@thrownaway24e89172's banner p


naïve paranoid outcast

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC


User ID: 1081


naïve paranoid outcast

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 1081

Unfortunately I don't think that's the case. The moderation log shows @ZorbaTHut removed all her content and now her username has been updated. I don't know what happened, but it seems like it is pretty serious. Hopefully she's okay.

Have you seen /u/TheTinMenBlog's posts on reddit? I don't think he considers himself an antifeminist though and they might be a bit too shallow (in the neutral sense of that not being their primary purpose) for what you are looking for. The studies he cites in them are probably of interest however.

How much do you think it costs to prevent trace contamination from a fairly common ingredient in other products? Your options are effectively 1) extremely thorough cleaning, 2) completely separate production facilities, or 3) stop making either the products with sesame or those without. Option 3 is by far the cheapest and there's apparently more demand for products with sesame than without.

At least some of the people complaining are too squeamish to handle such violent scenes of death, much like with suicide and slaughterhouses. Death must be nice and clean so they aren't traumatized by it.

(which is why I found it weird you're throwing seemingly-unrelated grenades here) ... 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.

Had I not spent most of my life getting progressively more fucked up from the grenades they and their ideological allies have been chucking my way, I wouldn't be feeling the need to lob a few back now.

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?

The issue is pregnancy (and motherhood more generally) is also an intensely female thing. They see straight women bonding over it and feel left out. They cannot accept that not having sex with men could deny them access to such an important aspect of womanhood.

Why did you even pick this fight, anyway?

Yeah, I haven’t figured that one out either.

(In reply to @ThisIsSin too) I thought I've been pretty open about having a lot of issues surrounding sex and blaming LGBT and Feminist activism for many of them. I hold lesbians who use dildos and strap-ons and want to get pregnant via IVF in particular disdain for much the same reason that they hold transwomen in disdain--their behavior is a mockery of my sex, and in particular is 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.

Your question is just trivial. Lesbians can have participation of men in many aspects of life. So long as they aren't also having sex with them, then they're still lesbians and not in some contradictory way.

If I subjected a woman to IVF against her will, would people consider it a sex crime?

A man's sperm fertilizing a woman's egg IS sex, by definition. Intercourse is commonly referred to as 'sex' because it often results in such fertilization. By framing IVF as '[get an egg fertilized by donated sperm]', you are dehumanizing the participants, which is the entire point for lesbians as they must dehumanize the male sperm donor in order to maintain their identity as a lesbian.

Also, isn't their identity based on mutual attraction to women? Is this reframing gayness as a negative rejection of the opposite sex?

It's not a reframing as far as I can tell. Such a negative rejection is inherent to gayness. If you remove it you get bisexuality instead.

Or "taboo" it as lesswrong posters would say.

Yes, I know how the community uses the word "taboo" in this situation.

The point seems rather trivial now.

Does it?

"How can [people who claim to not be attracted to men strongly enough to have created an identity around it that is legally protected more strongly than nearly any other] want to get pregnant if getting pregnant requires [the participation of a man] to fertilize their eggs?"

Break out what you mean by "sexual act," because it seems obvious to me that there are lots of "sexual acts" that are not procreation

I'm not trying to restrict "sexual acts" to only those that involve procreation though. I'm asking why procreative acts, which I believe should be central to the category, have been so thoroughly excised from it by others. What makes intercourse so important that it should completely push out everything else, and even that it should be expanded to cover things beyond PiV intercourse? To my eyes, the only plausible answer is that the people who did so are guilty of using self-motivated reasoning to gerrymander the definition to ensure they can have their cake and eat it too.

Find a different way to describe it, and you'll have an answer to your question.

No, I really won't. My confusion stems precisely from the definition of the category sexual because we consider sexual things to be special. Sexual assault is considered a worse offence than plain assault. Sexual harassment is considered a worse offence than plain harassment. Sexual orientation is similarly a legally protected category in much of the West. Somehow I'm displaying sexual entitlement by looking at a woman who chose to dress provocatively, but a woman isn't when she claims a right to be impregnated by people she's "not sexually attracted to" though? What kind of backwards definition is that?

EDIT: Grammar.

