ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
Ask the auditors of your employee benefit plan.
Bible says (or at least heavily implies; it's been a while) "children are property of their parents", extends blessings to children who obey this and execution to those that refuse.
The employee benefit plan of Christianity is mostly rear-loaded; the retirement plan can be accurately described as "out of this world".
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I'd want to maximize the chance my child takes advantage of it, and we can start by covering up everything that matches the naturally-emergent sin disgust heuristic, starting with a fig leaf on this nude statue over here. Why gouge out one's own eye (a popular and plain-ish, though not necessarily correct, reading of the passage) when you can see no evil by less traumatic means?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
Could someone explain to me the likely causes of homosexuality?
It seems very likely to me that 100% of (definitionally) homosexual behavior revolves around the [existence, presence, and availability] of [attractive people] of [the same sex]; it's just that those three things have asterisks to them. Another complicating factor is that love and sex could quite possibly have something to do with each other.
Anyway, I think the first part was pretty clearly covered by the sibling comments about situational/loveless sexuality, but the second and third didn't have much emphasis. So...
For the second, it's all about finding people of the same sex to whom you happen to be sufficiently attracted. There's a common meme around this about "are traps gay?", meaning "is it gay if you don't know they're a guy, or what degree of knowing makes it gay?". Now, while most men are quite a bit uglier than superstimulus-abusing merchandise machinery, it's still somewhat applicable to you if your pattern of attraction should happen to match one (usually happens to the denizens of 4chan with Asians; their physiology tends to pattern match to "female" for a non-negligible fraction of men, and one country in particular is in?famous for its crossdressers).
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of academic papers waiting to definitively prove that liking Felix Argyle is gay, but not Astolfo or Bridget.
Somewhat but not entirely related is the third part. What's "the same sex" even mean, especially when you start branching into the gender non-conforming spaces like tomboys, tomgirls, every gay man with the lisp, and the harder transgender (as in, they actually emulate the opposite end of the binary the way you'd expect them to)? Can wanting a woman who has more in common with a man in terms of general attitude or approach towards life be the primary feature of sexual desire, and if so, is that gay? How about the reverse?
I dunno. I think our models of relationships are popularly both as loaded and as accurate as the term "gender studies"; can fish notice water?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
20d ago
That doesn't follow whatsoever. It presupposes that we're always capable of evaluating deep consequences, which is plainly not the case. It also presupposes a ton of wisdom on the part of the person being persuaded.
Yes, progressives say "it's not my job to educate you" as well. (Traditionalists are just the progressives of 50 years ago, after all.)
If the only difference between you and them is that they have the social power to enforce it and you don't [because your thing is Totally 100% True Trust Me Gaise] then you're worthless and offensive as a movement, and people are right to reject you.
People generally don't like being tricked or called stupid; when you do that I'd argue it costs you a bit of your saltiness.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
21d ago
Where's that CS Lewis guy when you need him?
never been a shortage of Christian intellectual tradition
You're making my point for me: there has been a serious lack of meaningful addition to Christian intellectual tradition over the last 60 years, and that tradition ran into a sort of... replication crisis of its social science (from the standpoint of those on the ground at that time).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5mo ago
Gay is an identity (something you are).
Banging other dudes is an action (something you do).
Men do, women are, so men naturally assume that when you ask them this, you're asking them to apply the woman's label. Unless you're a man predisposed to Gayness (which forms part of the problem with Gays, from the average man's perspective), that is inaccurate, insulting, and outright dangerous.
Of course, that also means they won't be part of any discussion when women and Gay men are trying to create an identity to describe this phenomenon, so it's not like the mistake theorists in those groups are even going to get a chance to know that. And the conflict theorists do it intentionally because male-coded sexuality bad.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
7mo ago
Am I supposed to treat her like she's a completely fresh, clean bowl of cheerios?
Depends, are you getting straight-married or gay-married to her?
Because she seems the type to still want (or rather, need) a straight marriage, and at this point I think she’d have a hard time with both, because the betrayal in a straight marriage is not being a virgin, but the betrayal in a gay marriage is not being fucking trustworthy enough not to want to fall back into needing those straight marriage privileges for the relationship to be viable (because she can’t provide them now as well as she used to).
it sounds like theyre mostly talking about showing trans stuff to kids?
No, it reads exactly like the stock Boomer-trad (or progressive) complaints about it. Narcissism of small differences may be viewed by replacing 'transgender ideology' with 'violence towards women' in the first sentence.
