ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
No bio...
User ID: 822
there are modern examples now like Onii-chan Wa Oshimai that are decidedly pro-trans
I don't actually think that one's pro-trans either; there's a bunch of stuff Mahiro does that doesn't make sense if it was. A guy who plays a thousand ero-novels (or is in it for the sexual pleasure) should know perfectly well how female anatomy works and not be turbo-embarrassed about being the opposite sex (and if it's the line the show wants to push, bigger breasts), but none of those things appear to be true. My assessment of it being anti-trans strengthens when considering what Mihari in particular says and does (where she appears to indicate attraction to the male qualities of female Mahiro more than anything else, which are actively offensive to anyone bearing the modern Western feminist/trans-validation viewpoint which state that anything emblematic of masculinity [in someone who is not currently male] is bad).
Compare that to a show I think is pro-trans, Blend S, specifically because of the way Hideri acts. He doesn't say he's trans but the way he acts is pretty close to the way ex-men do (the boundary-blindness he has is there, but he lacks the uncanniness so it's not as apparent), in contrast to Mahiro who really doesn't. You might say the same thing of Baka to Test considering the entire joke around Hideyoshi and passing in the most inconvenient way possible at the time, but that's generally a throwaway bit to greater degree than Hideri.
There were many confused comments online about Onimai
It's also one of those things (that I remember you mentioning about Nietzsche, actually) where as soon as you try to take the easy way out by importing a bunch of biases/privileges/facets of reality you're Big Mad about, it renders itself completely illegible. "Sexualization" (and the related "pedophilia" and "muh soggy knees") are the trump cards one typically deploys to fully disengage from a work that exceeds one's capacity for analysis.
Most of the Onimai complaints are like that, it seems- the work is not commenting on those things that don't fucking matter. (Which most of the YouTube videos about it also seem to miss; the fact Mahiro starts as a shut-in is set dressing for the plot, this isn't a serious analysis of the effects here.)
The thing to remember here is not so much that Mihari wants to fuck Mahiro as it is that gender-change swaps the power dynamic to one where it's inherently safe for Mahiro to exercise the [since atrophied] agency, which is the entire reason why Mihari was and is attracted to him[1], which is a key to female attraction (and one that men instinctively discourage one another from seeking because, if you are a man, it's net-negative for another man to understand women better than you- this is the male mirror-image to slut-shaming). Or in your own words,
Broadly speaking, if a male can’t get laid on his own, then he shouldn’t be having sex; social engineering efforts to the contrary would be dysgenic.
Which is also why I said that it's the mother's job (or the sister's, if they like you enough, as in Mihari's case- maybe the author has some personal experience of that) to make sure their men recognize this, because clearly, nobody else will (I do agree that it is dysgenic for sons of mothers too instinct-bound to understand this to reproduce). And so any man that feels the need to propagate this information is clearly malfunctioning for the same reason women who want casual sex are- you'd have to be autistic/self-destructive/sufficiently devoid of immutable gender instinct to do those things simply because they are fun and rewarding to do [your instincts cannot account for technology unless they were weak to begin with... a condition more common in the "autistic"].
And it's that dynamic which men don't tend to understand the inherent sexuality of for women (complicated further by certain women having an incentive to not understand it): works can be intensely sexual with scarcely a bulge or nipple exposed (re: Adolescence). But once men get caught in the simplest possible trap of sexuality their body will respond to (i.e. "they see boobies and a guy who is now a girl") it's just the standard impotent rage.
Kodaka obviously understands this; I believe that's why his writing is popular with the types of women who also understand that (generally by writing the protagonist in such a way that he's as emotionally available as you'd want him to be, which is easier in VNs because that's where the narrator lives; his protagonists are like this more often than not- the less this is true, the weaker his writing becomes, in my opinion).
Said protagonist is, at that point, either equal to or slightly lesser to you in the sense that you're not inherently threatened about self-inserting on top of him, but you're not burdened by the requirement to do that; you're still witnessing his ability to actually do the work such that he remains sufficiently interesting to keep playing with.
