ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
Their perspective hasn't been represented anywhere that I've found.
Yes, that's called "trans erasure". These women are performing opposite-, or rather trans-, gender roles- therefore, opinion discarded for doing work incompatible with one's gender.
Doubly so because they're gender traitors- again, traditionalist and progressive thought both agree that men owe women just for existing, so what are these women doing working, and why are they co-operating with men?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6mo ago
Noon-Is-Noon faction
Ironically, these are the same people who tend to be fans of SI (popularly "the metric system").
When I see those people do this I just laugh. Oh, so now you want to preserve a human-centric unit (like every system of measurement did before SI, metric or not) now that it affects you, rather than those backwards blue-collar people who do human-scale works with their hands? Humans don't divide evenly into fractions of the [wrong] size of the Earth; convenient for a state who wants to alienate its population, inconvenient for anyone who works for a living.
For me, the sun rises at 7 AM and sets at 4 PM. Which makes any job a salt-mine one, where you go down into work in the dark, and you go home from work in the dark. I'm more than happy to push sunset beyond the bounds of the workplace for at least some people because not seeing daylight for 4 months is unnatural, it sucks, and it kills because the evening commute is simply more dangerous when it's dark.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
According to Trump (or Tony Schwartz) one of the key skills of a sucessful negotiator is the ability to remain focused on what is rather than what ought to be, or what people say.
Sure, but now we have what appears [to me] to be tactically-inconsistent backpedaling. Enhanced high-tech manufacturing capabilities were supposed to [by who?] be the goal but now only token tariffs remain in the most important areas- and yes, the US has weaknesses in this area that are so significant that major Chinese manufacturing firms being told to suspend shipments of that equipment to the US is probably a bigger deal than most give it credit for. The Americans might indeed not be in any position to unilaterally establish independent industry at this time.
And while people do indeed have incredibly short memories- people barely remember 2020-2022 these days and that economic cataclysm dwarfs any economic disturbance tariffs have caused (oh, market fell 10%? I don't hear reparations for the 30% inflation over the last 4 years in addition to all the authoritarian shit so I don't fucking care!)- my main problem is that the negotiations are highly public, but the timeframe is not.
Let's take the whole 51st State thing as an example. I feel that to start trying to accomplish that goal... well, the economic tactics are sound ones, but there's only a concept of a plan here, nothing more substantive [as perceived by the general public].
When working on any project, the answer to most questions [from a stability/investment mindset] cannot actually be the Underpants Gnomes strategy; we pour foundations so that we can accomplish the next step of the process, but to pour those foundations the finished product needs to be coherent. Is it self-sufficiency, like petroleum? Is it simply reduced dependence with an eye towards self-sufficiency? The last major economic reformer in US history, FDR, had the fireside chat specifically for this reason- massive and immediate reforms benefit from someone explaining why. That should be Vance, since he's capable of doing this whereas Trump is... very not, but I'm not hearing anything.
And doubly so if we're going to see dealmaking consistently in public- whereas right now, we just have the disruption. And yes, this sort of thing absolutely is bad for American provinces like Canada and the EU; to the point that I see the offer of statehood as an early buy-out package for performers capable of being disruptive to larger goals before the layoffs begin... which, you'll recall, was exactly what was occurring around that time.
I've been seeing comments here about how trump is "erratic", "stupid", "illiterate", and a "retard", about how he's going to tank the economy and usher in a new age of Democratic party rule, about how his supporters are all deep-throating cock-slobberes who deserve to lose everything.
The only real criticism is "erratic", the other ones are all just incoherent screaming (same with "corrupt"; I have yet to hear how substantiated/used outside of a thought-terminating argument).
is to make it so that you can have as much sex with your wife as you want, consent be damned, legally
Which is why this was the historical norm in the first place.
Divorce meaning the man loses most of their assets is, quite literally, a pension plan for when a sex worker has had enough of the job. That this means they're grossly overpaid and encouraged to retire that way is a problem not unique to sex workers, but it does come from the same philosophical place as other pension systems do.
and think it must actually all be about women
That's because it is- more specifically, it's about power.
Abortion rights are, at the end of the day, a sex worker protection law. Babies are a service sex workers provide on contract, they're taking a lot of risk to provide one (especially true pre-medicine, but it's an obligation that normally consumes your entire adult life) and as such it makes sense that if that contract goes badly they should have an out. This includes things like "birth control doesn't work", "contract falls through" [husband leaves- progressives agree with traditionalists that a penis entering a vagina carries the same contractual obligations], "this service was stolen by physical force", and "this service offered violated other sex worker labor laws" [age of consent violations, casting couch, etc.].