It's a general loser of a proposition and 20th century anti-porn views/laws (including "just restrict the ages") are likely to lose Republicans more male voters than an ad by the other side that calls them creeps will (since all men have heard that one before and have slowly figured out they should ignore that particular complaint).
I don't think "educators and public librarians" really show a lot of porn.
This is only half true with the shitty-Tumblr-tier picture books, the occasional novel that has a sex scene in it, and teachers being in such a rush to get to proselytizing the virtues of gay sex that they forget the overwhelming majority of second grade boys aren't generally in much of a hurry to try this for reasons that are obvious to anyone who remembers second grade (many, I believe, forget on purpose).
There really isn't a positive vision of dealing with the facts on the ground here; porn is a tool like anything else and it's not going back in the box, so you either evolve a strategy to deal with it or you lose. (Maybe instead of complaining constantly about "but for some reason men want to choke or facial their girlfriends the first time" you develop some messaging to point out that sex is give/take like everything else so that young adults are prepared to have better sex and don't have to pile on so many stakes they put off trying to engage with the opposite sex in a romantic fashion long enough that they become content never having tried? Of course, you also have to not hate the concept of young adults having sex to do that, and you can't be a traditionalist or progressive without hating young adults and sex [both will claim "protection of women and children" as an excuse to hate sex- traditionalists hate it when a young men has sex with a woman they feel should have been theirs, progressives hate it when a young women has sex with a man they feel should have been theirs] so it's definitely too much to ask of them.)
Furry fandom is benign.
But it is fundamentally a sex (or sex-adjacent) thing, like crossdressing (and its more permanent cousin, transgenderism) is. This is why there is sex stuff for the convention-goers to know of. And sure, things can be both benign and sexual, but that depends on your surroundings (Japan and its relationship with loli works the same way).
but humans are obsessed with sex
And if you accept the above, you run straight into the landmine of "kids shouldn't have a sexual bone in their body until the Approved Age", so discussing the fact that they're related in the open is just giving ammunition to your enemies (and now you know why some countries don't have a truth defense against libel).
Keeping them out of the fandom provides zero protection.
On the contrary, this provides a lot of protection for the fandom (it's not about protecting kids). Which, given that the fandom mostly consists of the male gender [the demand for sex crimes from this demographic far exceeds its supply], is something that it requires (as opposed to the transgenderism fandom, a gender who by contrast has the social license to not only freely and openly support, but actively force, child participation).
Kids don't like coffee.
Yeah, but they're right to dislike it (that's why everyone puts cream and sugar in it). It's actually kind of strange that energy drinks (that are just... better coffee/tea) took so long to appear on the mass-market, since aside from maybe Jolt they were very much a creature of the mid to late 2000s. Which is unfortunate, since there were far more drink companies and varieties to choose from whereas now it's all just Monster.
at least if we are alive to what is happening inside of us and don't just internalise a false ideal
The thing about beauty is that creating it requires serving others (if not created, simply possessing/being something other people want). Thus, those who think they know best cannot create beauty; that is why the master morality modes generally create ugly things (brutalism, Christian Rock, Steven Universe, etc.). It's just cognitive differences: servants specialize in creating the beauty, leaders specialize in refining it. These modes of cognition aren't equally represented across/between genders.
Living in this visually unprecedented world is constantly updating our sense of what is visually pleasing, whether we like it or not, and we can constantly learn from this experience.
Well, that and our art is more beautiful (our tools to make it are way better, we can spend more time on it due to post-scarcity, and unlike Medieval artists we have photos and videos as reference material), so much so that it's just background noise. Scream just doesn't really fit on a body pillow the way anime girls with... similar expressions do and I'd actually rather look at the latter than the former. Yeah, something something superstimulus, but all beauty inherently exploits that.
It's not about solving or changing modern society so much as it's about keeping things in place and expanding the purvue of some of its most powerful factions.
In other words, progressivism is a highly right wing (conservative) movement. The meta-level of statements like DR3 is that the correct model for progressives is the one they claim owns the world, and given their attitudes towards things like development of resources and blocking any meaningful reform of any kind that doesn't come from their own tribe (as in, things conservatives do to hold onto their privilege past its expiration date), well.