The V'ehxness route from Hundred Line is this at its most blatant. I found it out of place because from a purely tactical standpoint it makes literally zero sense to do what she does, and every single one of that path's endings involves her actively driving the protagonist to function in a way worthy of her [even though that destroys them both in 3 of the 4 endings, if memory serves]. (Of course, the choice to be that ruthless/worthy begins with selecting Tsubasa to explode simply because it is the choice you make if you only care about your team by the numbers; a very V'ehxness thing to do on its own.)
But all of his better protagonists are like this. Makoto isn't memed as best female protagonist for no reason (and Takumi is very much Makoto 2.0, much like Hiruko is Kyoko 2.0, Tsubasa is Aoi 2.0, Moko is just Great Value-brand Sakura, etc.). And then there's Rain Code where the protagonist is basically a middle schooler (and treated a lot more sexually than any Danganronpa game treated its protagonists, with the sole exception of V3's love hotel), to say nothing of UDG.
[1] The first close encounter with Momiji only makes sense if she's both younger in apparent age and a tomboy (which she is) specifically because it's too early in the story for Mahiro to be comfortable engaging with anyone else with more developed girl hardware or software. (Actually, all of the girls in the series are like that; you have the girl who only deploys her hardware offensively against 'enemy' women [which is what a gyaru is], the sportier one, the hyper-androgynous one, and the gay one- all of whom a man like Mahiro would find particularly easy to deal with given that those things largely predict an ability to co-operate with men.)
On that note, the later chapters (once the male characters have names) treat said male characters more sexually than the girls ever really are (outside of Mahiro pissing, I guess, but this is more an inversion-of-control thing which I don't feel like explaining further right now).
I see no real reason why tits should be considered crass
Tits/teats are animal parts. (So are 'breasts' with a side of medical textbook; men already understand this re: 'penis'.)
Tits are for cows (and before you say 'but it's not meant like that', consider what 'cowtits' means).
Chickens have breasts.
Humans have boobs. Uniquely, the word 'looks like' the object.
(For the others, 'melons' is ambiguous and bears a mandate on size; 'funbags' does that and is fundamentally unserious, as are 'gazongas' [and 'vajayjay']. 'Boobs' and 'tits' have diminutives these words lack.)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
23hr ago
"My taste in men (or my lack of ability to judge character) resulted in my daughter having her life ruined in my care"
That's the mistake-theory explanation. Women are literally the character-judge gender, so I give them as much a pass for social "I didn't know better" as much as men get a pass for physical "I didn't know better". (Which for reference is "none".)
The conflict-theory explanation from the mother's side is "permitting my boyfriend to fuck my daughter is the cost of retaining a man who isn't otherwise attracted to me". (The social memeplex about this is sufficiently strong that the mother would have to have The (Anti-)Talk with her daughter about it.)
The conflict-theory explanation from the daughter's side is "claiming my mother's boyfriend fucked me will banish him". This is a natural consequence for any society in which the age of adulthood exceeds reality (since "if you don't like it here, just leave" is practiceable for both parties); you can see that in bodycam footage where the parent(s) say "just take him to jail".
than having them wonder if you were watching while your partner was fucking your daughter.
Traditionalist-leaning men and feminists already give women sufficient privilege to outright murder their children without ever having to confront the realization that they were bad people (or "all women are essentially retarded angels that could never", to borrow an adjacent turn of phrase).
Good for those like her, bad for gender relations.
I see no distinction between "making up problems where none exist" and "shooting women and children".
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
but I think because men like examining very complex and well functioning machines; men will watch hours-long YouTube videos on steam engines and industrial machinery and pore over complex diagrams and cross sections and so on
Or, as in the case of the Motte, examining a very complex machine that only barely functions, which means it was either not engineered at all, or engineered absolutely perfectly, and the most interesting questions come down to figuring out which category which component falls into (and what happens to the machine when it encounters stressors it can't handle without ripping itself apart, and how to tell that from normal operation).
her life isn’t actually very interesting
If it was- mainly, having significant amounts of authority such that those things were done automatically at her command rather than her having to do it herself (correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I think you mean here, for giving orders to other men is the mechanism by which average men accomplish something that makes them Great Men) it'd be discarded as "obvious men writing women, how boring".
