ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
No bio...
User ID: 822
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
Personal corporatehood
11mo ago
English's indefinite articles are not gendered
The fact that there are two of them serves the same linguistic purpose.
The a/an distinction is exactly like the le/la or un/une distinction in that it's fundamentally a smoothing tool to make the language sound correct when spoken, and is something you just end up getting a feel for after a while because you know by the character of the language which category you're in. (And "gender" is... kind of an ideal way to describe that.)
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
18d ago
That's what the internet's for.
Yes, there are specific points around the 'ring' that are more sensitive than others.
No, it's not a surprise that the remnants of the cover will retain some of the cover's effects when that cover is amputated since that's where the nerves would normally pass through.
Honestly, cutting that piece off is as stupid as the routine tonsillectomies were, for the same reasons (apathy, anger). Penises are supposed to have that ferrule installed for the same sorts of reasons they're on fiber optic cables (so that the thing covered by that ferrule remains as sensitive [to light] as possible). Of course, since this ferrule is biological in nature, it requires maintenance (and can malfunction) for reasons and in ways similar to the female end of quick-disconnect air hoses.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
or making their husband's life hell until he files for one.
I don't think this works as well as the women think it does; men have memes about this (ball and chain) that aren't meaningfully replicated across the gender boundary. Head-crushing (by men) and heel-striking (by women) behavior is the baseline for Biblical gender relations within the context of a marriage, after all.
Any medical professional/social worker who worked at them or still does that took any sort of oath to "do no harm" knowingly and deliberately failed that promise and is a disgrace.
Why? If we Truly Believe that teenagers are still developmentally children, then if this sort of approach works on smaller children it's only natural to assume it'll work exactly the same on larger children too.
As such, these efforts are "doing the least amount of harm" by our definition of "harm", since we depend on that particular bifurcation of human/subhuman for other reasons and won't let it go even though there's evidence (and hundreds of thousands of years of doing it some other way) that suggests it's wrong: this definition cannot fail, it can only be failed. (Kind of like the modern Western understanding of homosexuality, for that matter.)
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
6mo ago
a better world for everyone except those with unearned privileges. They certainly don't believe they're fighting for a world where 9,999 people out of 10k are going to be worse off.
This is a contradiction in terms. They know those people are going to be worse off; they're OK with that as they believe those people deserve it ("unearned privileges" has taken literally every form under the sun already).
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
Personal corporatehood
16d ago
but not really in the US, I think
"Miata is always the answer" is a meme for a reason.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
19d ago
or Elric of Melniboné
I'm more familiar with Elric of Amestris; he is a bit more well-rounded when it comes to the topic of forbidden knowledge. While his actions do cause a great deal of suffering to himself and others, he isn't actually evil.
The difference is that most of his actions were in (or eventually orient themselves towards) the cause of serving others and not just serving himself; the person most affected by his actions in the first episode knew there were risks involved (though, inherently, not necessarily which ones).
Which is, ultimately, the difference between "we're pushing the boundaries with an objective goal in mind even though we know there are risks involved" and "that you felt like a girl one day is good enough for me so here's the pills, this'll really shock the squares/your parents/the outgroup, I swear I'm prescribing sterilization surgeries because it's helping the patient and not because I'm getting off on the idea of young people being castrated/that all men should be like this, etc.".
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1mo ago
Obligatory "iPhone SE", but that might be too expensive for what you're looking to do, the screen might be too low-res, I wouldn't buy one until the 4th gen comes out, and you're giving up NewPipe + proper Firefox with uBlock + being able to run whatever you want by going with iOS.
You do get a lot for the money, though; it's the third-fastest phone available (leaps and bounds better than everything else; the 2nd gen is merely on par with those phones- Qualcomm's main business is very expensive modems with CPUs that are already 4 years out of date attached to them) and is as simple as you want it to be, being that it's an iPhone 13 packed into an iPhone 8, with everything that implies (including parts availability).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2mo ago
But you could easily and trivially accuse people for the expansion of black rights to only be in it for the miscegenation.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2mo ago
Arguing that one ought to be friends with people of a different race/sex/gender/etc. is the progressive position.
It's also the traditionalist position, but with slightly different answers to the "ought" part of the equation.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
a lot
You'll have to excuse me for not participating in that first thread directly (which is why I found it weird you're throwing seemingly-unrelated grenades here); I've only had read-only time these days, and these comments take a lot to write.
appropriating the very aspects of my sex (my penis and the sperm it emits) I despise the most while rejecting the rest, all to serve their selfish desires.
Yeah, that's what women tell me when I whip out the Fleshlight and start using it while thinking about them; I'm appropriating what beauty they have while rejecting the notion I owe them respect for their wishes and desires. I'm not convinced that's all that different- but maybe that's just because I can't just produce a kid by sticking a donated, fertilized egg up my ass and waiting nine months.