The dominant left wing (progressive) movement today is what's commonly called "the alt-right". The leftist goal in the 1900s was equalizing the playing field between men and women because women are objectively the more oppressed/discriminated against gender in an industrial economy. The leftist goal in the 2000s is doing the same thing, as men are objectively the more oppressed/discriminated against gender in a service economy.
As for why the woke don't realize it... difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it, and that describes half the nation for various reasons. As for why the alt-right don't realize it... well, that's mostly to do with co-ordination and the fact their enemy [falsely] describes themselves as being on the side of progress (which is effective at confusing the moderates/liberals/the people who are doing most of the work).
"The competency crisis" is calling out a problem created by conservative privilege. It is a leftist meme.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
Do you have any improvements to the metric system you can think of?
Well, its base unit of measurement is fucking stupid. There's a very good reason that every pre-SI system of measurement, including the Chinese one (which was metric before the imposition of SI), has its two dominant units of length at 30cm (1 foot) and 3cm (~1 inch)- because it's meant to be human-scale.
Going off of something not relevant to the way most humans use measurement, like the size of the Earth, is a deficiency.
Nobody copies the French, and the French copy nobody- because the things they come up are weird and kind of batshit. Let them impose their standards at gunpoint (which is ultimately how SI spread across the Continent) and you're going to have a bad time- at least decimal time was too weird even for them.
The scientific evidence, from what I’ve read, seems to say that both sexuality and gender identity are influenced by the exposure to prenatal androgens and other hormonal factors.
Indeed. The anthropological evidence appears to tell a different story, though.
Gay men and trans women
There are 3 "genders": women, tops (as in 'dominant partner': men attempting to perform their standard sociobiological role 'properly'), and bottoms (as in 'submissive partner': all boys, and men not attempting to perform their standard sociobiological role 'properly'). One can transition between the latter two (and some men may find a niche that allows them to be successful despite not operating as a man should- but it's still an edge case for which the conditions that enable its prosperity -> visibility don't arise outside of highly dense urban areas), but never between the latter two and the first, because that is not how human bodies work.
This is why men who fuck boys in societies where that's a thing don't identify as "gay" (and why medical systems say "men who have sex with men" and not "gay"). The gender role of men is, after Maslow's Hierarchy has been mastered, to pursue whatever/whoever catches their fancy and so long as they're doing that we (provided your personal risk tolerance for disease is high enough and your culture lacks certain memes; Abramic religion being the most famous) usually don't care all that much about what that is. And while it's still somewhat of a duty to acquire a wife and maybe some kids of one's own too, dom men fucking sub men (outside of the confines of the financial relationship of marriage, or if the man is powerful enough that he doesn't have to worry about that) is not a property crime the same way fucking a virgin woman is, so it's more a curiosity than anything else.
Of course, this equilibrium can be disrupted by things like human ingenuity inherently creating conditions for an ever-shrinking top/male gender role while advancing the one for women (and the few bottom/males, but that's more a coincidence). But I can't see how putting the interests of a gender whose incentive structure is completely different on par with the gender that's still wired to work for a living would in any way change how society understands gender dynamics. If women are sufficiently incentivized to see themselves in the top/bottom structure as men do, there will be a lot more women in the bottom category, and they might completely destroy this compact in favor of... something else.
They also would, understandably, treat boys and bottom/men as women rather than their own distinct thing, but in fairness their parents didn't fully understand it either due to a meme or because they lived through the transition and didn't know what to make of it, so...
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
Well, no surviving ones, at any rate; the most famous one was the mass of women cross-dressing in the '60s and '70s. Of course, that movement was so overwhelmingly successful that it's just the room temperature now.
There's also tomboyism, though that's not really an organized subculture so much as an emergent phenomenon.
The main way to tell whether a particular crossdresser is doing it for fetish/sexualized reasons or not is to look at how well they fit into the surrounding environment. If they're in formal wear when everyone else is casual (which covers both your average drag queen and Sam Brinton) it's 100% fetish/sexual, but if it's not then it's reasonable to assume they have other goals (where, sexual or not, they're unlikely to try and make it your problem).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
I was hoping for more of that Marxist feminism source material directly. Other than that, I think that's the most incoherent thing I've read in a long time.
and nobody seems interested in making it stop working
Your standard excuses; the only people who understand sexuality clearly enough to correctly condemn it are too tired/busy, and that leaves the rest of the traditionalists who have zero desire [or ability] to actually understand the problem (per the "obviously this is all male pedophiles" comment around here somewhere) and therefore cannot solve it effectively. It's just low on our list of priorities these days, just like everything else.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
All of the nastiness of American progressivism, none of the checks and balances that keep it mostly talk.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6mo ago
he gives no outward impression of being depressed at least as far as I can see
Well, let's put it this way.