What's worse is that that condition gives rise to a particular meme about women who are aggressive/oriented enough to do that; if you possess an instinctive understanding of gender roles (and correspondingly label "the one that gives orders" as "the male gender role"), the response and attitude towards that (by both genders) is, by that definition of 'gender', so casually anti-transgender that even the caricatures of it don't capture it.
And it's not like it's that great either for the "not supposed to be the protagonist" gender in the general case, since as you've described it's difficult to make that interesting, willingness to look for the interesting parts, and appreciate the difficulty of them -> the power of those who do them is nowhere near as universal a skill as it needs to be (especially when a society puts zero effort into that), and once devotion to "the protagonists" does start degrading you...
Ironically, the "men should never be permitted to act as if they were entitled to be attracted to us" comment by that sector comes from this specific sector; unfortunately, the women who weren't quite smart enough to figure out that advice was not applicable to them heard it and the social conditions at the time let them reify it. Which is the OP's point, right down to the disclaimer that it wasn't about trans people, because the common definition of what that actually looks like on the FTM side grates on the instinct about as much as the appearance of the stereotypical MTF does.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
Simply read something else
You don't understand- I must crusade against anything offensive to what I deem my Privilege to be, what the proletariat prefers (i.e. "vampired billionarely") be damned.
I will submit that it's very difficult for cross-gender writing to occur properly, not because of a shortage of those who are able/willing to understand how the other works, but because its audience is generally limited to the people who are willing and able to find that kind of writing interesting.[1]
The people that cause the most trouble to this group- by definition those with the most Privilege to stop it from being written- are those who are technically able but unwilling because it would require them to think about someone other than themselves for more than 5 seconds. And note that they aren't actively tearing down works where female characters are interesting- Harry Potter being a good example of that (as far as the books themselves are concerned), but Hunger Games as well.
They'll complain about the late '80s version of this (or the others, actually) mostly because they're concerned that men will find a woman who gets along with/doesn't actively hate men preferable to themselves (i.e. it's a complaint from Privilege [to be maximally mercenary/bad-faith in dealings with the opposite sex]).
When there exists a thinkpiece against those works, that is what it is about (the Terminator franchise is this in microcosm- bookended by 'Sarah Connor gives birth to John more or less without question' to 'literally screaming at a genocidal computer about how important it is for it to respect her vagina').
[1] Sorry, @Primaprimaprima, I haven't finished writing the reply to your other thread yet; if you were wondering why people who are very high-openness tend to cluster around Japanese media, I assert this is a significant contributor to why. Less Privilege to disrupt that expression there, so you get more of these works and more capable writers putting them to paper.
JD Vance is not a conservative (neither is Trump, for that matter); that's exactly why I'd select him over the candidates the Ds will be fielding, which are.
This is kind of what the statement "leftists pretending to be rightists" is getting at, of course (whereas Blue/Ds are rightists pretending to be leftists; feminism and the destruction of growth potential for aesthetic reasons are inherently conservative positions).
I'm tired of people like myself, who are better than most, not actually doing the things that people who are better are required to do; that makes me a reformer and by the classical definition that means my "true place" is on the left.
What's JD Vance going to conserve, the high rate of Indians migrating into the US? The H1B visa pipeline?
That's kind of what I'd be hoping he reforms. The thing that complicates analysis is that liberal-tarians just want cheaper labor and don't give a shit about preserving the soul of the country, while conservatives want it because they believe returning the land to the Indians is good to cleanse the soul of the nation of Racism (and like Columbus, cannot distinguish between the dot Indians and the feather Indians- the soul-cleansing is the root motivation, so it doesn't really matter).
If you consider the country and its economic opportunity as an inheritance, I see a father selling it for a get-rich-quick scheme and a mother selling it to a spiritual guru. That's what the "center" exists to push back on.
