@thrownaway24e89172's banner p

thrownaway24e89172

naïve paranoid outcast

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

				

User ID: 1081

thrownaway24e89172

naïve paranoid outcast

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1081

There's always room for another stripe on the Progress Pride flag, and if the LGBT community don't want that right now, give it a couple of years until the softhearted and softheaded sociologists work on normalising such attractions.

It amuses me how many people still think there's support in the LGBT community to normalize pedophilia, given that community used to be significantly more supportive of pedophilia and has been backpedaling on it for decades. What they want to normalize is child sexuality, not creepy adults exploiting it. It's no different than the feminist argument against modesty: women [children] should be free to do what they want without men [pedophiles] sexualizing them for it. Hence Cuties.

I think it is less that the accusations came from outsiders and more that those outsiders were just using the accusations to discredit her arguments via ad hominem.

That is the status quo they are fighting against though. In their ideal world, "flaunting sexuality" wouldn't make you appear as a sexual object to other people unless you intend it to. The fact that it does today is seen as a problem and rather than putting the onus on women/children to not flaunt their sexuality, they prefer to put the onus on the men/pedophiles to not perceive them doing so as sexual.

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?

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...

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?

Hanlon's razor begs to differ. It seems much more likely to me that they didn't even realize they were publicly insulting their core customers until it was too late.

I'm pretty confident most people expect me to avoid relationships, if not interactions altogether, with people I'm attracted to.

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 begrudge you that position. But similarly, I see no reason to care about people being intolerant of you--supporting your group is not something I can afford. Hence my original comment.

No, it is exactly the same thing. You just don't want to admit it because doing so would require either admitting that such repression can be expected of some groups in a tolerant society (and thus it is on the table for gays) or admitting that the LGBT community is not actually a tolerant one (and thus must cede the moral high ground).

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.

I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me or misunderstanding me, so I'll clarify why I said 'Hence Cuties'. The behavior of the girls in the movie is intended as part of an exploration and critique of women's experiences. Critics of the film argue that the movie is morally bad because of how the girls are portrayed while supporters argue there is nothing wrong with the movie itself and that it is instead viewers (eg, "pedophiles") who interpret it in a titillating context who are morally in the wrong. That is, women should be free to make a movie about their experiences without men coming along and sexualizing it.

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?

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?

I agree that almost every parent on the planet would prefer to have their child saved than not. I don't know that that preference implies I should try to save them though. I've never saved a kid's life before, but I have been an important figure in one's life and have seen first-hand how quickly people go from thankful to "never contact us again" when they find out, no matter how innocent your intentions or how careful you were to avoid even the hint of sexual behavior. That hurts, a lot, and I now find it hard to feel motivated to risk going through that again for the benefit of people who in all likelihood have nothing but disgust for me. The younger, less bitter me had the will to be somewhat altruistic, but that seems to be fading as I get older.

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.

Should I save a drowning child in such a situation? Is it better for a child to die than to develop a strong social bond to a pedophile with all the risks that entails? Or should I save them and stoically endure the eventual "Stay away from my kid, creep!" or just plain "Thanks, now gtfo.", content in the knowledge that I did "the right thing" even while everyone thinks I just did it to get in the kid's pants? Why shouldn't I just say "not my problem" and keep walking?

The policy is broader than "don't flash your breasts." According to your link it prohibited any content that "deliberately highlighted breasts, buttocks or pelvic region." I have no trouble believing that women were modded for content that men got away with. If a guy did a squat stream that prominently displayed their ass (maybe for form demonstration reasons) would Twitch mod it for sexual content? What if a woman did the same? I have no trouble believing Twitch would mod the woman but not the man. I think there is a pretty straightforward sexist implication to "men are allowed to do this thing but women aren't."

When women start getting treated equivalently to men for sexual assault/harassment, THEN AND ONLY THEN will women deserve "equality" in this regard. You don't get to simultaneously claim the same ability to show off while holding extensive privileges in controlling how people respond to your doing so.

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?"

That may be true once you have experience with alcohol, but I think you overestimate the ability of people with less experience to notice. Also, with strong enough alcohol it can easily be too late by the time you've actually tasted it if you don't handle liquor well. I'm quite a bit bigger than the size of the median twelve year old and a single sip of 190-proof Everclear from a flask a friend handed me with no more explanation than "Try this." was more than enough to knock me out within ten minutes. Fortunately it was in company that proved trustworthy (at least, I have no reason to suspect anything untoward happened after I passed out on the couch), but that experience was a bit of a wakeup call for the risks involved.

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?"

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.

I think there's something to that but it's still not that women are the ones discouraging high male sex drives, in that case it would be older men reigning in younger men.

That's just women arranging for the older men to control young men on women's behalf. Women are still ultimately responsible for it.

Obviously the m/f dynamic changes that a bit, but how much? Feminism/#MeToo have brought with them a deep intuition that that what happened here is very wrong, as opposed to just 'somewhat wrong', and others who don't hold that intuition are objecting to the apparently disproportionate response - so one should ask, which intuition is accurate?

In my eyes, it's not just or even mainly the disproportionate response that needs to be opposed, but the gendered nature of it. Feminism has severely inflamed people's existing bias towards disproportionately punishing men for behaviors that they refuse to similarly permit society to punish women for.