Why should gamete mixing be considered special, compared to blood transfusions?

I'm not arguing it should be. I'm asking why other people consider sexual orientation to be some sacred piece of their identity that needs to be special-cased in law, but then carefully define sexual orientation to only consider a subset of acts that can be considered sexual. If it is all about physical intimacy rather than sexual reproduction, why is it not romantic orientation?

Orgasms are only sexual because they can result in gamete mixing. If you remove that, what's to differentiate them from any other form of physical activity? Why should they be considered special?

One cannot taboo the phrase "sexual act", as it is entwined with the phrase "sexual orientation". If we limit the definition of "sexual orientation" to non-reproductive acts, why should "sexual orientation" be treated specially as a protected category?

Gay men who use surrogates, assuming they are the sperm donors, are engaging in a sexual act (sexual reproduction) with a woman. Similarly, lesbians who use sperm donors to get pregnant are engaging in a sexual act (sexual reproduction) with a man. 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?

Beyond eunuch communities themselves, one of the major sources of information about the subculture comes from TERFs, who are uniquely hostile towards eunuchs among gay men, because they (typically lesbian women) see them as - alongside transwomen - the vanguard of inserting fetishes into the 'LGB' movement they once held dear.

Because of course they would never try to put the public on the hook for their own medical fetishes. It is rather insulting how clearly many lesbians physically fetishize men while denying they have any attraction to them. "I'm not sexually attracted to men." "Then why do you insist you have the right to sexual reproduction via a man's sperm?"

It would more likely suggest to me that those aren't their actual fetishes, but are merely triggers for a deeper fetish. For instance, a person who gets off on being peed on may have a piss fetish or they may have a humiliation fetish (or some other fetish) that being peed on happens to trigger.

Allowing "none of the above" to win doesn't necessarily mean you leave the office unfilled. It could for instance force a new election with the candidates from the first barred from running.

AFAICT, the only reason people look down on their argument is that it denigrates higher status people than them in doing so (ie, women). Remove that and you get a bog standard feminist argument that men shouldn't seek validation from women through sex.

why do you believe that a majority of pedophiles pose little to no risk to children? I've already freely conceded that many don't, but I keep saying we can't quantify the risk because we just don't have the denominator. Given that we don't have that denominator, why do you seem so confident that "a large majority of pedophiles never sexually abuse a child"?

Confident is definitely not the right word. It'd be better to say I hope it is the case because it lets me believe in the possibility of a better future and not fall even deeper into nihilistic despair. Also, we're not completely unsure of the denominator--eg, there is some research that estimates it at 1-2% of the population depending on how strictly you define pedophilia.

I feel like that simplistic popular consensus is getting in our way again...

No, in this case I think it is probably my own paranoia getting in the way. I have a lot of hang-ups around sex even beyond attraction to kids (eg, see this old chain), so it is difficult not to be overly defensive here.

If people aren't stupid or crazy for connecting CP with the victimization of children, then your strong claim seems like an overstatement (though perhaps an understandable one born of personal suffering).

I think we're still talking past each other here. Let me try rephrasing my assertion in a less disdainful way and maybe that will help. The comment which I was replying to was making a utilitarian argument that the sexualization of kids in video games could not be immoral because the characters in games are not sapient and thus actions toward them have no moral dimension. I think it is more accurate to model people's response in terms of virtue ethics rather than utilitarian ethics, in which case the harm or lack thereof of the specific situation has little to no moral bearing. I used much cruder terminology because I don't have a very high opinion of that view for probably obvious reasons, but I think this is effectively the same thing you were getting at with

Our psychology is geared toward discerning what kind of person they are

I'm genuinely curious about the motivations you've described

I'm happy to go into more detail about my thoughts and experiences if people are honestly interested and don't just want a freak show. I struggle a lot in gathering my thoughts for broad expositions after a serious concussion a few years ago though, so more specific prompting would be helpful.

From your comment, I felt like I was accused of believing 1) child molesters are conscious evildoers, sadists fantasizing about harming children and plotting to get at them

Well that is pretty much what I felt you were saying about pedophiles when you said

there is a direct causal link between pedophilia and trying to have sex with kids


So they're not fantasizing about victimizing children?