Anime doesn't even have a pro-trans message on the whole?
Anime is actively anti-trans, but don't tell BreadTube that. (Or maybe do; I'm tired of the shitty takes.)
What they usually miss is the fact that most cross-gender characters aren't trying to make it everyone else's problem, which is the root of the issue that most people have with the subject (including, or complicated by, the excitement derived therefrom, including the sexual aspect thereof).
I found Ranma 1/2 to, interestingly enough, be a relatively good example of that. It is incredibly anti-trans; Ranma sees gender-changing as a disability (except when it's convenient to distract enemies with boobies) to be removed or worked with at best rather than something to heavily embrace. If I recall correctly there's one arc where he does discover a way to undo it, but ultimately chooses to destroy it for Akane.
That's not something you'd ever see in modern "trans-affirming" media. But then again, "anime has gender fuckery therefore it causes transgenderism" is the low-information version and generally outs the speaker as someone who's either not paying attention or is unwilling/unable to understand sexuality beyond the base level. [Which is also why all of the reactionaries are, correctly, dismissed.]
Ouran High School Host Club is kind of the same way, but Haruhi's father is basically a walking stereotype who retains most stereotypical male attitudes and Haruhi herself is... more of an accidental pick-me[1] more than anything else (Western women complain about tonal whiplash with respect to Kyoya- but that's caused predominantly by initial confusion about it being a story about a Modern Liberated Woman due to its initial premise, so those who liked it specifically for that are thrown far harder out of the story).
Kodaka's works are a bit different for a reason I really don't want to get into (I suspect this to apply to Tetsuka purely based on how his art looks, and subject matter that has a lot to do with gender-changing, but I haven't seen it so I can't positively draw that conclusion), but Chihiro actively treats femininity as instrumental and Halara Nightmare is the mirror image of that (where she intentionally confuses the issue and uses androgyny as that instrument instead- or basically, how one would imagine a non-uncanny trans person taking advantage of the privilege to use mis-identification as a scalpel rather than the traditional social sledgehammer Western audiences appear to prefer).
[1] I mean this more in the sense that she just happens to find herself in -> get along relatively well in a niche with a bunch of boys, not that she's doing it intentionally.
and deliberately desexualizes Tanya
From how the character looks I believe this assessment is correct (I haven't watched the show).
Topically for transgenderism, though, there's a particular 'you only think it's desexualized because what the sexualization actually is won't be coherent to you' thing that over time people (particularly men) might hopefully be starting to understand. Steven Universe does it with the 'fusion dance', but most people get frame-trapped by seeing the Fusion dances, going 'it's obviously sex, they're teaching kids to have sex', and ending the scan there.
Because yeah, it is, but what you're missing is that the interaction is about as physically sexual as piloting a Basilisk from Cyberpunk 2077 is (I'd say it's more Pacific Rim, but I'm pretty sure Gypsy Danger isn't used for sex); it depends far more on emotional state to function correctly (who's actually leading is, if I recall, a question the show avoids) and a bunch of other stuff that's only coherent if you're willing to observe sex as women do. But we've talked about that before.
And if anime were the main cause, wouldn't there be the most trans in Japan or Korea or China where they're way more into anime?
...you're not going to mention the Siamese? Thailand is famous for its ladyboys, and they didn't even need anime for that!
I'm pretty sure the better relationship with crossdressers Asians have has more to do with the fact men and women there look a lot more similar than they do in other races (and women look way younger for way longer); the more sexually dimorphic a particular race of people, the worse of a relationship with adopting the trappings of the other gender the cultures they create have.
plus those groomer discords
I'm pretty sure mentions of this are just crypto-feminist (more typically labelled "social conservative") psyops trying to discredit perfectly normal things, like talking to young people, because they might see ur peepee or ur boobies and then u will explode, oooooo spooky.