This is why [the group of women who resent being sex workers, realize that they are sex workers, but have nothing to offer anyone beyond sex work] are most fiercely in favor of these, and related, laws. The average pro-abortionist is a #metoo and #fightfor25 proponent for this reason.
Traditionalists don't really have a problem with women being sex workers- rape could not be a property crime against fathers if it wasn't- but they strongly believe that a binding contract needs to be signed before sex work of this nature can occur as the primary form of worker protection. So, the fact that being 'forced' (in the presence of trivial alternatives) to carry to term when they have sex outside of that contract is good, proper, natural.
The thing they're missing is that the social infrastructure that once existed to punish this kind of contract violation has been destroyed (age of consent laws are the only compromise still standing, and is part of why traditionalists are very worried that progressives will erase them too). But they're also generally unwilling to build any new social infrastructure and just use what power they have to complain about this, just like progressives are- in fact, progressives would rather destroy traditionalist organizations that exist to support pregnant women in marginal cases than fix the problem; traditionalists do the same thing to conception-prevention organizations when they get the chance (and this should be a sufficient explanation as to why).
The personhood of a fetus, existing or not, really doesn't matter here for either group (traditionalists tend to more strongly believe that their property rights extend to their children; progressives are a lot more redistributionist about that, but they still believe it). Yes, it is convenient that it's alive for the pro-life side; but that's all it is- I have no evidence to believe this would be different were the matter of facts swapped (and is why progressives fight to prove the fetus isn't alive).
Yes, it's unpleasant to acknowledge that the occasional 10 year old will get pregnant, or that some women will die because of this, or that unborn children are killed- but they die because [we believe, and perhaps correctly] our contract law is more important, in the same way school shootings are [the right to defend oneself is a part of the social contract certain societies make with the expendable gender, in return for that expendability- when classical liberals say guns are the left's abortion, this is what they actually mean].
It's hard when many of the same people are arguing a few threads down that women having sex with no prospect of marriage or childbirth is the root of all of our problems.
Yeah, but they're just the spear counterpart to the group of women I described earlier (existential anxiety of men about what they are). If they do that task well, they'll be rewarded; that is one of the earliest contracts.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
Well, if we're just lazily copy-pasting, might as well. I figure I'm entitled to do that, since your argument has indeed been copy-pasted by every other traditionalist when complaining about the Left for the last 40 years and as such it's been 30 years removed from any relevancy.
If the Left is trying to advance pedophilia, they're clearly doing an absolutely terrible job of it, considering the average age of virginity loss and general age of consent has done nothing but rise (making these ages gender-neutral is not really a liberalization of the law) and the newer generations are more sensitive to this, perhaps as a reaction to constantly having gross sex stuff they hate forced into them every waking hour. Considering the cultural power they have to change these things, this failure is out of character.
They aren't following the gay rights playbook of "fix the perception that X is a complete and utter rejection of social norms so that the average Joe thinks you're sufficiently like him that he no longer sees fit to stop you"; instead preferring only to ride the wave of gunboat diplomacy that is the trans rights movement (which, in fairness, doesn't exactly follow that playbook either).
It should be extremely telling that there's basically zero "groomer literature" that features a relationship the average boy or man would ever be interested in (given all the pairings are gay men, gay boys, or gay men with gay boys; if a woman is ever featured it's lesbians- my evidence is that the spiciest stuff the Right can dig up only includes [young-ish] boys, because if it were [young] girls they'd trumpet that instead). One would assume that if the movement was purposefully pro-sex-with-kids thing their literature would feature a lot more girls or straight women for what should be obvious reasons, but since that's not the case that claim is obviously false.
Now sure, that's still damning with faint praise given that we already know the Left is perfectly fine portraying boys like that (and will not hesitate to call them bigots for complaining about/resisting the same kind of unwanted sexual attention from men that women have been trying to banish for decades now), but I think the trads doth complain too much; their brand of Junior Anti-Sex League has the same end result, they just doesn't like the concessions the progressives leave for man-on-man (or the bullying potential progressives leverage from the narcissism of this small difference, as viewed from a liberal perspective).
