thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
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?
If you don't want to accept the consequences, don't take the action.
How much of the "forced motherhood" narrative revolves around the idea that she didn't take the action--her male partner did and she was just a passive participant who now has to deal with the consequences?
fails to explain the FAANG people
A lot of them probably expect to be on the receiving end of transfers of social status rather than economic status.
I'm still not sure why penises are uniquely traumatizing to teenage girls, but have no harmful effect on teenage boys. I'm still not sure why only penises have this uniquely traumatizing effect, but men can handle vaginas just fine. Again, there's plenty of cultures where nudity is common, and everyone seems to do just fine seeing a penis there. But if you think seeing a penis is this horrifying traumatizing event, why do you keep inflicting it on little boys?
I don't think the concern is trauma. Exposing a male sex organ to a girl/woman is seen as defiling her due to women being traditionally considered sexually "pure". There's no need to worry about defiling boys as they are inherently defiled.
We dropped it in favor of the more concise "they" because the singular/plural distinction wasn't important enough to maintain for many people compared to the convenience of having a single word. It also nicely dodges the complaints some people had about prioritizing one gender over another in language due to the ordering of "he or she", which was a rather obnoxious part of the gender war a few decades back.
If there is any hope for preserving female-only spaces (in public) then it must be by re-asserting that the legal protections for women are for members of the female sex, and not anyone who identifies as a woman. There really is no other way out.
There should be no hope for preserving female-only spaces or legal protections. The west has adopted "equality of the sexes" as foundational and women should have to bear the cost of that as much as men do. They shouldn't get to simultaneously claim equality and special treatment as it suits them.
EDIT: Grammar.
Organizations often have privileges beyond those granted to individual members. Why should we be able to grant such privileges to organizations but not set restrictions on them?
I do think in the very near future child porn will be naturally significantly reduced in scope if not largely eliminated by the general proliferation of deep fakes that are indistinguishable from actual CP and that society should not try to get in the way of this via regulating them (or requiring registration to view them, since that'll put them behind a gate that makes it clear they're fake, which eliminates their subversive effect of acting as counterfeit goods that drive the real goods out). Of course many if not most pedos will still prefer "the real thing", but if it's impossible to tell the real thing from the fake thing then what can you do? Are you gonna look through every clip of every single adult Chaturbate or MFC camgirl that's ever existed to find out if what you're looking at is an authentic webcam capture or a transformed version of an adult clip?
Basically, the "market" (which is actually, contrary to what most non-pedos believe, mostly a reputational and attentional market more than a financial one as most CP producers do it for kudos and prestige rather than to make cash) will be flooded by so many counterfeits that it will collapse. It will be so "bad" (or I guess good) that if most pedos knew it was coming I think many would try to stop it (as opposed to working toward it), treating it as an existential crisis for a significant sphere of pedo activity, but I don't think they can.
Abortion:
Woman: legally allowed to make a decision on her own
Man: legally allowed to argue
From the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women:
Article 16
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:
...
(e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights;
If a woman can unilaterally decide to abort or carry her baby to term, can men truly be said to have the same right to "to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children" if all he can do is try to persuade her?
Oh, so when we make Felons a class of people who can't own guns, are we doing something unfair?
If only it were just felons. The various red flag laws gun control advocates keep pushing don't even require a criminal conviction.
Will never, ever happen, for non-immigration related reasons, in the US.
I don't think the resistance is as strong as you think. We're already moving that direction with REAL ID which originally faced stiff opposition for fear of it turning into a national ID card, including states passing laws preventing its implementation, but eventually everyone caved.
I really don't think you want to establish a precedent of labeling message t-shirts "harassment" because you think they are meant to annoy you.
That's already the precedent for men with message t-shirts. EDIT: Or rather, the harassment isn't in the message itself, it's in the fact that simply looking at where the message is written is a social faux pas.
And how exactly would you like women who wear it to be "punished"?
I already said above, they shouldn't be granted the additional protections against "sexual" harassment that women are typically given. They are giving shit, they should expect to deal with it given in return. EDIT: Importantly in this case, if you don't want people staring at your chest, don't put words there.