You have failed your opposite-sex young adult offspring if the only sexual outlet they have is strangers on the internet. The corresponding responsibility to your right of veto over your child's sexuality is to actively search for situations where they can get laid. Because if you don't, they conclude they never will and decide to become the wo/man themselves.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
3d ago
And some sort of nerd caste who made and read those knots.
Did the symbol of this particular caste happen to be 4 right angles radiating out from a central point 90 degrees offset from each other, perchance?
(If so, we have discovered something fundamental about the nature of knot-sees.)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
3d ago
When are women [forcibly stealing, or attempting to forcibly steal, something of value from men for personal gain]?
You're literally in a thread describing this exact thing. I have no other input.
Our socio-cognitive firmware was just not not setup yet to make that leap because evolutionarily it was not effective.
Or "why Cain kills Abel" for short.
You don't need to use that fancy language or understand computers to communicate this concept; even someone from 1000BC can hear it and know, including that God has a real problem with this, even straight up calling it 'sin' [oddly, 'didn't like the offering' was not sin even though it facially meets the definition of such], but also won't do fuck all to stop it (as a design constraint of creation/humanity, not what He'd personally prefer in that moment [1]).
It requires Humility to recognize that despite moral disagreements one does not have the right to coerce another to a particular moral foundation beyond some minimally burdened social contract.
Diana Moon Glampers is evolutionarily correct, but not morally correct, to kill Harrison Bergeron. Humility is why you're supposed to be angry about that.
CL won so hard that it became immunocompromised. The illiberal enemies have had to metastasized like a cancer from within because CL could not be beaten from without.
So did it for Christianity, for the same reasons.
[1] Jesus as proof.
We are stuck in an evolutionary saddle point and need an externalized existential disaster to push us forward to continue our evolutionary journey.
Why is this in the middle of your analysis? It's two different problems.
If you're this type of liberal yourself, which I suspect you are, then I am truly sorry.
I have no other input other than to remind you that "get laid" [or "reproduce" more broadly] and "die" are in that order for a reason.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
3d ago
The ability to defend (and launder) forcible rape is called Privilege.
It's only natural you'd have trouble seeing women doing that to men as unusual. The conservative impulse to be an Uncle Tom/Aunt Tammy is perfectly normal. Destructive, but normal.
I wish we would take classical liberalism’s idea tolerance and coherence and adopt it to modern trends
Plato's Republic makes way more sense once you replace "philosopher-king" with "classical liberal".
The distributed biological intelligence system called "life" is incapable of determining whether this problem halts.
Humanity can define the problem, but must outsource this to a meta-intelligence to compute this in any productive way, and in that light a deity whose "graven image" is humanity itself is the natural choice (which inherently frustrates analysis of whether or not that deity actually exists, but that's out of scope).
It's not freaking rocket science.
Funny you should mention that.
The solution is not going to be rape.
It already is rape, just female on male, and instead of exclusively permitting husbands threaten beating wives unless she does the sex, it's the State exclusively permitted to threaten beating the husband unless he does the labor (even if that's as trivial as "keep inviting her to parties").
I get that it's hard to recognize that because human beings aren't evolved to see women doing this as a symmetric problem due to male disposability (and human instinct hasn't figured out that women who intentionally fail to have children, if not treated just as disposably, will inevitably create the problems that modern gender politics does- because the conditions on the ground have literally never permitted them to do that).
I'm not really a big fan of rape either, but you can't solve this just by putting women in charge, and women need to recognize that and back off (men did in the early 1900s; now, it's Her Turn). And while my preferred solution is "find some tomboys and femboys, lock them in a room, and let them design the system", because at least they're staring down the barrel of more problems with the current system than the average man or woman- but then again, classical liberalism gives every man and woman the power to act that way.
[And yet, I do blame the classical liberals for this one. Conservatives really are too morally/intellectually compromised to decide when morality should change, but liberals err when they go out of their way to rob conservatives of their dignity for this "crime"- conservatives aren't smart enough to use that language, but it's what they mean. Liberals are fundamentally incompatible with the missionary position and are far better off needing to be actively sought after rather than intentionally destroying all life scripts point-blank "because they were stupid". It's what a precocious little kid would do; that's why South Park is that way.]