The thing about [what you call the modern Left, and what I simply call 'progressives'] is that it's all about destroying sex altogether, 1984-style. It makes complete sense why they fail to see a difference between pedophilia and non-pedophilia because their end goal is that nobody has sex ever; indeed, that's why progressives seek to push the age at which women are considered children ever higher and higher (outside of man-on-boy, but since boys are just men, and they hate men, they don't care about what happens to them plus it's free Oppression Points/owning the Trads).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
and ended with her issuing a number of demands which certainly wont be met by Ottawa
It wouldn't have mattered what she said
Carney will almost certainly represent a lowering of the heat relative to Trudeau
lol, no
but Albertans were about to confidently have their champion and that is now ripped away from them. When a people who see themselves as victims have their hopes dashed is when they are most dangerous
One can only hope.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9mo ago
Why don't you try to put it in words?
Because it's as fundamental to each person as one's personality is?
From observation it looks like a mix of "I remember her as a little kid so it's forever icky to think of her having sex, but I can abstract it away if it's marriage" and "mildly incestuous possessiveness".
If you're capable of thinking of it in those terms you might just be asexual.
From observation, it's normal to think of your kids as never having grown past the age of 13 (and thus it be forever icky to think of them as having adult desires), and every parent I've ever known does this (except for one, maybe two). [The Jewish rite of adulthood doesn't happen at 13 for no reason.] It changes when you get married because the opposite-sex parent becomes permanently subordinate at that point (and also your kid has backup when dealing with you). I'm not sure how they see grandkids.
It's normal to think that sex with men is dangerous and bad, and that women desire nothing else but to have a marriage without any sex whatsoever if they can get away with it. Which is in their finely-honed evolutionary biological interests to do for obvious reasons; note that lesbians aren't immune to this reflex, which is why the majority of definitionally lesbian sex that has ever happened has been in front of a camera, not in committed lesbian relationships.
There are memes about this from the distaff side as well- give seldom, and above all, give grudgingly. Straights unironically and fully believe that "while sex is at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be endured, and has been by women since the beginning of time, and is compensated for by the monogamous home and by the children produced through it." Men and women deal with this differently, and take advantage of this differently, but they both agree on this fundamental point. And now you know why women/bottoms/betas conservatives are just men/tops/alphas progressives driving the speed limit in sexual matters; the only reason it's through a progressive lens these days is because women have more socioeconomic power than men do for other reasons, so the power politics are a lot more naked from the male perspective now where it's usually the women staring down the barrel [which is why when that wasn't the case, the average woman was more traditionalist than the average man, even in cultural milieus where wife-beating was the norm].
Again, this has strong and extremely important biological underpinnings- humanity hasn't had enough time to evolve to deal with the fact that women can just have sex without any major consequence at their leisure. We solved this with technology in the '50s and what we got was a 20-year-long society-wide orgy... until AIDS [and Boomer women hitting the wall] killed that society dead. Women were screaming and throwing their panties at Elvis because it turns out that, shock of shocks, some women actually like having sex- this continues to baffle straights to this day because casual sex is literally the most counterintuitive and physically dangerous thing you can do as a woman!
And now you know why some people who can't deal with this make themselves eunuchs (Skoptskyists, modern transgender movement, etc.): for a straight man looking through the lens of how a straight man sees straight women, it's the ultimate gift to a woman [to have a relationship but never have to have sex- this is "respects women" to a pathological degree, and now you know why the most visible ex-men are usually autistic, and also Like That more generally] and for a straight woman it's the ultimate safety blanket [ruining their body's sex appeal as the price for joining a religious community frees them from the need to sell their body for sex- which is the definition of a straight marriage per the above- and from the perspective of an ex-woman seeing that, because she's already in such a community, that mutilating herself has no downsides].
Christianity is appealing to men and women who find that resisting ancient instincts is very hard, and so you'll find a disproportionate amount of men who do consciously want to resist them are Christian, because it's a cultural milieu where they will be praised for doing so (it's also a place for people who aren't getting any, because that's also virtuous)- so naturally, you'll find them to be a lot weirder about sex than the general population. Their complaints about "oversexualization" and "promiscuity bad" are best viewed through the lens of how alcoholics who consciously need to resist relapse would see constant ads for beer- why the absolute fuck should a Healthy Society not only tolerate that, but encourage it (in the "silence is violence" way), given how many alcoholics [they believe there to be, and not without reason] are out there, even if they're aware they're in a filter bubble that consists solely of alcoholics?
More generally, this is where the "I don't want a woman that had forty penises in her- that's as many as four tens, and that's terrible" disgust reflex comes from. Excessively promiscuous women have something fundamentally wrong with them as they're not performing their gender role properly- they're not gatekeeping sex- in the same way that multiply-divorced men have fundamental problems with commitment. And we should expect that to be extremely visceral for straights (in a way that it isn't for gays/lesbians/asexuals, who have different problems).
