thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
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
1yr ago
No, the stranger part is the biggest reason it's not appealing to me.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr 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
2yr 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
2yr 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.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
25d ago
If you're a stereotypical man who has outsourced the work of maintaining his social life to his wife for a decade
I love how we frame women controlling their partners' social lives as a burden while when men do it to their partners it is framed as abuse.
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
1yr ago
Yes, though I expect for interior worldspaces it'd wrap around to cover the walls and ceilings as well.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr 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
2yr 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
2yr 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
2yr 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
2yr ago
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr 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.
In my experience the much more frequent cause of single motherhood is not that the father is a net negative but that the mother is and society is so blinded by unwarranted sympathy for her that it refuses to do anything about it nor let the father, leaving the child to suffer while the mother's poor behavior is continually subsidized.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1mo ago
More seriously, The Schism had less commentary on all three assassination attempts combined, between Trump and Kavanaugh, in an entire year, than it spent debating whether Trump was fascist in a single week before the 2024 election. (answer: of course, it's just a matter of how fascist). Tesla arsons, Paul Kessler, new phone who dis?
That's the subreddit that came into existence because people here didn't downvote a post FCfromSSC ate a ban over hard enough about advocacy of violence. Maybe direct advocacy is not universal among Blue Tribers (though I'll point again to Ken White or my tumblr feed and its regular DenyDefendDepose fandom), and maybe it's not here (modulo whenever Impassionata makes their next alt), but they don't care enough to comment on it; does anyone think there's a Blue Tribe locale that's going to be any stronger?
I explicitly called out Impassionata's escalating advocacy and tolerance of violence on TheSchism and it was recognized as a quality contribution. There are still Blue Tribers who see the same pattern of escalations that @FCfromSSC does and who lament that too few of our "allies" seem to be taking de-escalation seriously and would rather risk violence in pursuit of power.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
Even ignoring cultural differences in what is considered 'faggy' or 'gay-looking', you are mostly talking about men who happen to otherwise be extremely conventionally attractive (including personality traits like confidence and gregariousness). I don't think that generalizes well to the larger group.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
6mo ago
Why not allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy, but require the schools to cosign the loans?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
And at least in the entire US, underage boys are responsible for their children even when raped. What's your point? Forced fatherhood isn't seen as a problem in the slightest. "That sucks, but you're still responsible for the child." is the response we give men who are raped. Why should we treat motherhood differently?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Now? Hasn't he been relatively inactive since before the move from reddit?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr 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.
Sure. Now think of how boys who have physical development issues feel when they put in more effort than said girls, get less results because of their development issues, and are then told "tough luck, you lost the genetic lottery" while they see the girls who didn't work as hard as them celebrated. I have no problems with the existence of women's leagues. I only take issue with the lack of humility some people exhibit in demanding to be considered the equal of people who they have explicitly excluded from competing with them while sneering at those with other types of disadvantage.
More options
Context Copy link