It seemed to me that you do not recognize the possibility for sexual activity with a child to not be victimization even in a fantasy setting rather than the real world nor that someone could desire it without eventually trying to act it out. I reject a framing of my fantasies as a desire to victimize children, even if I acknowledge that would be the actual result were they to play out in the real world.

My model of child molesters...

I would broadly model child molestation as three largely separate categories: 1) the molester is viewing the child as a fetish, 2) the molester is attempting to have a sexual relationship with the child, and 3) the molester is asserting dominance (not necessarily sadistically) over the child.

An example of the first category would be something like this where the relationship between the molester and the child is largely irrelevant to the act. An example of the second category would be the relationship between Asia Argento and Jimmy Bennett. As you said, this usually involves some level of delusion or motivated reasoning on the part of the molester as to the nature of the situation. I think this category largely corresponds to how you model child molesters? The third category covers things like sexual hazing and other forms of bullying.

Are you asking in what way pedophiles can express their desires without me calling for punishment?

Ways pedophiles can actively seek enjoyment in them without sanction. So tolerating their use of virtual CP would be an example, but probably not explaining it to a therapist.

I'd prefer to wall off anything depicting preadolescents from the general public, to keep it on purpose-specific platforms, where no actual children are likely to stumble upon it. If that's "censorship," then I suppose I am calling for some of it.

I think that's reasonable so long as it is actually accessible to pedophiles and not merely theoretically "accessible" in the way say CCL permits are to residents of NYC.

People are not stupid or crazy for connecting child pornography with the victimization of children, is all I'm saying.

I agree that the reason for their disgust with people who consume virtual CP is both reasonable and understandable. What I'm asserting is that even if it were conclusively shown that consumption of virtual CP significantly reduced the likelihood of a person to molest a child, most people would still be against the consumption of virtual CP because their disgust is more motivating than their desire to reduce the incidence of child abuse. I think this extends well beyond CP as well. For example, I have a decently well-paying job that doesn't involve any interaction with children. I expect that were it to become known that I'm a pedophile, I would be forced out of that job because people don't believe pedophiles deserve such a job--a disgust reaction based not on any actual risk. Do you think I'm wrong in that assessment?

Right now you're talking to some harpy in your head who gives women a pass for letting their boyfriends molest their kids,

The "Ignore the shitbag mom pimping them out..." part of my comment was not intended to be a reflection of your views, but was me blowing steam on (my view of) the general status quo. I apologize for not making that clear.

who believes that all child molesters are cunning sadistic predators,

I have no idea where you got this from my comment. The best match I can come up with is

No, obviously it's just pedophiles evilly fantasizing about victimizing children until they finally get up the nerve to do it to real children. Because that's what we are. Evil people plotting evil things because we're evil. Any defense we give is just DARVO.

but even that's a very big stretch. If that is what you were referring to, then yes, let's not pursue this any further because I will very likely not be able to be civil to someone who that egregiously equates "pedophile" and "child molester" while claiming to differentiate them.

and who wants a blank check to hurt pedophiles for their desires alone.

What positive expression of those desires would you not see censored?

If I promise not to accuse you of believing child abuse is fine because you haven't given a loud enough condemnation of it, can you agree not to accuse me of believing "women can never be blamed for their contributions to child abuse and their abuse can never truly be sexual anyway"?

You don't even need to make that promise. As I said above, I didn't intend to accuse you of believing that and I'm sorry I didn't distinguish my "ranting at the sky" clearly enough.

But could you please, while you're talking to me, talk to me?

The best I can promise here is that I will try to be charitable and assume good faith. I cannot guarantee I will succeed or avoid misunderstandings however. Even putting aside the strong emotional response to the topic, there is a large inferential distance to cover.

Yeah, those views. It was amusing to me how noticeably bad its responses were when I asked it about ethical behavior in situations involving pedophiles compared to situations that didn't. The former were much more terse and obviously special-cased.

I presume the shout-out relates to my advocacy for stronger standards of free speech around these parts?

No, I just thought you'd find it amusing given your views on LLMs. Or did I mix you up with someone?

(I'm probably going to regret this comment...)