Most kinds of meal and by extension every ingredient has some kind of unpleasant taste to it. Sometimes, I plan meals based on what unpleasant taste I'm OK with submitting to on that particular night, and if the only things I have in my fridge are or add up to that, I go out for a burger or tendies instead if I have the opportunity to do so. (This can also happen with scents, and maybe a more extreme pickiness is created when the two are combined- though scents usually prompt initial aversion.)
Some of these ingredients have worse tastes than others, or those tastes are stronger in some people (insert "kids hate brussel sprouts" meme here, which I've always found pretty weird- though a good chunk of this is just parents being shit at cooking and just forgetting about certain things because they haven't eaten anything truly new in 20 years: he's not resisting the food to be difficult, he's resisting the food because it smells terrible right when you open the box and you forgot that matters).
I believe most people experience this with intentionally bad-tasting things- beer's the best example, because they're all bitter and awful as an inherent property of being beer. But it's the kind of unpleasantness, or the unpleasantness you are actively tolerating for other reasons, that makes it a viable beverage. Coffee is the same way, to a point- the reason people put cream and sugar in it is because they aren't actually in it for the coffee taste, they're doing it for other reasons. It's a coffee-flavored warm milkshake at that point, and I like milkshakes because they're milkshakes, not because they're coffee-flavored. (Most specialty coffee is absurd to me for this reason: because a lot of it is made to express the coffee flavor, and that flavor is bad- otherwise you wouldn't have to add sugar and cream and chocolate to it- so why would I want to spend 5 dollars on that when I can just get the cheap drip coffee and season it to the coffee-flavored-warm-milkshake taste that I actually wanted in the first place?)
The exception to those things are so-called "hyper palatable" foods. Your burgers, your tendies, your toaster pastries. There are very few distinct or recognizable ingredients in them, and so the possible space of undesirable tastes and textures is minimized (and in the case of processed foods this is either intentional or an emergent property in their development)- except perhaps for the store-bought frozen ones. Those are all turbo-garbage and they aren't even any cheaper; I don't know why anyone buys those outside of something their kid can prepare on their own when required. The frozen pizzas are like that too.
Take Doritos, for instance: it's a corn chip with good-tasting stuff on it. Or a McDonald's cheeseburger: it's [homogenized] beef, a slice of [homogenized] cheese, mustard and ketchup (both highly consistent mass produced substances), and maybe a bit of pickle (whose method of preparation is consistent and results in a taste that dominates what the cucumber originally may have tasted like). Pizza does that, tendies do that (bonus points for being a sauce-delivery mechanism; also, the McDonald's Szechuan sauce actually was as good as the meme suggested), toaster pastries do that, PB&J does that (though this kind of sandwich is actually really unpleasant to eat).
Contrast that with, say, a fancier curry (not the Glico stuff): you have all the ingredients in the sauce (including the fish sauce, ugh), the peppers, tomatoes, potatoes, etc. You get a larger cross-section over which taste can go wrong (and... if you don't put those things in, it's just not curry) and it stinks up your kitchen something fierce because that's just what garum-based cuisine does (actually, lots of stuff does this- roast beef in particular is fucking awful for this; I can't begin to count the number of times I'd get home from school and smell that in the oven, but because it would take time between the 'oven's on, something's cooking' signal and the 'this is roast beef, not cookies' signal it'd be a cocktease 100% of the time).
I suspect this is heritable; my folks cook the absolute shit out of everything they make (everything's gotta be well done) and don't appear to actively enjoy eating what they make, but what they do make other than that are very simple 3-ingredient casseroles (or meatballs, or what they call chili) that take the form of what I described above. Of course, that's also very vulnerable to low-quality ingredients or the mix being wrong, and if one of the ingredients is changed then you literally can't make it any more.
On the rare occasions I cook, I also depend 100% on recipes. I can't "season to taste" when I don't know what it's even supposed to taste like, or if I do that, one of the ingredients on its own tastes bad anyway/once you can taste it, it's too late to season it; it doesn't help that I'm constitutionally incapable of chopping things in a way that doesn't mash them to bits (nobody else has a problem with this).