So, straights/traditionalist-progressives can't fully understand free love Ace Pride because their mental model of it is "first, be very aware that sex with men is bad and has immediate life-ending consequences for women, then act as selfishly as you possibly can under those circumstances", which you can see an excellent example of as a related comments to this one. And it's not like Free Love didn't have elements of that, because it couldn't really reject straights poking their... noses where they shouldn't have and took the claimed Psychic damage (or purposefully inflicted status effects on others out of selfishness, like certain gay men with AIDS and monkeypox).
The reason Aces don't take Psychic type damage is because they're Dark type, and while Dark types might not take Psychic damage they're not immune to status effects [like 'disease' or 'pregnant']. Even if it's permissible, it's not really beneficial (and 'but don't you have anything better to do?' is the argument I never see Christians make, even though it doesn't depend on first-century sexual morality to be valid, but I think the reason why they don't feel the need to is explained sufficiently above).
Also, conversely, asexuals don't usually try to understand straights (or are blinded by Pride, just like how straight women are now, and how straight men used to be) so they tend to propose solutions like "maybe we can do some conversion therapy by encouraging little kids to fuck, if they grow up thinking casual sex is normal then so much the better" [which I'll point out is the exact same thing that Proud straight women do to little boys/girls where they encourage them to be the opposite instead, for the same reasons, coming from the same sexual place as I explained above, and it is just as Psychically harmful to them- victims of both cases appear to develop hypersexuality as a coping mechanism and so I think it hurts the same place in the same way] and "if we plaster sex everywhere, we drive the marginal value of sex down to zero; when sex is so ordinary as to be trivial there will be no more sex abuse, and there are very definitely no knock-on effects from this whatsoever" [as a response to straight sexuality's natural impulse to drive the marginal value of sex infinitely high that nobody will pursue sex any more].
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
10mo ago
Can we please, just once, try and find some allies who don't sabotage us?
You could, if they existed. The concept of independent nations in Europe conclusively ended on July 6, 1944, the day the Americans launched a full-scale invasion of the [German-led] European Union; after that, there was no turning back. UK probably should have stayed out of it, but in hindsight there was no real way to know that back then, and if Britons ever were to be slaves they were going to choose the US as their master anyway.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
It's actually insane to me to read the parade of guys coming to these comments to express that the criterion for less than six sexual partners is strange or puzzling or not fair.
And yet, you still didn't actually answer the question, which is "why are we supposed to care so much?"- probably because you're just taking "traditionalist/Christian sexual ethics are correct in all cases" for granted and going from there.
You could even get there from first principles and evopsych as it applies to the majority of people in any given place and time; you could argue that the liberal approach converges on the Christian one from a risk-management point of view so reality bears out that you should live by those rules, or you could come up with something different than those.
Or you could just say you don't like it and that's the way it is (and at least maintain a modicum of intellectual honesty), then extrapolate from there, since for n = 1 that might not be a particularly strong argument.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
[Standard traditionalist (men have more social license to cheat/get the better deal by default)-progressive (women have more social license to cheat/get the better deal by default)-liberal (space aliens who don't associate morality and sexuality as much) framing applies beyond this point.]
Because it destabilizes any society in which it takes root.
Which ones, and what are the symptoms of that destabilization? Be specific as to how people fucking is the first step in the causal chain. The 1960s US seemed pretty stable to me besides the tons of bombs being dropped in mailboxes and on Vietnam and the occasional race riot, and I don't think those things were due to a lack of specifically-virgin pussy.
And while "I can't believe there's so much non-virgin pussy, what the fuck, these women are just giving it away seemingly at random" is a typical radicalization story stated by at least one Islamic terrorist, it seems absurd to blame that reaction on the liberals.
we criminalize the mere possession of drugs. This is because
of a bunch of reasons; what's it to you if I shoot up in the privacy of my own home? No, you criminalize the possession of drugs because it's a combination of being low-class with very little (or negative) perceived socioeconomic value compared to their perceived sociopolitical risks (a trait the other possession crimes- guns and explosives, certain types of pornography, etc. also tend to share).
you slept with the nanny, or you slept with the pool boy? No one should deny or criticize your sexual self-expression and autonomy!
Where does your brain go, that you would assume my outgroup isn't also selfish bastards?