Why are you putting "offending" in scare quotes?

Because what's considered "offending" varies quite wildly and it's not always obvious to me what people mean by it. I've returned a hug from a child I found attractive rather than turning her away. I've gotten aroused by the actions of children around me. Do you consider that "offending"? I don't, but some (many?) people do. Amusingly ChatGPT also does (hello @self_made_human).

Nevertheless, child sex abuse is a real thing, and people aren't stupid or crazy for connecting it with pedophilia.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't give people a blank check in their response to pedophilia and things correlated with it.

Can you explain to me a mechanism by which pedophilia would be a strong predictor of offending again, but not a strong predictor of offending the first time?

Sure. Back when we were on reddit, there was another user who claimed to be a pedophile who theorized that pedophilia is (sometimes?) caused by a disruption in one's sexual development leaving them stuck in a more child-like stage. Hypothetically assuming this is true (I'm not claiming it is, though it does somewhat fit my experience), then it's possible that when and/or how it was disrupted affects how likely a pedophile is to offend, making pedophilia a very strong predictor of offending again, but not necessarily of offending the first time if only a minority of pedophiles are so affected.

I'd be astonished if they weren't. Would you?

I would expect pedophiles to be overrepresented among people who sexually abuse children. I would also expect that a large majority of pedophiles never sexually abuse a child however.

You can probably even argue that, in absolute numbers, more children are sexually abused due to Mom's shitbag-but-not-an-obligate-pedophile boyfriend.

Ignore the shitbag mom pimping them out to her shitbag boyfriend out of desperation for his attention when she's not abusing them herself between being dumped by and finding a new one. But of course, women can never be blamed for their contributions to child abuse and their abuse can never truly be sexual anyway...

But this feels like a huge whataboutist evasion. If you're asking me to believe that a man who's attracted to kids is no more likely to try to have sex with one than a random man from the dating pool of single parents - well, that doesn't pass the smell test.

Depends on what you mean by more likely to try I guess. I agree a random pedophile is more likely to desire to have sex with one and seek it out given the opportunity, but I think "a random man from the dating pool of single parents" is far more likely to actually have the opportunity and act on it--I don't think the average pedophile has the necessary social skill nor confidence to. I also think the average pedophile is more likely to see a child as a partner they don't want to hurt rather than just a hole to get off in, which I think would temper offending somewhat. Maybe I'm extrapolating too much from my own feelings though.

My assertion is that there is a direct causal link between pedophilia and trying to have sex with kids.

So basically I'm just deceiving myself thinking I actually care more about not hurting the people I'm attracted to than having sex with them?

Is your quoted article asserting

IIRC, the article itself is more a history and survey of other studies and I don't recall it making any assertions itself. These assertions are coming from others being quoted.

that users of virtual CP are relating to the sexualized minor, not to any unseen attacker? So they're not fantasizing about victimizing children?

Some users in some instances, yes. More generally, I think the assertion is that some people use virtual CP as a means of dealing with their own [childhood] [sexual] trauma in a safer, more controlled context. For example, consider ボクはお姉ちゃんの妹, a story about an older step-sister who defends her effeminate younger brother from bullying for acting like a girl and treats him like a girl, first with tame cross-dressing and then more erotic cross-dressing and sexual activities, with a recurring emphasis on how much she cares for her brother and how comfortable he is with her behavior. Can you imagine how good it feels to read this for a man who experienced similar things from people who didn't care? When he was forced to participate in feminine activities because his sister was too afraid to do them alone and was subsequently bullied for it. When rather than defending him, his relatives only defended femininity because bullying an effeminate boy is okay so long as girls don't feel like they are being denigrated by it. When he felt helpless as older girls (and boys, though that's not particularly relevant to this story) dressed him up, assaulted, and harassed him, treating him like a doll without any concern for his feelings. And despite all the fear and helplessness he was and still is aroused by it.

No, obviously it's just pedophiles evilly fantasizing about victimizing children until they finally get up the nerve to do it to real children. Because that's what we are. Evil people plotting evil things because we're evil. Any defense we give is just DARVO.

Therefore we shouldn't be concerned about their attraction to children?

