexuality (as in, how I'd expect people who don't have the biological 'reproduce now' imperatives running at the forefront of their minds). Sure, it's still sexual in fact, but it's a bit different than that in intent. [More cynically, it's the two-player version of sex where the others are single-player.]
People whose model of sexuality is limited to the first block cannot draw a distinction between it and the second block, and our language of orientation restricts us to talking about the first block. That's why traps can be in superposition between gay and not gay; the term can't answer the question.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
If even a small fraction of this population fit the stereotype of just wanting some breasts around to keep their other attraction toward the male form deniable
Isn't that just because [mechanism of attraction to the male form] functions differently than [mechanism of attraction to the female form], though? Straight men are aroused by penises after all (I don't believe that 1950s-era study measured women in that way, and this is notable for being conducted in a pre-mass-issue-pornography world) so it's not that far out of left field for futanari to be the overwhelmingly dominant meme for men. /d/ is for dickgirl, after all.
By contrast, I didn't think women were aroused by the form itself and were more into a derivative of its appearance/what it ultimately represents, or the qualities those traits suggest. Strength is attractive, muscles on their own perhaps not as much (if I recall correctly, men rate that chad.jpg meme- the actual picture one, not the MS Paint one- as more attractive than women do).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
In a modern context that had to come up with a way to divorce identity from action to convince the [US] Christian-leaning folks of the time to let them do it because their culture was more receptive to claims it was an in-built identity rather than just something you do? Yes, tautologically.
However, outside of that very specific context, I don't feel that's a good use of the term, no. There's a very good reason the medical field says 'men who have sex with men', not 'gay'; it's a tacit admission that the category is bad since if it were any better it would have been adopted universally.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
"He who is penetrated is gay" is obvious to humanity in the general case.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
Finding out a person you thought was a dude, actually isn't, means you lose interest regardless of their appearance.
Yeah, about that. Also, tomboys in general.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
3d ago
you think Europeans wake up every day and go "awe fuck trump is alive, fuck I hate that guy"
If Canada is any indication, the answer to that question is ‘yes’.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5d ago
And here I was, thinking we had phased out "devouring" with the more succinct "voring".
Honestly, half the problem with trying to use sexy words in this type of literature is that they just come off as... kind of ham-fisted. If I have to read "wow, you're inside me" and "I'm cumming" one more fucking time I'm going to moan extremely loudly scream.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5d ago
It kind of blows my mind that people can't get it from text alone. Then again, since I grew up relatively pornless, maybe it's just an adaptation, or I'm so used to holding myself back in key ways [i.e. the reasons for that state] that I've accidentally become transgender just kind of stopped trying to prefer the strictly visual.
Perhaps I'm just more comfortable externalizing the whole thing, which as I understand it is also not exactly stereotypically male. Or maybe it's just because you can't masturbate cuddling, I dunno.
I think that there are tricks to make porn that's strictly visible gratifying in the text way where you... basically just show the emotional effects (or rather, fail to neglect them), but to do that requires some intentionality and most of it is just trying to show off the largest examples of certain anatomy possible. (Text can do that too, but if it does this poorly, things throb harder than humanity's collective mass of stubbed toes.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5d ago
You can't just say 'just treat your outgroup as mistake theorists'
As opposed to treating them as conflict theorists, but there's no insight to be gained by starting from that position.
parasitism
I don't think the tarantula hawk wasp is consumed by guilt at what it has to do to continue its cycle of existence. Not that it has the capacity to feel guilt, of course.
Thus, a particular assumption relevant to my outgroup's behavior- that [at its core] it is an evil animal with evil motivations designed solely to maximize the suffering of others for selfish gain- is therefore flawed and not worth talking about.
Of course, if that hypothetical question ever came up between host and parasite, how would you mediate a dispute between them? Not that a host could conduct that process when parasite-obsessed [for a variety of out-of-scope reasons] hosts are in oversupply, of course, which debanking is an expression of and why it's only become a thing now.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
as it’s supposed to be about the fair and impartial application of rules, whether or not the outcome is one you prefer
Yes, but doing that actively handicaps women in the workplace, because their evolutionary specialty rests on those rules being as partial and obfuscated as possible.
The fact that that the full use of that specialty is incredibly destructive is highly relevant, which is why gynosupremacists build their entire worldview atop justifications for being allowed to do it. It's what their instincts tell them will keep them safe. Parasitism is a valid evolutionary strategy (and must be considered morally neutral for this analysis to have any worth).
to someone from a disadvantaged group
I think a start to dealing with this would be to institutionally account for the moral hazard this inherently creates. If women want criminals running around because to do otherwise would hurt their feelings, there needs to be some redistribution directly from them to the people their policies hurt. If the teaching profession refuses to do its job by literacy rates dropping because it would be mean to fail people, there's no reason they shouldn't be forced to pay into a dividend dedicated to fixing their mistake in the future.
In its majestic equality the law punishes both men and women equally for bad behaviors overwhelmingly preferred by men (which also happen to be the simplest to prove).