I mostly agree with this and would say that both extremes here are bad, but I believe that in the West women are getting away with more than men in this case. For instance, women who wear shirts like this should be recognized as doing so to harass men and such harassment should be punished to a greater extent than it currently is.
OP: "Sometimes I feel paranoid that I might accidentally look in a way that makes someone feel sexually harassed."
You: "So if someone expresses that their constant impulses toward free-floating sexual opportunism with random women are troublesome and uncomfortable to them"
Way to miss the point. The problem isn't men's impulses, it's women being empowered to interpret men's behavior as explicitly sexual even if he doesn't view nor intend it as sexual and use that interpretation to exert power over him via creep shaming or other social bullying. The more we crack down on "creepy" behavior in men, the more we incentivize women to interpret even more innocuous behaviors as creepy in order to abuse that power. Cracking down on sexy dress (EDIT: by saying she "deserves" to be leered at and thus can't exert social power over men if she dresses that way) is one way to dis-incentivize such abuse.
I find it more like a pub or club that I keep stumbling back to than a home. A wretched hive of scum and villainy as it were.
Girls and women are very clearly told that what we wear makes us responsible for men's behavior towards us.
And men are told that it is fine to creep shame us if what we wear makes women uncomfortable. So which is it? Are people responsible for what they choose to wear or not?
Your choice in what to wear is expressive speech in the "freedom of speech" sense of the term. Wear whatever you want in private. In public, your choice in what to wear is communication and if your communication is not respectful to those around you then don't expect respect in return.
The "hungry as heck" bug you? It does me. And he does this throughout the 1st person narrative. Now I don't need swear words to feel realism, but if you want to eliminate epithets, just go without.
To me the use of "heck" rather than a stronger epithet or swear word is indicating that the hunger is significant, but in a safe or comic way rather than a serious one. Similar, I'd view "scary as heck" as describing a safe scare that someone was comfortable with vs "scary as hell/fuck" where I'd be worried that someone was actually seriously scared and possibly in need of support.
Why do you think women fail to realize that men are visually stimulated? We're told this constantly. We're told that if a man acts out, it's because of what a woman wore, how she looked. Sure, men shouldn't rape, but did you see what she was wearing?
Here it is, women's favorite motte and bailey. Yes, if a man rapes a woman he is responsible for it no matter what she is wearing. However, what you wear is signaling. Wearing clothing that draws attention to your sexual characteristics and then complaining when people give you sexual attention (eg, lewding, catcalling) is sexual harassment. On your end. You initiated it, you are responsible for it.
That is exactly my point. I'm not saying men's and women's nipples should or shouldn't be treated the same, I'm saying that the difference in treatment @Stingray3906 was asking about is tied to social expectations placed on others. You can't change one without the other.
Men don't get scrutinized for their nipples being visible in public. Why should women?
Women don't get in trouble for leering at men's nipples when they are visible in public, no matter how uncomfortable it makes the men. Women can have the same "freedom" to expose themselves when they give up the power to sexualize and punish men's gaze.
I'm not aware of any helpful published surveys supporting this, but to my mind the counter-narrative where Southern patriarchs eagerly guard the honor of their random enslaved field hands is making the more extraordinary claim.
They presumably wouldn't have been guarding the honor of their "random enslaved field hands" so much as their productivity. A slave was an investment. Part of that investment particularly for female slaves was breeding potential. An unexpected pregnancy with unknown paternity eats into that investment.
Given the overall attitude to women of that class, why would they be believed and avenged rather than punished for causing trouble and/or assumed to have themselves been the seducers?
Slaves were property and damaging the property of the elite is generally not tolerated regardless of whether or not they actually cared about the women.
HexCasting has a few built-in ways to store spells, and most of the time people will just load three or four spells down and never have to use a wand again.
I really like the looks of this. It reminds me greatly of the spellcasting from Arx Fatalis, which I was disappointed to see wasn't replicated and expanded on in other games. Now if only I hadn't just started GTNH...
Ah, I missed that he flamed out. I thought you meant he literally asked to be banned and was very confused since neither his user page nor the mod log indicated he had been.
There's a certain pattern I notice where gendered issues affecting men are dismissed by framing any support for fixing them as taking away women's rights. Odd how that seems to be designed to cause the pattern you "noticed" isn't it?
More options
Context Copy link