Therefore we should be cognizant of the fact that there is more to consider than just their threat to children.

If all you know about a man is that he is attracted to children, it's difficult to quantify his risk of offending.

The response doesn't change even if people know you well. Once they find out you are attracted to kids, it doesn't matter if they've known you to act with integrity for decades. Everything you've ever done is suddenly viewed as an act to lull people into a false sense of security so you can "offend". If you acted "normally" (ie, the way other adults did) around kids, you must have been secretly getting off on it and therefore can't be trusted. If you avoided kids, you must not have been able to control yourself and therefore can't be trusted. People will literally trust known child abusers over you. Being attracted to a kid but never "offending" while trying to be a good if distant person in their life when it happens to intersect your own is apparently more trauma-inducing than repeated physical and emotional abuse. Ask me how I know...

However, we do know that attraction to children is the single strongest predictor of recidivism in known offenders. This is at least suggestive that it matters for first-time offenders as well.

It's the strongest predictor among people who have already offended. This introduces severe selection bias.

What "other predictors" do you mean, and are they as directly causally linked and unambiguous as CP? Or are they vague, all-purpose risk factors, like "lifestyle instability"?

I believe single parents hooking up with new partners is far more directly linked to child abuse than virtual CP consumption. I'll also challenge that there is a direct and unambiguous causal link between virtual CP and child abuse. I'd assert the motivation to consume it is more complicated than you are making it out to be. Consider Lolicon: The Reality of 'Virtual Child Pornography' in Japan (IMAGE & NARRATIVE (MAR 2011), Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 83 – 119, full paper contains NSFW imagery). Toward the end is this section:

Likewise, engaging lolicon images, even when they are pornographic in function or effect, is no simple matter. According to Akagi Akira, in the 1980s, the meaning of lolicon among fans shifted away from older men having sex with younger girls (Akagi 1993: 230). The desire for two-dimensional images was not for girls per se, but rather "girl-ness" (shōjo sei), symbolized by "cuteness" (kawairashisa)(Akagi 1993: 230). The young age and small size of characters were intended to amplify cuteness. Akagi proposes that substitution and mimicry in lolicon function to transform straight sex into parodic forms (Akagi 1993: 230-231). It does not facilitate normal sex, but sexualizes that which is normally not sexual (Shigematsu 1999: 130). Shigematsu adds that the male penis is often absent from lolicon (in compliance with obscenity laws, though not always so in the 1980s), and the replacements for it are objects that do not feel pleasure (Shigematsu 1999: 130). Further, the face of the attacker is often not depicted (Akagi 1993: 232). Akagi sees this as a major distinction from the erotic manga that came before, where there was a sort of "hero attacker" with whom the reader identified. Rather, Akagi provactively suggests that lolicon fans project onto girls: "Lolicon readers do not need a penis for pleasure, but rather they need the ecstasy of the girl. At that time, they identify with the girl, and get caught up in a masochistic pleasure" (Akagi 1993: 232).^30 Itō Gō supports this analysis:

"Readers do not need to emphasize (sic) with the rapist, because they are projecting themselves on the girls who are in horrible situations. It is an abstract desire and does not necessarily connect to real desires. This is something I was told by a lolicon artist, but he said that he is the girl who is raped in his manga. In that he has been raped by society, or by the world. He is in a position of weakness."^31

Recall Kinsella's suggestion that lolicon be understood as men performing the shōjo to come to terms with an unstable gender identity (Kinsella 2006: 81-83). If being a man ceases to promise power, potency and pleasure, it is no longer the privileged subject position. Akagi explains that lolicon is a form of self-expression for those oppressed by the principles of masculine competitive society (Akagi 1993: 232).^32 Lolicon is a rejection of the need to establish oneself as masculine and an identification with the "kindness and love" of the shōjo (Akagi 1993: 233). This interpretation reverses the standard understanding of lolicon as an expression of masculinity to one of femininity. This is, of course, not the only way to approach the wide range of lolicon images, but it certainly highlights the complexity of "pornographic content" and its uses.

Attraction to children is not as strong a predictor of child abuse as other predictors that we don't respond this way to, so I don't find that to be a very convincing argument. This is nothing but dumping on low-status men.