The fact that there's no formal check against women's anti-social behavior is kind of the central issue here. Humanity hasn't evolved a way to do that yet, and it's been 150 years since the old ways of doing that were workable (though camouflaged by the fact the 1910s are out of living memory and the massive post-WW2 economic boom covering up the problem for the generation currently in power).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
This is something progressives actually seem to agree on
Because truth-seeking can, and historically often does, have a natural consequence of breaking the conditions that keep a feminine society comfortably in power. This can be on the low side, where what is revealed gives an advantage to men, or it can be on the high side, where what is revealed gives such a disadvantage to men that their economic value drops close enough to 0 that they start killing each other.
Normally, that just means they get conquered by masculine societies (whose power has different constraints), but there really aren't very many of those around these days.
I don't think the average progressive is intelligent enough to fully realize that, but the same goes for the average traditionalist. The same instinct silently instructs both on how to assert and protect a monopoly on truth- that's what those 3 Moral Foundations absent from truth-seeker morality do.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
Rather than not 'having' to, I assert they didn't want to as a natural consequence of feminine systems only ever competing internally for dominance.
Societies become feminine when they become overpopulated relative to the economic opportunity per capita present. If there's sufficient population they turn to mass murder; that's where the [people of the] Khmer Rouge's "let's murder 1 in 4 people for Mean Girls reasons" philosophy came from. And then there's the South Koreans- a different culture, yes- but they prefer to conduct this conflict by just not reproducing instead of mass post-natal abortion (or pre-natal in the Chinese case).
Now, saying 'economic opportunity' is papering over an utterly massive sum of factors- more advanced technology can either help or hurt this based on who's needed to get the most of it (either it centralizes it and makes capital more valuable, or it decentralizes it and makes labor more valuable; industry was generally the latter, but as labor costs rise all advancements have been in the centralization direction re: robotics). And environmental factors can affect this as well.
And sure, mass murder isn't necessarily unique to feminine societies- late 18th century France being kind of the poster child of that far more than the Nazis were, but if you think of the French Revolution as a massive power vacuum collapsing due to the [not working-class] losing their ability to hold it together (due to technological factors) over 5-10 years, then the working class installing its dictator (Bonaparte), and then striking out to impose the [second] European Union?
To be fair, this model does have some holes- I'm still not entirely sure how to explain the ritual mass suicide euphemistically called "World War 1" other than "we finally figured out metallurgy and assembly lines good enough to do it, so we went for it solely for shits and giggles".
But those wars did create a particular political thinker who did notice that humanity dies when all the world turns female; 1984 is a treatise on that. (So's Animal Farm, for that matter, but it's not explicitly incel-coded like 1984 is.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
9d ago
Or Imperial Russia, whose failure to do exactly this was the entire reason Stalin rose to Tsardom in the first place.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
9d ago
Talk is cheap, of course. What did they actually do to support the average working-class non-party-member family? Granted, they did do the Nazi thing of rounding up co-ethnics and shipping them off to concentration camps in Siberia, but far as I know that wasn't an explicit policy goal and was more about paying off supporters than anything that would have benefited the average Russian.
By contrast, there's a country in the Near East- the ethnicity of its founders even had 'nazi' as part of their name- that despite its small size actively sends armed 'settlers' into a combat zone to displace the natives there, spends a great deal of treasure doing this, and the people that do those things have a TFR above 2. That just ain't a thing the average communist does.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
9d ago
when he realized it's ruining the country, and he might have a war or two to fight
Translation: Stalin perceived that the valuation of men in society increased (or would increase), resulting in it being necessary to pander more to their interests lest his forces simply permit the Germans to walk right into Moscow and overthrow the government through inaction.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
9d ago
Why? I think it was very feminized- layers of bureaucracy simply to make work (especially important for women), a total lack of emphasis on family formation and children (China is an even better example of that), and total equality of outcome (which favors the gender with the evolutionary disadvantage when it comes to producing physical things at scale).
Were the same things true of the fascists? No; where communists increase bureaucracy fascists do away with it, where communists fail to provide suitable accommodations fascists say 'living space', and equality of outcome is as far as I can tell not a thing for a Nazi (unless it's a group for which a claim that they owe reparations can be made).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
9d ago
If that is not "proof of Bad Nazi" to you, what is?
Is Hitler in the room with us right now?
Look. The reason communists hate fascists is because the driving impulse behind both are identical except for who, whom. It's bikeshedding.
The reason Germany and Italy went one way and Russia and China went the other is simply due to which gender role [gender is too reductive in the face of mechanization] found itself in oversupply relative to its output given the technological conditions at the time. Working class men were in undersupply in the former nations, and in oversupply in the latter (sometimes called the 'unneccessariat').
That is why communism usually goes full civil war mass murder dependent on the poverty of the nation, whereas fascism does not need to. (That's not a guarantee it won't, of course, but since when have dictatorships- including communism/fascism, which is the dictatorship of the working class- ever really been rational?)
The overwhelming amount of time this is just 'women' (as in, what someone from the 1800s would recognize as one).
Men can be this as well, but they generally need to find the rare [female] compatible with that state or the relationships break due to orientation mismatch.
More options
Context Copy link