You're forgetting that this is a destructive thing to do even in a sexually liberal culture, not because sex is uniquely bad on its face (and sexual liberals do indeed reject that notion) but because, most of the time, it's violating an explicit agreement not to do that. The problem is not with the sex, though it is made worse by it- the "but it's not a big deal, sex = free, why is my husband leaving me" is a rationalization/excuse after the fact. This is also why it makes sense for a career where people live and die on the fact they can trust you not to be doing stupid bullshit like this to sanction it, especially one where you find a lot of traditionalists.
the high stakes of promiscuity / adultery's likely outcomes
The ultimate problem for traditionalist-progressives is that what their instincts tell them about sex (and the impact and seriousness thereof) and what the actual truth is (that if you're not a fucking retard you're not going to get pregnant or an STD beyond herpes- and while herpes is a big deal, it's nothing compared to the million dollars a bastard child costs) no longer match.
This is why the feeling that there should be more social stakes (and indeed, why they're created artificially by progressives filling a power vacuum left by a liberal withdrawl/die-off) is a unique vulnerability. But the reverse of female-privileging selfishness is not male-privileging selfishness (and vice versa).
do members of a society have duties and responsibilities outside of themselves to that society that are not codified in law?
Trivially, but good luck making society reward those duties and responsibilities with the corresponding rights and privileges.
[Refinement: "power over women" -> "power over abusers, most of whom happen to either be women, or are acting womanly".]
I think they probably cared less about power over women and more about power over their abusers.
Interesting that the "right-wing" is slowly rediscovering that this is how they need to couch their messaging (and then refusing to back down when pressed, and Trump will be the model for this going forward). Liberalism is a counterbalance against progressivism just like it was against traditionalism, and the progressives are only liberals in the "continue the revolution against traditionalism" sense, not the "continue the revolution against traditionalists" (which is why they're so occupied with fighting a strawman that no longer exists while becoming indistinguishable from the traditionalist tendencies that were the reason liberals opposed them in the first place).
But what happens when it is mostly women/progressives carrying out the abuse? Well...
but ensuring first-world LGBT people aren't smeared as pedophiles
The "global elite satanist pedophile" people have correctly identified that if you're in power, you get to sexually abuse young men with impunity. The specifics look a little different when women do it but "we will take away your ability to develop the things that make you sexually attractive" (either by raping/molesting you directly, or contributing to the cultural effort to chemically castrate you and give you breasts instead express your inner herbivore man where you hide under your bed in fear of offending a woman) is the general form of what that sexual abuse looks like regardless of whether it's a man or a woman doing either of those things, regardless of whether they think in the moment it's abuse or not (as you know). And the problem is that, because liberal men and women can and will use different functions to compute sexual attraction than normal people, but don't understand that they're doing that, they won't anticipate that their views on what makes the opposite sex attractive (if they even see it that way) is destructive when applied outside of that "orientation"- they can't defend against progressives because they don't know they need to defend against them.
Note that this is specifically forced feminization/passivization [in the traditional straight sex sense, where your psyche is built on men dominate, women submit] (and note that abuse victims tend to become hyper-female as a rationalization/result of the abuse, and that's true for boys as well as girls). Feminization that isn't forced is... something different, but can look the same way under certain circumstances (especially in all-male environments, like boarding schools [Eton is famous for this] and prisons) or if you're not aware/don't care they're distinct (most commonly for religious reasons).
Also, forced masculinization can be accomplished (Stanford Prison Experiment guards, Khmer Rouge putting children in charge of labor camps, royal families), it just isn't done because making more dominant individuals is not generally to the benefit of those with the power so we don't have good data on what happens. [I suspect the Soviet "strong woman, basically a man" meme is a little more than just a meme in this direction, but I don't have data to back that up; I'm also not convinced it's the cause of most FTM transitions as distinct from its standard social contagion effects.]
Maybe we should have considered not covering up such practices by our "allies"
The Westerners that are in power consider the institutional and cultural abuse of boys/young men to have neutral-to-positive moral valence (see above). I think the clearer examples of boy-raping are certainly things that a government would cover up for the same reasons the Church did- that it would allow their legitimacy to be questioned- more than it is an attempt to protect the LGBT movement (who don't really have to care about being called pedophiles as they now possess the social privilege the Church used to have).
they just need enough to make the cost of a nuclear exchange so high Israel would never risk it
But this has further implications that you omit.
If Iran has the bomb, they can provide it to a smaller, far more suicidal group of allies (the Palestinians) to lock the Israelis into their current borders unless they negotiate with Iran. Technology transfers, taxes, religious rites/rights, not purchasing American weapons, etc. is what that looks like.