So I'm really not sure what else to say at this point.
I don't know why people here consistently successfully diagnose problems but then refuse to suggest anything other than the most extreme, stupid, or unethical solutions.
"Being extreme, stupid, or unethical" is positively correlated with the ability and willingness to discuss problems. Doesn't mean they're capable of finding the solutions. And this is largely independent of gender; women are just as in/capable of finding productive solutions as men are, including "just give the other gender carte blanche". It's easier to let a family annihilator off the hook than announce you're pulling back and re-evaluate the systems that privileged her into getting away with it [compare gun control debates as a proxy for "male privilege to decide to violence today"].
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
The name of the game is looting the treasury until it’s empty, lest the other side get there first and use it to pay off their loyalists.
Which, due to the way power works, is something you must do.
The thing democracy (and by extension the "middle class") confuses is that actors are unable to acknowledge -> calibrate the political power they need to exert at any given time. US citizens are best at doing this, and their law is set up so that they can, but that doesn't solve the problem that the populace needs to realize they have it, and needs to realize they need to use it, before they can show up and do that. Strict majoritarianism being the only political system human beings instinctively understand complicates things (you're not born with an instinct for run-off or ranked-choice voting, but you do instinctively understand that the size of your army is its strength, which is a trait smaller technologically advanced forces abuse to destroy larger ones).
2A discourse is kind of the easiest way to see that- Covid drove a bunch of people to start buying political power dispensers (or "handguns and modern sporting rifles", for short, re: Canada's panic over that exact thing immediately after Ottawa was occupied by angry Westerners in 2022) because they [suddenly] realized they might need to shoot people, and protests themselves are military exercises in the "if you don't do anything, witness how we are organized enough to bring military force here at the time of our choosing" sense.
Which is also why the people who are taxed the most, and the people who have the most to gain from lower taxes, are by definition the same people. And that's also why anyone exercising political power can't believe in things that don't exist, like fairness.
If you want an example of how it'll look, you need only cast your eyes north.
What Ds want is the Canadian system, whereby the control of the Beltway, the New York Megalopolis, and California is enough to legitimize Imperial control over the rest of the country. (Canada makes way more sense if you see it as an empire; its administrative sub-units are already called "provinces".)
Cities like this because they form their own patronage network, and form their civic identity around being little colonies of civilization around the savage Red wastes, of which they dream to conquer some day.
What the Rs have right now is... basically already this, but in reverse, where the United States of America has declared war against the United Cities of America. And what this "war" is fundamentally comes down to whether economic development should be permitted outside of cities (and why literally every tenet of Blue civil religion is purpose-built to ban it[1]).
This is a natural tendency- France and South Korea are famous for being functionally city-states with some farmland attached to it. (Contrast the Germans, who are naturally more confederate, which is perhaps why German-descended peoples in the United States form the bulk of Red states now; the British are more passive-aggressively this, or Saxon with Anglo characteristics, if you will.)
Sparta arguably wrote the playbook for this, though; cities are deathly afraid of a Helot uprising, but what ultimately killed them was lifetimes of unrestrained conservatism.
(It's also why "Civil War 2.0" isn't really the right framing- it's not a traditional case of rival states clashing. If anything, it'll look more like the Indian Wars: the enemy country must be sufficiently depopulated before it can be reliably controlled. This is tempered by the fact that traditional industrial capacity is controlled by Blue's enemies- if anything, China enters a war on the Red side- thus the emphasis on action not as instinctively recognized as military, like concentrated assaults on shared financial infrastructure.)
[1]
Environmentalism is "deny all industrial development that doesn't require Blue technological re-investment".
Degrowth is "deny any building out" (and thus keep all socioeconomic power within the city, where it can be safely controlled).
Mass immigration is "create as many urban poor as possible", which creates a hard requirement for the city-dwellers to loot the countryside rather than permit it to grow organically (lest the city be cut off from food and water = death). Historically, cities needed soldiers to impose their will, and this is how they think they'll get them (it's an instinctive thing; technology means they don't need anywhere near as many, but human instinct doesn't understand technology- that's why it's an "aesthetic" [or, "own-"] goal).