Sure, growing a kid inside yourself absolutely is an intensely sexual thing (even ignoring that it's just an outright fetish for some people), but I'm not as convinced it's the main attraction for lesbians looking for anonymous donations especially because it kind of sucks after a certain point. Maybe there just aren't enough lesbians on the face of the earth to have even one (IVF) Lesbian Octomom?
What's the difference between wanting to engage in a sexual act with a member of the opposite sex and being sexually attracted to them?
I dunno, I've done this a few times (not with the opposite sex though, sadly) with people I've absolutely not been sexually attracted to. Maybe it's just "not being sufficiently repulsed", "I actually don't have a strong enough attachment to my body to be actively grossed out by this if a friend asks me to do this", "you mentioned you were attracted to me and didn't seem to be doing so well lately, so sure, I'll share a bed for the night", or a combination of the above. Or maybe that's just what I tell myself so I can continue to feel pure enough to share a bed with my dakimakura.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
a Hi-Point or a Tec-9
My point is that the two are not quite the same class of weapon- I think the criminal stock of the latter ramping up may have added a confounding increase at the time it was prevalent, so a decrease after that (when the common weapons for criminals downgraded to Hi-Points instead- if you consider that a downgrade I guess, heh) might not be as completely due to modern medicine.
Nah, the spiciest thing from me you're likely to get is the claim that 1 Corinthians 8 is... probably not only referring to idol food.
But that's slow-pitch as far as interpretations go, I'm pretty sure everyone already knows that anyway (even if only to abuse it because you want to completely disregard what the previous chapter says... and then create a bunch of fallout for being completely un-self-aware about what doing it does and/or creating a crisis of faith for yourself due to your inability to back up your actions), and it's... well, not unusual, but somewhat remarkable that it's a conclusion that falls out of the significantly more general "should social systems that are designed for the average person still let you flip the safety off, and if you do that, when should you do that, how should you talk/how public should you be about the choices you're making, and why?" discussions that are half of what anyone around here talks about these days anyway.
Maybe I'll have to come up with something more esoteric when I misremember something else about scripture and gender later; too bad that whenever I'm thinking about this it's not for very nice reasons.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
Huh, must have conflated the two in memory. (It still seems to me to be the main failure mode of how both genders handle being nasty in relationships, though.)
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
Do they not recall being a teenager? Were they actually just weird, broken-brained teenagers that didn't act the way the rest of us did?
Evidently yes, but they might also be lying or otherwise acting in bad faith.
You can typically and trivially differentiate the people who don't or won't remember from the people who do/will because the people who won't remember typically use some form of the phrase "raging melanin hormones" as an excuse.
I already noted that schools do, and obviously should, forbid teachers from proselytizing on controversial issues.
No, they only forbid the topics more associated with Red tribe. The controversial Blue issues are a different story entirely.
If the system was working fairly, the Progress flag and the Christian cross would be equally acceptable on public display (that is the flip side but still the traditional definition of "protected characteristic"- that it is unacceptable for public employees, and the government in general, to promote one over the other). That we see a proliferation of one but not the other is an indication that the system is not working fairly.
The progressive movement adopting the term is merely the inevitable progression to it too losing its distinction.
Since when have Progressives ever been about "losing its distinction" across sex groups? Really, the fact they even feel the need to launder the term actually says quite a bit; they didn't need to do that for any other sexual fargroup, but they aren't just going full speed ahead with the language they already have. I think that says a great deal about their confidence/seriousness about the matter.
If the Progressives succeed in making this term lose its distinction it'll only be an incidental qualifier for their standing policies of "if you pass a paper bag test you are permitted to rape children" and "[fargroup] sex is good -> children can be [fargroup]-> [fargroup] sex involving children is good", thus the term "MAP" is designed to solidify gains in this area by adding yet another thing over which to cry discrimination should one want to criticize those policies.
asserting that such confusion does not exist with the term pedophile, that such nuance is unnecessary
"Abuse of unearned and generally-inescapable social authority to (implicitly, explicitly, or by force) demand normally-unwanted sexual activity from people that don't otherwise want to give it" is common to both terms- the first by popular definition, the second from the fact it's explicitly designed to promote the ability of favored groups to do this (or "comes from academia" for short).
Neither are particularly prosocial positions.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
and that is the end of it
If by "it" you mean "mostly peaceful transition of power from the bureaucrats to the kulaks", I agree- it stops being "mostly peaceful".
Per modern attitudes about violence, the side that shoots first is illegitimate. That's something the Left has taken advantage of, but it by no means has a monopoly over it; should the Right start winning peacefully and the Left reply with violence their moral legitimacy (which is the only power they actually have) evaporates.
An assassination is not in the Left's interests; it'd justify turning a soft coup like that into a much harder one.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
There's nothing in either the tradcon nor the progressive nor the liberal worldview that has any inherent problem with child sex as a concept.