So if you're in control of what you eat, and you can spend 10 bucks on one of those store-bought BBQ chickens or get tendies instead, I'll take the tendies every single fucking time, because those chickens tend to be dry, under-seasoned, slimy, and you have to take them apart to eat them- why the absolute fuck would I take the effort to do that, or expect anyone else to, when the tendies are strictly superior 100% of the time if I'm in the mood for chicken?
Maybe it's learned helplessness; maybe if I did meal prep for the same meal 10 times and recorded exactly what I did, I could gradient descent my way into the tastiest possible version of a dish 100% of the time (which I think is what those meals-in-a-box promise, but they don't advertise that fact- the reason I don't want to cook is because it takes a half hour to chop everything and the produce I'd have to buy is always sub-par at best, which those services do not solve). But I don't think that's worth the cost or effort because that would take me literally all day and I can just go out for a fucking burger instead- maybe when I can no longer do that I'll consider it, or I'll be making food for my [hopefully future] wife and I can at least customize or appreciate it for that reason instead.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8mo ago
and there still remains a primordial element that people recoil in horror from
All horror about sexuality emerges from the initial biological condition [that, if you never have sex, you're objectively worthless] combined with the Just World Hypothesis (or as you phrased it, the notion that there's a "proper amount" of suffering required for sexual fulfillment).
The incest taboo is naturally derived from this: the problem is that a man is getting more sex than he deserves through nepotism. This is also the argument against [heterosexual] child sexual interaction; for M/f, it's "he's taking advantage of a female unable or unwilling to price sex correctly" (both of which are theft- the former from the girl herself, the latter from all women), for F/m, it's "she's giving the only asset she actually has for free/in advance to someone who hasn't/might never earn it". (And m/f is either one or the other on a case-by-case basis.)
This is also why Abramic religion "needs" to set a taboo for male homosexuality, because [despite what its followers will claim] that's not a taboo that comes from biology (including M/m)- because if it's happening, the dom/top earned it. Sure, it's not going to result in babies, just pleasure/sophisticated masturbation, which is why the Catholic church in particular falls back on "natural law" explanations of why it's bad, but it is natural that the dominant partner in the relationship just gets to do this by definition. Besides, the women any man of worth has acquired (as property) sometimes aren't willing or able to submit to sex at any particular time.
I don't think that fapping to porn is some great revolutionary transgressive act or something
But that's inconsistent with the fact that, given the above, you're "cheating" the system- you're getting a facsimile of what you are supposed to dedicate every fiber of your being to getting, and sometimes, you're getting a superior product, for free, to someone else who had to put in a great deal of effort only to score a woman so undesirable she couldn't even give herself away.
And yeah, I'd be real pissed off about people being better than me too in an environment where sex is a scarce resource- horrified, perhaps. This goes double for prostitution, where sex is given an explicit price; men do not want to know how much existential fulfillment costs because their entire instinctual sense of self-worth is built on being able to afford better (and women do the same thing, as their entire instinctual sense of self-worth is built on how high a price they can charge).
The dense network of strictures, rituals, and emotional associations that surround sexuality cannot be reduced to purely rational or utilitarian concerns about its possible harms or effects.
Sure it can; I just did it. This is identical to the "irreducible complexity" claim Intelligent Design creationists use- whereas I posit the reason most people do this is because it's been true as a property of all life so long as to simply be instinct (combined with the fact that we're the only rationalizing animal).
Some people are able to identify when their instincts are operating and have open enough personalities to point them out, but it's unreasonable to expect everyone to, much less intentionally reject them, much less back up that decision to reject them. People that do this anyway are "abnormal".
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
It flows out of getting to know somebody.
Well, yeah. You pick the most attractive somebody you can find, go on a couple dates, fuck, get tired of their shit/discover they actually weren't that great in the first place/discover someone even better, and move on. Rinse, repeat.
Some of us just appear to have a much tighter loop for that for whatever reason, operating in days or weeks rather than months or years. (And to be fair, I don't necessarily blame them; some people just don't have the personality traits to even entertain the possibility of a short-term relationship.)
As an aside, she (like most people TBF) seems pretty oblivious to evolutionary psychology, and what sex and virginity meant to illiterate goat herders with no access to antibiotics or pregnancy tests or STD tests [edit: or economic niches for women outside of
dowryprostitution, which is how marriage worked back then] and how that shaped sexual strategies and the evolution of our emotions and culture.