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
To be fair, this is because 'whore' unpacks to 'sells [your gender's fundamental value, dictated by the other gender's instinct] for money or other benefits as if it was an incidental'. Not unique to sex or women, either; compare 'corporate whore' or 'mercenary' (because for men, their gender's fundamental value is their capacity for violence).
'Slut' means 'enjoys the process of buying and selling so much they fail to care about optimizing the value extracted from that fundamental exchange'.
The difference between a whore and a slut is that the slut would still seek the sex (or the violence) if the mating dance was completely free and doesn't need to be paid to go away afterwards- sex-positive feminists are basically just an overgrown version of that one girl in middle/high school. The whore knows what they have and would prefer money up front.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
If you want an all-boys club, you can make that too.
Observably, no, you can't.
There are only two genders: male, and political. The political genders are allowed to segregate as they please. The men are not.
Well, not really. The issue here is that I would have to admit to being beaten, and the admission is just as bad for men as it is for women in the spheres men and women are "supposed" to dominate.
You really want to fuck [the distaff counterpart of] a man who just got home from being mugged or losing a fight, even if in the moment they enjoyed being in the fight (worse if they rated the experience positively re: bike_cuck.jpg[1])? Can't imagine that's particularly attractive; really, a man being robbed or beaten is probably about as much a turn-off for women as a woman being raped is for men.
They're both instances of being required to admit you're a 'failure' of your gender, as having to revisit it requires you tell a bunch of strangers that you were easily tricked or bullied into giving away the resources that [the other gender instinctively believes] yours is supposed to guard.
Thus, I believe either one constitutes a task of identical emotional difficulty (and exposing the same liability), and men are simply underrating the negative effects being stolen from (or not reacting to having been stolen from) has on women in the same way, and for the same reasons, that women tend to underrate the negative effects of body count (including and especially due to rape) on men.
Which is why I can't accept "well, women are inherently less able to do this because gender"; the burden of having to overcome one's own instincts to submit to the legal system that depends on evidence rests in equal measure on the shoulders of all.
Remember, privilege is simply the mechanism by which one escapes this mismatch between instinct and duty/fairness. Let's take the Clancy case- your instinct tells you to kill your children, and your privilege would let you get away with it, so the tension coming from you needing to deny your instincts is gone and you may kill at will. What relief from the burden of resisting yourself.
(And to think men believe women have less emotional fortitude, when women are infamous for using everything they think men care about to manipulate men into granting women more privilege. That is why they scream "racist" and "sexist" at you- women don't truly care about those things, they just know that men can be convinced to, and men fall for it time after time after time. To state you're completely immune as a class to the way women observably function is arrogance at best and stupidity at worst.)
In the same way, your instincts tell you not to seek redress for rape or theft because it'll be difficult and embarrassing, and your privilege to turn any accusation into an instant conviction lets you escape that difficulty. (And a "double standard" is an area where you get to let your instinct override duty in [implied] exchange for letting your counterparts' instinct override duty in a different area that's not mentioned in the initial complaint, but accumulating a social shortfall owed to the truth in the direction of the party that got the worse deal.)
[1] Men attach negative sexual valence to being stolen from or defeated because they aren't generally thinking about the effect it has on female attractiveness when it happens, even if it ultimately means nothing to give away victory. Men also haven't fully figured that out; ironically it was their mothers, not their fathers, who failed to properly teach them about women.
Women treat casual sex the same way when there are no other negative consequences for the same reason; slut-shaming is [among other things] an evolved intra-female (and to a point, male) reminder that men don't like that kind of conspicuous consumption. It remains an evolved response for women because 60 years of contraception doesn't erase the "sex = death" instinct that thousands upon thousands of generations stamped into their brains.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
Members of a demographic that has dictated politics for their entire natural life due to its sheer size most likely to believe strict majoritarianism is the most just/stable/holy system of government ever devised.
