@thrownaway24e89172's banner p

thrownaway24e89172

wrong about everything

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

				

User ID: 1081

thrownaway24e89172

wrong about everything

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1081

My wife gets bad migraines fairly regularly and she finds an icepack on the back of the neck to be the most effective relief.

Women only optimize for this "beauty standard men prefer" because they are too caught up in competing with other women in exploiting male sexual attention. If they viewed men as partners rather than exploitable peons they wouldn't be "forced" to retain "as much of those neotenous features as possible". Instead they impose this race to the bottom on themselves, because obviously treating men as people rather than resources is a bridge too far.

This is why it's OK for young boys to be sex objects for gay men

And straight women...

Would you refer to your friend as a boy if you were talking about him in terms of "I know a boy who is dating a younger woman"?

Have you never heard the term "boy toy"?

I think the answer is probably some combination of firstly male role models, affirmation of masculinity, or just implicitly communicating to these boys that a man is a good thing to be, and that manhood is possible, attractive, and in reach for them;

Explicitly refuting the "men are evil" messaging pervading society and those pushing it would probably be a plus too.

Getting off the computer and doing real, physical work in the world makes you more aware of your own body. Successfully doing things with your physical body feels great and is inherently affirming.

No, it really isn't. Maybe there are some people for whom that is true, but not everyone finds this affirming.

If the options are "Cooperate with defect bot" or "Defect against defect bot", the latter wins every time. If you don't want that end scenario, start undoing the damage of the ones who turned every male space into a mixed space and destroyed all the checks on their harassment.

Sure. Being a celebrity doesn't guarantee it draws attention, it merely increases the likelihood that it will be, all else equal.

Yes, by definition (emphasis mine):

The state or fact of being well known, widely discussed, or publicly esteemed.

Being an elite institution is merely a way to become a celebrity, and likely in my mind the reason Duke University is.

Duke University is a celebrity because it is an elite university. Representatives of Duke University become celebrities by proxy in their representative role, which is why they are always referred to as "member of the Duke lacrosse team" rather than individually named.

How are "people who push back against those who view women as instrumental goods/property" and never push back against those who view men as instrumental goods/property while smearing any who do as "women-hater" not deserving of the title "Women Are Wonderful" simps?

I weary of the women-haters (I don't mean you, though you seem to be giving them too much credit) who argue that the natural (and implied: correct) state of man is to treat women as property and before our modern age, no man in any civilization ever gave a shit how females felt about their treatment.

There are precious few (though admittedly not zero) women-haters here who "argue that the natural (and implied: correct) state of man is to treat women as property". Most restrain themselves to recognizing that humans tend to view each other instrumentally by default, and that includes men viewing women instrumentally, women viewing men instrumentally, and society viewing both instrumentally. That the non-women-haters seem to only be concerned about the former and sometimes the latter--when women are being viewed instrumentally by society--demonstrates they don't view men as humans deserving rights and view women as inherently superior to men.

Yes, the "Duke lacrosse bros" weren't themselves celebrities, but also nobody knows or refers to them as individuals merely as pseudo-anonymous representatives of an elite University.

At this point anyone not using them is resisting out of inertia. Or fear. Well placed fear, perhaps.

Or just slow at learning how to use them...

Rather, they want it to be a buffet where they can pick and choose which gender roles apply to everyone to ensure that they are always the beneficiaries and lack corresponding obligations to others in society.

Beware of mistaking a loose consensus for no consensus. There is still a sufficient moral majority to hinder the sales potential of appealing to many sexual niches.

Not to mention men's attempts prior to "success" are significantly less likely to be recorded as such for much the same reason.

Yes, it has high tail risks (and rewards). I think the average expected value of blackmail is usually still positive though, particularly when supported by the legal system rather than opposed by it.

In this way, the AoC protects the sociofinancial interests of all women over it, at the expense of ... women under it (typically rationalized as "too immature", but importantly the AoC doesn't actually prohibit these women from having sex, it just makes it so that the only men they can sell sex to can't afford to buy it).

It actually also protects the interests of women under it: selective enforcement empowers women to "sell sex" at its peak and then exploit the illegality of the men's action as leverage over the those they "sell" it to.

All else equal, buying feels worse to me because the results are the same--falsified credentials--but buying involves a conspiracy whereas lying doesn't. Of course, all else is not equal when the lying involves one of the most prestigious universities in the world and the buying involves a known "diploma mill".

Local cops are still "government goons". OP's principle generalizes to "the government shouldn't be permitted to enforce laws because doing so could be intimidating".

You would need to divest a lot more than just "schools and child-care facilities" to avoid the problem I mentioned. Further, if I agreed with that principle, I'd apply it to all government "goons", not just ICE. These provision proposals are clearly not being made in good faith.

The fact that it says "near" rather than "in" implies a different motive not too dissimilar from restrictions we place on where sex offenders can live--if everywhere in town is "near" a sensitive location, then you've just made the entire city a sanctuary.

So you are saying Alice has a financial obligation to Bob then? That is, she has an obligation to subsidize the cost of him having a child via surrogacy, while he doesn't have an obligation to subsidize the cost of her having a child via surrogacy since she is able to gestate a child on her own?

You never said anything about the cost, merely that "the more able ought to help the less able". Now you are putting up guardrails. Fine. Define them. Exactly how "costly" must an action be to make it no longer required for the more able to help the less able?

I think the primary reason you notice this "aversion" is the desire to create a dependent underclass similar to the idea described by @SteveKirk in this comment:

Yep. You see this in all the sexology pedophilia discussion: the goal of "destigmatization" is to make pedophiles into a dependent ally accomplice class.

"Come out of the closet, it's fine! Oh, but if you ever stop supporting us you'll be thrown in a woodchipper by the other side, so you'd better stay a valuable party member ;)"
It's possibly the ultimate form of bioleninism.

This is why you so often see leftist "activists" pushing much more radical policies than those they claim to be advocating for--they want to alienate opponents in order to better corner and thereby control the groups they nominally "support".