Which creates problems when the people who do understand it (and can put that understanding into practice) feel the need to redesign social systems for those who can't. I think the people that can internalize this might as well be a different gender (for better or worse), and that problems of the type common to gay-X-married-to-straight-Y occur when only one party is like that.
Were no men trying for long term relationships with her?
She's straight. As such, she wants to be the only woman in the relationship; dealing with womanlier men is not what she wants. (Of course, the cost of that is dealing with a straight man, and straight men are making the calculation that they can do better than her.)
I think the core female complaint is that there aren't enough good men to go around.
The men say this too.
As the alternatives to (and opportunity costs of) selecting a bad partner pile up every time some new media comes out, the bar for who is marriageable in the first place rises, which means a man or woman who had marginal personality/attractiveness in 1960 is probably not getting out of that pool in 2024 without substantial mitigating factors (the "666" dating app meme is a symptom of this).
I think gender dynamics predict women will be more resentful of this than men specifically because it is the sociobiological role of women to be wanted. I think the "it's your duty to serve me and my interests" attitude from women comes from the same place it does from similar-quality men; incels say "state-mandated GF", femcels say "all regretted sex is rape", and they both seem to want to problematize anything that could possibly be sexually arousing to anyone (hence the DignifAI thing for incels, and 72 genders/drag queen story hour for femcels).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
Her level of tactical experience doing law enforcement operations doesn’t particularly effect her ability at grappling.
But it does make the non-stop screaming just as irritating as it was in her role in Gravity (bonus points for accomplishing nothing without a man present in that movie, too).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
I do not think a 14 year-old is mature enough and understands the social consequences to consent to sexual activity with an adult, simply because of their inexperience.
And I don't think black people are mature enough and understand the social consequences to consent to sexual activity with a white person (or other black people), especially because they commit a lot more sexual crime than the average white person (and crime in general, suggesting a lack of impulse control, understanding of social consequences, and general maturity), and have lower IQs than the average teenager. Allowing them to experience such a powerful stimulus like sex, or have someone else use them to access such, is therefore bad for them.
If we're going to start drawing lines on "social consequences" and "maturity" you ultimately run into the problem where there are objectively better lines to draw on than mere age- so what's different here other than "society now believes it's more proper to discriminate based on age rather than race when it comes to what we think they're capable of [consenting to]"?
(Of course, I'm sure our modern phrenology asserting the subhumanity of the under-25 set is totally correct this time.)
Does anyone know gay men who don't want to have sex with men?
I think they're typically referred to as "bottoms".
And... I really don't think it's all bottoms, but from a mechanical standpoint the preparation and cleanup involve dealing with a lot less shit in places shit isn't supposed to be. It's fine for shit to remain in one's ass and it's even designed to expel shit in liquid form (thus can handle other substances reasonably well); said shit is also naturally found around one's ass after shitting and the other fluid typical to sex is more amenable to cleanup. This also applies to straight sex.
Contrast tops; you're going to get shit and maybe blood on and in your dick if you just stick it in without prep on either side, and it's still going to be nasty even if you're wearing that dinky piece of latex (scent still gets through gloves and you're still probably going to get shit on you when you go to take it off regardless of how careful you are). So I really wouldn't blame them for either not wanting to do that, or (and the impression I get from a few other openly-gay posters here) it just takes them a long time to work up to doing it, which, as with straight relationships in general, is probably partially why the average top is a lot older than the average bottom.
(That last dynamic is also probably why you see a lot more "predation"- age gaps just make the tricks work better, and it's not like gay sex has much of a barrier to entry and is likely not, in more of a social vacuum or for higher decouplers- both things men tend to be- as traumatizing or formative as women claim casual sexual activity is. Which is kind of a steelman for double standards and certain kinds of gay culture, but I digress.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
nor why anyone would describe him as a "loser."
"Once upon a time, I was discriminated against. I now practice that discrimination against others and am proud to be doing so."
Rejoicing in intentionally being part of the problem rather than part of the solution leads me to believe that person is a substandard human being. It's not much more complex than that.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
but anyone who wants one can certainly have a black scary semiauto .223 of some stripe.
Sure... if they're willing to wait an entire year for the license that takes a weekend, 400 bucks, and (for Restricted) knowing 2 people who'll vouch for you to obtain.
And by and large, this system works. It will still get you killed if you need a gun right now (the archetypical example of this is a stalker who isn't obeying their restraining order; angry exes kill families quite a lot and cops can't be everywhere), but even that isn't a design problem and has more to do with its implementation.
