ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
4hr ago
At least for competitive swimming you just get DQ'd on that one particular event.
(You don't get booted from the meet entirely, or at least, you shouldn't be- this isn't like competitive shooting where that does happen, but that also only happens for safety infractions.)
ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
20hr ago
no but you see this is good because young men expecting to have sex with young women (to say nothing of the opposite) even in the confines of a marriage is bad
imagine having sex with women that are actually young, couldn't be me, i hagmax like Ben Franklin
if we could we'd push age of marriage up to 40, 50, 60 because they'd be more mature then and more cognizant of the risks, that would be good
especially because most of us are already unhappily married and we want to help our kids avoid that, but we have no idea how to do that so we just tell them to delay it and they trust us, dumb fucks
imagine marriage was an important part of living life, and imagine that you'd ever want to maximize the amount of fulfilling life time you (or others) will get
ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
20hr ago
· Edited 20hr ago
I've seen video evidence- this is absolutely an epidemic, especially among step-siblings.
Though realistically, and as always, this is only really a problem if the two have a bad relationship or one (or the other) has poor impulse control, and that's going to create other issues beyond the fucking. (If they have a better relationship with each other they might try it, if they have a better relationship with the parent they'll tend to accept being talked out of it, both problems fully solvable by public health education efforts. Naturally opposed by people with [an assumption of]/[excuse that it'll exacerbate] poor impulse control.)
Some people (trads/progs) believe is a risk magically created by porn, but it's mostly just exacerbated by it if you already have it. Kind of like alcoholism, actually. But when your power (or rather, your justification for excessive risk aversion- kids grow out of this when they become adults, popularly referred to as the "teenage years") comes from not understanding that, well...
ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
21hr ago
Because everything is supposed to be about women.
Which itself is an understandable liability if you're coming from 'everything is supposed to be about marriage' and have no mechanism beyond the inherent constraints of pre-mechanized civilization to grant value to men (who are the gender made to combat them). And that degraded over a few generations rather than all at once (and hidden because the generation in power was granted a reprieve from this due to WW2), so no decisive reckoning happened, like a divorce that occurs over 20 years for the sake of the kids.
The problem with being yoked to first century sexual mores is that it's not the first century any more, and part of the reason reconciliation can't be sold to women (or their simps) is that the traditionalist response tends to be some variation of "well, just make it the first century again, then all your problems will be solved" (and the liberal and progressive reaction to that is flat rejection, which is correct).
The degree to which solutions lack theory of mind remains interesting to me. For instance, if you're fighting "rates of female education attainment lead to later fewer marriages", the correct answer is "credentialism sucks the life out of everyone" and not "well, stop educating women exclusively then lol".
Marriage rates have been declining because the floor for a successful marriage has risen to the point that it excludes a lot of people and no-fault divorce in an environment of higher financial stakes has done the rest. We got a break from that in the '60s because wages for young men rose dramatically, and gradually petered out over the next 20 years, which is why you don't have any historical data to look back on (the SR tends to confound traditionalists; they only have the one lens to look through).
Before, this was mostly solved by men having all the money and women having none of it with a soft ban on obtaining any of it outside that context (and where soft bans didn't exist the constraint was mostly just called "the reality of non-mechanized work"). This worked OK, but it's a compact that didn't survive automation, specifically the line shaft.
Indeed, which is why young men can't marry now (and you lose a lot of the stability from dual-income being functionally mandatory). And yes, we could simply make it legal for young men to accumulate an attractive surplus, but by the time the effects of that have propagated the young men will be middle-aged.
More options
Context Copy link