thrownaway24e89172
wrong about everything
No bio...
User ID: 1081
Remember the context here is putting your name on a birth certificate, something done immediately after giving birth. How exactly would a coma or head trauma lead you to incorrectly believe yourself to be the mother in such a case without a massive case of medical malpractice?
Not when it comes to legally binding documents. "Trust, but verify" is the way healthy relationships work. "Trust, but don't you dare verify" is the way abusive ones work.
Men and women stand equal in their lack of natural guarantees about faithfulness, but not in their guarantees about parentage: you can present him with a child and falsely claim it is his. He can't present you with a child and falsely claim it is yours.
The men at the top were more vulnerable to the men at the bottom in the past, necessitating those at the top making concessions to other men in addition to "wooing" women. Male coordination weakens as that vulnerability is eliminated by technological and social changes.
Yes, I am married and similar emotional blackmail nearly changed that. No. Women do not deserve "trust" in this case since they are guaranteed such knowledge naturally. If you don't care enough about your husband to grant him the same privilege that biology grants you, you don't deserve him.
If my husband demanded a paternity test for our kids, I'd be very offended. If he couldn't trust me that much, does he even want to be married?
This is textbook emotional blackmail. If you take offense to his verification of highly sensitive and legally important information, I question if you actually want to be married.
There's an obvious analogy to a situation where a man signs a birth certificate. Acts as a child's father for some years. Only for it to come to light they are not genetically related.
There's also an obvious problem with this analogy: in the case of adoption the choice was made knowingly whereas in this case it was the result of fraud on the part of the custodial parent.
In the case of pedo porn, this is exactly what we want to happen.
No, that's exactly what people say they want to happen. More realistically, people usually just want to use pedophiles as punching bags for status signalling purposes.
Wasn't a major push for abortion rights from businesses who wanted to avoid the costs of employees' pregnancies? That seems like it would have a non-negligible roi in at least some cases.
Of course women have no problem rubbing it in men's face that they peak earlier and thus get to spend their youth in the privileged position over men. Then they get conceited and believe that privilege is the natural order and are thus horrified by men's later peak suddenly reversing that and exposing them to the exact same treatment they dished out when they were younger.
A part of me would love to see Republicans run a race- and gender-swapped version of the Harris campaign's "He'll never know who you voted for" ad targeting Black men.
Entitlement is the belief that one deserves to wield power in a selfish manner, while power itself is simply a capability.
There'd probably be a lot less nastiness in the world if we were better at recognizing the difference between power and entitlement.
I think more like the story of the abusive husband who comes home from work and beats his wife because he feels powerless at work and DV allows him to feel powerful: such women take out their anger over their feelings of powerlessness on men they do have power over.
They often consist of date rape, or something like a group of guys and girls are hanging out after a party with some booze and one of the guys stays with one of the girls and then drags her into the figurative alley.
That's her story anyway. Of course this ignores that women get horny too and lowered inhibitions from alcohol can make them decide in the moment to have sex with someone they would be ashamed to have sex with otherwise, and "date rape" gives them a socially acceptable way of avoiding that shame. Drunk women can be extremely pushy and we let them get away with pushing all the blame onto their partner via "date rape".
But there are some fascinating takeaways there -- in particular, that there is a higher rate of college-educated women being married to non-college men than the rate of college-educated men being married to non-college women. Simple models of hypergamy would predict the opposite.
There's simply not enough college-educated men to go around. Women make up over 60% of college grads today and have been a majority of college grads for over 40 years.
This is the logic of narcissists and abusers.
And "How dare you kill yourself to relieve your own suffering. What about my suffering?" isn't?
It's only "unnecessary suffering" if you ignore the suffering caused to loved ones when someone they knew and loved has died. Most people are distraught when a friend, family member, relative, etc. commits suicide.
That "suffering" should be ignored as they deserve it for not relieving their "loved one's" suffering. If someone you love is suffering so much that they kill themselves, you owe it to them to bear the pain their death causes you. It's the least you can do since you failed them so miserably while they were still alive.
As an aside: do you remember what the no-no topics were? I remember it being race war stuff, but I could be completely off base.
Basically anything that would scare people off. See my "hobby horse" for example.
Why, yes, women do nakedly advocate in favor of women and also entice men into advocating for women.
Did you even read the part I quoted? Let me repeat it, with emphasis this time:
I'm going to push back on this- circumcision is yes bad but not as bad as FGM, and and one meets the threshold for child abuse while the other one doesn't.
My comment directly responded to the part I quoted. There is no objective harm-based threshold you can pick where circumcision is not child abuse while the majority of FGM is.
If not, explain why should anyone want to stop women from keeping theirs if they want.
I'm not arguing that we should stop women from keeping theirs if they want. You are arguing that we should ban FGM even in cases where both the girl and her guardians want it and the operation is objectively less harmful than circumcision. That has nothing to do with wanting women to be free to choose what happens to their own bodies. It has everything to do with wanting to shut down a cultural practice that you disagree with so you can virtue signal about how much you protect women by controlling them.
I'm going to push back on this- circumcision is yes bad but not as bad as FGM, and and one meets the threshold for child abuse while the other one doesn't.
The most commonly practiced forms of FGM are at most as bad as circumcision (removal of the clitoral hood) and often significantly less (eg. ceremonial pin-prick on the clitoral hood), but remain illegal and condemned. If it is true that circumcision should be permitted because it is not as severe, then these types of FGM should be as well. Instead we use the existence of more severe forms to condemn all forms. For men, we have a separate category for the more severe form--castration.
You know, it's almost like that negging thing is fundamentally uncomfortable to women [the kind it doesn't work on] more because they know it's the thing their gender does to men.
It is rather interesting how men acting like women in relationships is considered abusive isn't it?
The translation would be fine in some circumstances. For example, your second link references parents talking about their daughter:
親→娘 That’s my girl!
It is very tortured to use it in this case, as the male side character does not have a significant relationship to the FMC beyond being part of the same institution.
- Prev
- Next

That would only make sense if you view trust as a binary. Typical usage treats it instead as a spectrum, with healthy relationships requiring less verification for the same level of risk.
More options
Context Copy link