This is the "compromise" position, and if approached in good faith it works exceptionally well specifically because it keeps guns out of the hands of the poor, the stupid, and the friendless- all traits associated with criminality (European citizens are fine with this approach; the US' system of wokeness considering everyone trustworthy until proven otherwise is specifically a reaction to this!). True, existing socially-vetted owners can still become insane later, but the compromise is specifically "we prove ourselves to you, and in return you treat the people who do get through with a 'forgone conclusion, they would have just used a truck or fire instead' attitude (and as such don't launch a bunch of legislation to punish everyone else)", and by and large that works. Most European countries have more liberal gun laws than blue US states (and British Commonwealth states) do as a result- and the most liberal ones were occupied by the Soviets or on their border.
This position can't be reached in the US (and to a significant degree, the government couldn't enforce it even if they wanted to- everyone owns property and there's just too much ground to cover to stop illicit manufacturing), so you end up with a bunch of patches on symptoms like "high capacity mags" and "assault weapons" even though a single-shot shotgun and a .22 is all you need to perpetrate a mass shooting (which is how it happens in the UK). They then proceed to export this solution around the world; which is why the populations of countries closest to the American orbit (Aus, UK, NZ, CA) had licensing schemes and population tolerance thereof that were subsequently completely destroyed (the compromise that was licensing can no longer exist because the population is now too Americanized to tolerate it). For example, NZ was the freest former English colony in terms of gun law, but the population's ability to compromise had been hollowed out by exposure to American culture war until an Australian national came along and shattered it. Canada is more complicated, because it's close enough to the US that the concept of high-trust high-freedom leaks through more, but also lacks the political safeguards to keep that part of the nation safe from its largest cities that the US does... so the rest of the country (culturally closer to the red part of the US) suffers.
As much as I might wish it wasn't true, iOS and the phones that run it are faster, better(1), and cheaper than the equivalent Android models and that's just the way it has been for the last 10 years. The only place Android phones meaningfully compete are on gimmicks (the folding or "gaming" phones that cost 1000+ dollars, and high refresh rate or wraparound screens) and the bottom-of-the-barrel sub-200-dollar phones, and I think the latter market segment does a lot to tarnish the halo effect the former products would otherwise enjoy. Same effect applies to laptops, which is part of why the affluent buy Macbooks rather than even more expensive Windows laptops.
And it's not really smoke and mirrors from a quality of materials (being solid aluminum slabs rather than plastic helps with this even though it means you need a machine shop to change the battery, and if you're keeping it for its full lifespan you will need to do this once) or performance standpoint either- that whole "we're going to make our own CPUs that are 4 years ahead of anything Qualcomm/Samsung are capable of" thing really paid off; so did the "we'll put an iPhone 13 in the shell of an iPhone 8, support it for 7 years, and sell it for Nexus/low-end Pixel money" thing. Unless you need some niche benefit or aren't well-off enough to take advantage of Boots Theory (and for 200 dollars there's always clearouts on the last-model SE anyway which still outperforms and will outlive any other device at that pricepoint because of that long support tail) there's really no reason to go with Android(2).
Oh yeah, and Apple Watches only work with iPhones so if you want one of those, well...
(1) Yes, you can't install system-wide adblock or root iPhones to keep them on software life support like you can with Android, and NewPipe doesn't exist for iOS which is a killer app in itself, but most people aren't technical enough to take advantage of that and it also subtly compromises the reliability of the phone as the versions get newer. It's also a massive pain in the ass to do it, too, since you have to erase all your software and data to flash a new ROM and it's generally more difficult and convoluted than installing Linux on a normal computer is.
(2) I understand the precedent that buying a locked-down appliance creates for computing devices from both a culture war (I'm pretty sure Gab still doesn't have an app) and actual war (though all phones are already pwned all the time because of the baseband processor- it's like Intel ME but a lot worse) standpoint, but at the end of the day (and I think a lot of custom Android ROM makers have realized this) phones are just VT-100s that go in your pocket and people only have so much time to become experts on their main connection to the outside world. Which, not coincidentally, is something a "stock" iPhone monoculture helps with; when you ask your friend how to do something they don't need to worry about whether it's stock Android, Samsung's S-Hit, or whatever other stupid Bonzi Buddy shell replacement the company you bought the phone from has forced upon you.
More options
Context Copy link