In this way, the Hamasi would serve as the permanent Iranian veto over the [Ashke]nazi. Because they simply don't care if the Israelis nuke them in response- the fact is, the Israelis get hurt far more than the Palestinians, the Palestinians are suicidal, and that is sufficient to accomplish this goal.
Conversely, if Israel believes that Iran will, or already has, or will inevitably soon obtain, a bomb like this... then their only response is to start removing the local kebab as fast as humanly possible. They didn't like the paragliders the first time; imagine how much they're not going to like them when the settlers further encroaching on their territory prompts an air-borne SADMization of the Israeli countryside.
The Iron Dome can stop a lot but the bomber is going to get through. And sure, Hamas could always attack from another country (perhaps one in which they seek refuge after the dust settles), but in that case that other country [and its people] are collateral the Israelis can threaten such that Hamas is kept down- since if Hamas manages to get an attack off then it's the entire host nation's problem, and Israel becomes the one with the nuclear veto.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1d ago
Well, yeah; this is 100% an autistic Christian thing.
You make yourself an enemy of the God of America when you lie on the form, because He knows the contents of your heart and what is done in secret.
That is why "lying on the form about the contents of your heart" is accepted by American culture as both valid, and an offense that strips you of any right to participate in it so long as they see fit that the question remains on the form.
Interestingly, it doesn't actually make any moral judgment- it still maintains the presupposition that there are good people who are also [disqualifying class]- but then, if the man be good, he would not lie on the forms because [see above].
Thus lying on the form is, while a completely natural thing to do, a sin -> if you were good, you're certainly an enemy of God [and by extension, the country] now -> OK to revoke and eject on those grounds.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
10d 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
11d 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
4mo 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
6mo 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.)
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".
I'm shocked that you'd expect anything else.
This issue is derived from instinctual gender politics; follow the money.
It is to the advantage of old women that two things be true:
Furthermore, old women have significantly more sociopolitical power than they did 50 years ago compared to everyone else.
So, what do we see? We see old women pushing hard on "encourage young women to destroy their sexual appeal to young men", for when attractive women are scarcer, men pay more[1] for inferior sex. Additionally, we see pushes for "the only safe man is a man who is either uninterested in sex with women, or if still interested in women, unable to cause real harm to them"[2].
Encouraging homosexuality, then transgenderism, is the way that is done- the end result of both is a social token that old women can hold up about Fighting Oppression(tm), and less competition. The fact that it destroys young men and women is not a concern to biological dead-ends (a fact said old women are extremely resentful of), forming a perfect moral hazard.
Other than Noticing it's always the mom? The more female-dominated the profession is, the more obsessed with transgenderism it is- I think this is the reason why.
This is [one way] women sexually abuse children. Men don't really understand it and aren't equipped to fight it (the conditions of reality- that being without them, women don't eat- haven't forced them to evolve a defense against this; now that automation has made it so women are on equal footing with men, these problems emerge), but the motive and the result, at the end of the day, is abusive[3].
Now, that all having been said, is transgenderism a real thing? I think so (ask the older pre-Third Wave Feminism examples about it), and puberty blockers/hormones might be our best response for that condition at this time. But much like our other "best answers" that psychology has given us listed downthread, it's also extremely destructive, and it's complicated by the institutions responsible for identifying it all being dominated by the gender most likely to abuse children in this way.
There is, and it's being followed. Because the faction currently pushing for puberty blockers and transgenderism to be a solution to everything is also the only one that the concept of "consent" serves (per the above: punishing men for sex with younger women that they actually want = more power for older women), sanctioning any woman who speaks of transgenderism to anyone under the age of "consent" is only fair... which is why laws are, though slowly and clumsily (re: Don't Say Gay), moving in that direction.
[1] Instincts are just brute force, and can't adjust for men having anything better to do- these days, men have plenty of other options, so the [sexual] market shortfall is hidden.
[2] The fact this (one or more of "sexual herbivorism", effeminate homosexuality, chemical interference) generally makes them worse at harming hostile men is not something women need to care about- if all their tribe's men are killed in war because they were unable or unwilling to dominate their own women, they still have inherent value to enemy men and will generally be treated well. Women even have instincts for accepting being carried off; they don't have a similar instinct for making sure their sons or daughters grow up to be attractive (men do, to a point).
[3] "But they enjoyed it/it actually had a positive outcome" is an excuse men use when they use their social station to abuse children, but not one we accept from them. Why should we accept it from women?
More options
Context Copy link