On one end, you have... well, everything before the early 20th century, where the age of consent was somewhere in the single digits (if it even existed at all). This was necessary, because if a family fell on hard times and had some girls, that is what they would be encouraged to do: get married to someone who could actually afford to feed them (no welfare state and the church-run orphanage is a week's ride). Then you have the religious angle, where Christianity has its barely-teenaged Mary expecting a child (something normal enough in those days, though certainly an edge case in more than one way), Mohammed's wife of some single digit age, and the Mormons who, if you go deep enough into Utah or Montana, get busted for doing this every so often. Even as late as the '80s, "marrying one's rapist" was acceptable enough.
Thus, empirically, this concept is compatible with the tradcons.
On the other end, you have the progressives, where the only sex they care about preventing is that which occurs between men and women. Note that all the high-profile examples of "sexualized" children (Desmond, Jazz Jennings) are biologically male, the lack of literature portraying heterosexual (it is rare they involve women in any way, really) child/adult pairings, protecting (and in some early cases, actively facilitating) rapists so long as they're not straight, and so on.
Thus, empirically, this concept is compatible with the progressives.
And then you have the liberals, who are the entire reason we're even having this conversation in the first place and are the first to brag about having had sex-while-child (there was one in this thread already, most of the loose '70s were spent promoting this, and provided you're of a sexuality compatible with the progressive memeplex you're still generally allowed to say "had sex as teenager, 10/10" and have the news media nod along).
So, yeah. Economics and social developments downstream of that enable this taboo (itself a logical extension of the "kids aren't allowed to do literally anything and must be segregated and kept indoors 24/7, because otherwise they'd get seduced by the pedos and end up buried in the woods" trend of the '80s), but beyond that there's as much factual backing for it as there was for taboos like miscegenation and gay sex.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
When top level comments that were nothing but moralizing started showing up, I knew it was too late.
And while I'm sure the lurkers appreciate takes that aren't merely adding to the "bog-standard 90s South Christian morality fights a woke argument made by someone who doesn't quite understand the where or why woke even got that argument in the first place" (if one takes updoots as evidence of engagement, which is the only feedback I ever seem to get when I do this), even that might as well be ChatGPT-rephrased or just a bog-standard repost after a while since my arguments aren't getting sharper.
Of course, my revealed preference is clearly that I'd rather masturbate do short-form point-scoring on the Internet than spend more time doing something about it, so...
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
Being "Woke" is seeing the world as that series of power imbalances, and "Identity Politics" is being aware of one's own membership in one or more disempowered groups.
It's also why "Woke" are terrified of what they call the alt-right: because the alt-right work exactly the same way, but have an alternative (and possibly more correct) view of who is more disempowered. Which, ironically, makes the Woke a conservative [privilege-safeguarding] movement and the alt-right a progressive [privilege-shuffling] one.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
Hm, does this also apply when both parties are dead drunk, or did they then rape each other?
Considering that it's possible to get charged for rape while still being below the age of consent, the latter, but therein lies the problem.
If a child cannot understand consent [be it factual or just legal fiction], then we inherently owe them immunity for problems that stem from that assumed lack of understanding. But we don't do that (so we get stuff like 10 year olds being on the hook for child support, 17 year olds being thrown in jail for child pornography of themselves, and the ever-popular "charged as an adult" that never extends in the other direction), QED these laws aren't about justice.
Or to put it another way, while we like to pretend there's a good deal of "noblesse oblige" in our age of consent policies, in practice there's next to zero "noblesse" and pointing that out leads to nothing but white-hot rage. Probably because that pattern matches to "authority is being arbitrary for self-serving, non-objective reasons", which crashes right into "that which can be destroyed by the truth, should be", and should you at least suspect that truth to be "[good] sex is not actually a big deal"...
Thus, 'consent' as blackwhite, and why it needs to be defended in a way that goes far beyond a simple disgust reaction. Interestingly, this defense doesn't map evenly across the standard political triangle: tradcons [traditionally] don't care that much about child sex as long as it remained between husband and wife/wives, progressives [traditionally] don't care that much about child sex as long as it isn't between husband and wife (later, man and woman more generally), and (classical) liberals are defined by not caring at all anyway- thus it has to be coming from somewhere else.
We torture children to death every day as a consequence of how we've decided to order our society; suicide is among the top killers of the under-12 (and under-18) population in all Western nations (and Eastern ones, too). Sure, there's a baseline rate of suicide, but given it gets worse around certain times of the year corresponding to things like exams I'm far from convinced it's all natural.
It turns out it's very economically productive to treat them the way we do, and should we create conditions sufficiently bad that they kill themselves to escape we have, effectively, tortured them to death for financial gain. Thus the amount of money for which we would torture children to death might be relatively high, but is clearly not infinite.
More options
Context Copy link