In other news, the wetness of water now in dispute.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
I believe in the freedom to not be forcibly penetrated without legal recourse when I am explicitly not consenting.
So do I. But enough about being drafted into war or being expected to work inherently dangerous jobs to make a living.
But your moral and legal infrastructure has to account for the guy who is fresh out of prison, has children with three different women, smokes on the couch all day and beats the shit out of his wife for a thousand and one reasons or no reason at all.
Well, the solution "moral and legal infrastructure" settled on was just assuming every man is that man. In so doing, instead of expecting a wife we've given literally every opportunity and incentive to leave to do so and categorizing her failure to do so as consent, we beat every other husband and justify it with 'but he might start doing it someday, #yesAllMen'.
There are plenty of ways to encourage the strengths of marriage that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
At this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen?
Can I see them?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
5d ago
I mean if you say "marriage requires allowing your husband to abuse and rape you" then marriage will be banned overnight.
Well, yeah, it was outlawed sometime in the '70s with that exact justification.
The only problem here is that "abuse and rape" were trivially redefined as "doing anything I don't want to do that exact minute" one unit of Planck time after.
Ultimately it sounds like you want women not to have any rights or protections anymore
I fully believe women deserve the same set of rights and protections that men currently enjoy no matter what that set contains.
Right now, that's the empty set.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
5d ago
It's not that puzzling. Young conservatives pride themselves on basic moral superiority, the old have been established as morally superior to the young, so if you threaten the privilege of the old you are Literally Hitler and must die. (This also works for female privilege.)
It's an in-built instinctual response- I don't blame the young conservative, they were born that way. They're also going to destroy the country because those instincts are wrong, but at least they can say they killed and died for the right side of history, which is what matters to a six-foundation mind.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
5d ago
Consent is also extremely hard to prove or disprove.
Again, my answer is "lol, lmao even".
Women are always believed, unless the rapist wasn't a native, in which case the police don't care (I figured I'd need to mention that specifically because this is the UK you're talking about, but it's not like it's that different anywhere else).
That doesn't apply to e.g. battery
Nonsense: you "consent" to a bar fight, you're perfectly within your rights to claim it was an unprovoked offense retroactively when you regret it the next morning, or when it doesn't buy you the entrance to the in-crowd you were hoping for.
Just like sex.
"But diseases, emotional trauma, and the risk of an 18-year-long injury" also apply in the same measure to losing a bar fight- sadly, there's no Plan B or DNA matching for black eyes.
Guess we'll have to let that inequality slide.
I think I missed that one; I got through the first 3 volumes (as in, where the show left off, AIUI).
But then I looked at the latest volumes and the other related doujins (specifically about one of the other boys) completely convinced me that the transness is only important inasmuch it creates space for the development of authority -> 'manliness' on Mahiro's part.
That's the part that's anti-trans (femininity as means, not as end). If it was pro-trans (as in, 'he doesn't want to exhibit the primary/attractive characteristics of a man, and maybe he gets a sexual thrill from not doing that', or 'femininity as end') he would only be participating passively (or get over being terrified with physical contact with the other girls) and that's not quite what I observed.
(Like, look at episode 100. Does the cat-Mahiro imagine spot really scream 'Mahiro is enjoying being submissive and breedable' there? Why would he set himself up as the dominant partner in the exchange if the entire point was getting off on the submission? It's more gay than trans in the sense that the narrative takes pains to clarify that Mahiro [who still perceives himself as a man] is far more interested in sexually dominating Yuta/Minato than anything else [but doesn't yet see himself as authorized to dominate the girls, which would be how it would be were it a trans story].)
But she really doesn't, though; that's the entire reason I found it strange. If that was the point it'd have ended with Takumi in either permanent chains or something like that, but Takumi's active participation is required for the endings to occur how they do (they either die together, or die fighting each other).
That's not usually how that trope/fantasy goes- or at least, not my understanding. But maybe I'm missing some required reading; I'm sure you could fill me in.
More options
Context Copy link