thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
6mo ago
people tend to assume on some level that if a woman approaches a man, she must be 1) joking 2) desperate or 3) looking for something casual. I found those were difficult assumptions to overcome.
You're forgetting in my opinion the most important one (that also often applies to men approaching women): she must be somehow trying to exploit me.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
And this is a problem why exactly? They expect me to similarly repress myself if I'm to live and participate in society, so why should I care if other people expect it of them?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
And teaching kids that they shouldn't talk about sex and its shameful (the traditional approach) also enables people to take advantage of that shame so kids are too scared to cone forward. Thats what i have seen to be enabling abuse in practice.
On the other hand, teaching kids that it is shameful to report being molested, because only homophobes would be uncomfortable with it, also enables abuse in practice.
Yeah, you can do that (and in fact I distinctly remember Morrowind having a scripting function for it), the issue is that you can cast an infinite amount of rays from any point.
I don't think I communicated the intended algorithm well. This is just intended to be a batch program that you point your load order at and it spits out a file listing all the "holes" it found. I would only cast a single ray per worldspace, straight down from the (first, if more than one) spawn location to identify a surface to start the breadth-first search. My assumption is that this initial surface would almost certainly be part of the composite surface surrounding the playable volume of that worldspace rather than something floating within it, and thus "flooding" over it with a breadth-first search would suffice to identify holes.
EDIT:
Well, even then you need some criteria to try identify them. Otherwise you'd be showing people the entirety of the game map.
I do have a criteria to identify them: a surface with a texture adjacent to one without a texture. It is classification of them that I defer on. The definition of "adjacent to" is a bit complicated, but basically shares an edge with and if you rotated them around that edge they'd come together without intersecting another surface.
Sure, and once the euphoria of realizing your kid isn't going to die wears off, you'll be a good parent and start worrying about the next set of risks facing them--namely me. Hence the "Thanks, now gtfo." Helping kids almost always ends up being a net negative for my mental health, to which your response would almost certainly be "not my problem".
EDIT: Also, on a more humorous note, is it even physically possible to give CPR to a person "while slapping them in the face with a flaccid cock"? The flexibility required seems inhuman to me...
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
I agree, but somehow I rarely see things in this space proposed and much more often see the "we need to take away women's rights" kind of solution.
I think part of the problem here is that you do sometimes need to restrict women's rights in order to protect men's, just as men's rights are sometimes restricted to protect women's. Framing "taking away women's rights" as incompatible with liberalism is a female supremist position, as it is equivalent to saying that men's rights must always give way to women's when they conflict.
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.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
No, the stranger part is the biggest reason it's not appealing to me.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
True, but "minor attracted person" originated in academia in people studying pedophilia specifically because the distinction you mentioned had broken down to the point of being unusable. The progressive movement adopting the term is merely the inevitable progression to it too losing its distinction. I don't know that it is possible to ever maintain the distinction since the topic holds so much power over people's emotions.
I don't think we disagree.
It's not clear to me whether we do or not.
All I'm saying is that Born This Way was never anywhere near the strongest argument for gay liberation. Acceptance of gay people and gay relationships should come from recognition that these behaviors aren't harmful and can indeed be extremely functional, personally fulfilling, and even prosocial, supporting stable family formation. ... Conversely, regardless of what causes attraction to prepubescent children, laws against child molestation should still stand.
There's an important difference between acceptance of gay people and acceptance of gay relationships, and similarly between acceptance of pedophiles and acceptance of sexual relationships between adults and children. Being outed as gay often meant losing your job, losing your social network, being subject to harassment or assault, etc, even if you didn't participate in gay relationships. Being outed as a pedophile (EDIT:) has can have similar repercussions even if you are never sexually involved with a child. The core of the Born This Way argument is that these desires are both immutable and not the result of a conscious choice, which I think is a very strong argument that they shouldn't have to hide those feelings simply to participate in society without being subject to such social sanction. The only way I think you can argue it was "never anywhere near the strongest argument for gay liberation" is if you restrict gay liberation to tolerance of openly gay relationships, which I agree it is not really relevant to, and ignore everything else it fights/fought for.
The majority of child abuse, including sexual abuse, is committed by non-pedophiles so society is apparently already on board with such trade-offs. Advocating the incarceration of pedophiles simply due to their attractions is just a way for lazy self-righteous people to feel like they are protecting children without having to do the work of actually looking into the causes of abuse and thinking seriously about the trade-offs that would be required to avert it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
I'm pretty confident most people expect me to avoid relationships, if not interactions altogether, with people I'm attracted to.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
I didn't say advocating kids not reporting it, I said teaching kids it is shameful to. By associating discomfort with being touched with homophobia and teaching that homophobia is bad, they end up teaching kids that their feelings of discomfort being touched are shameful thus making them afraid to report it.
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.
Feminists believe that the ordinary, non-abusive men you speak of are just sneaky abusers making big sad eyes at the judge and denying their crimes. I believe feminists wrong about this, and that they are doing considerable damage by being stupid and wrong. But they are not as willfully evil as you're portraying them.
This is not simply being stupid and wrong. This is not simply being stupid and wrong. Large prominent feminist organizations actively, willfully supporting and celebrating female abusers while completely erasing male victims if not making them out to be the abusers. They seem to justify any violence by women towards men as self-defense and any violence by men towards women as abusive. If you don't see that as willfully evil, I'm not sure what you would see as such.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
8mo ago
Yes, though I expect for interior worldspaces it'd wrap around to cover the walls and ceilings as well.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
This was probably in reference to their unconditional surrender in WWII and the coerced political changes that followed rather than to Perry's gunboats.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
For a close to home example, I don't think anyone at The Schism "hates" white people in the way, say, Hannah Nikole-Jones or Tema Okun does, but I think many of them would engage in a lot of hemming, hawing, and sanewashing why those attitudes make sense in context, or why they should be tolerated (but the opposite equivalent wouldn't be, a la the fiasco last month with Impassionata- I strongly doubt the mods would've tolerated a right-wing rant half as long), etc etc. Or why slurs are so much worse at certain targets, but basically don't matter towards others.
Do you have any evidence to support these claims? I find that the mods there are very hesitant to give out bans at all or even warnings for that matter, and as @drmanhattan16 notes, there's been plenty of right-wing or at least anti-progressive ranting in the sub over its lifetime. I vaguely recall @gemmaem discussing this hesitancy in a comment early on, though I'm having trouble finding a link to it with the reddit api fiasco making searching for old comments a bit troublesome at the moment.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
It's quite common that the exercising of one's rights infringes in some way on the rights of others. Society then comes up with rules to balance the rights of one versus the other, usually putting some restrictions on both. As an example, consider sexual harassment. A man asserts his right to freedom of speech. A woman asserts his exercising of that right infringes her right to not be subject to unwanted sexual stimulation. Similarly, a woman asserts her right to wear whatever she wants. A man asserts her exercising of that right infringes his right to not be subject to unwanted sexual stimulation.
EDIT: Grammar.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Neither of those is offered by a fleshlight, but neither of them are necessarily offered by those women either. Sex toys (and porn and non-pornographic sexualized media more generally) raise the bar for the amount of effort those women have to put in to exploit the desires of those men. It doesn't raise it very high, but high enough I think to have an impact.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
The same can, and often is, said of circumcision though: if circumcision is traditional in your culture, then not getting circumcised will make you different. Being different often causes emotional distress, both due to internal feelings of not fitting in and external harassment.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2mo ago
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.
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.
I think you are misunderstanding what "sex positive" and "sex negative" refer to. The schism between the two groups basically revolves around how one answers the question "Is heterosexual sex oppressive of women?". Sex negative feminists hold that it is and thus heterosexual sex must be eschewed, leading to things like political lesbianism. Sex positive feminists hold that it is not necessarily oppressive and that women should be free engage their sexuality so long as it is empowering to them. Sex positive feminists still often oppose the sexual objectification of women because it is not empowering. That doesn't make them sex negative however.
More options
Context Copy link