thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
Then they belong in the Special Olympics with all the other carve-outs.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
At some point you have to discriminate.
Why? We should just put everyone, including women, in a single open category and be done with it. Nicely solves all the problems.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
A pedophile is either a child molester or a literal incel.
You do realize it is possible for a person who finds (some) children sexually attractive to also find (some) adults sexually attractive as well, right? Not to mention that it is possible for a person to choose to have sex with people they don't find sexually attractive.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
Race isn't a monolith. Gender is not a monolith. I would reject any fellow progressive's premise that every white person is inherently racist and that every man is anti-feminist, simply because there is a non-zero amount of white people who aren't racist and a non-zero amount of men who are anti-feminist.
The gender equivalent to racism would be sexism, not anti-feminism. Equating being against an ideology that preaches it is okay to hate and abuse people because of their gender with sexism is an interesting way of "acknowledging the nuance in gender issues".
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
Yes and the implication that we're either lying about being pedophiles or are actually child rapists strikes me as both rather uncharitable and extremely inflammatory.
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.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
Have you seen /u/TheTinMenBlog's posts on reddit? I don't think he considers himself an antifeminist though and they might be a bit too shallow (in the neutral sense of that not being their primary purpose) for what you are looking for. The studies he cites in them are probably of interest however.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo 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.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
At least some of the people complaining are too squeamish to handle such violent scenes of death, much like with suicide and slaughterhouses. Death must be nice and clean so they aren't traumatized by it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
(which is why I found it weird you're throwing seemingly-unrelated grenades here) ... Yeah, that's what women tell me when I whip out the Fleshlight and start using it while thinking about them; I'm appropriating what beauty they have while rejecting the notion I owe them respect for their wishes and desires.
Had I not spent most of my life getting progressively more fucked up from the grenades they and their ideological allies have been chucking my way, I wouldn't be feeling the need to lob a few back now.
Sure, growing a kid inside yourself absolutely is an intensely sexual thing (even ignoring that it's just an outright fetish for some people), but I'm not as convinced it's the main attraction for lesbians looking for anonymous donations especially because it kind of sucks after a certain point. Maybe there just aren't enough lesbians on the face of the earth to have even one (IVF) Lesbian Octomom?
The issue is pregnancy (and motherhood more generally) is also an intensely female thing. They see straight women bonding over it and feel left out. They cannot accept that not having sex with men could deny them access to such an important aspect of womanhood.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Why did you even pick this fight, anyway?
Yeah, I haven’t figured that one out either.
(In reply to @ThisIsSin too) I thought I've been pretty open about having a lot of issues surrounding sex and blaming LGBT and Feminist activism for many of them. I hold lesbians who use dildos and strap-ons and want to get pregnant via IVF in particular disdain for much the same reason that they hold transwomen in disdain--their behavior is a mockery of my sex, and in particular is appropriating the very aspects of my sex (my penis and the sperm it emits) I despise the most while rejecting the rest, all to serve their selfish desires.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Your question is just trivial. Lesbians can have participation of men in many aspects of life. So long as they aren't also having sex with them, then they're still lesbians and not in some contradictory way.
If I subjected a woman to IVF against her will, would people consider it a sex crime?
A man's sperm fertilizing a woman's egg IS sex, by definition. Intercourse is commonly referred to as 'sex' because it often results in such fertilization. By framing IVF as '[get an egg fertilized by donated sperm]', you are dehumanizing the participants, which is the entire point for lesbians as they must dehumanize the male sperm donor in order to maintain their identity as a lesbian.
Also, isn't their identity based on mutual attraction to women? Is this reframing gayness as a negative rejection of the opposite sex?
It's not a reframing as far as I can tell. Such a negative rejection is inherent to gayness. If you remove it you get bisexuality instead.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
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?"
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
10mo ago
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?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
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?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
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?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Gay men who use surrogates, assuming they are the sperm donors, are engaging in a sexual act (sexual reproduction) with a woman. Similarly, lesbians who use sperm donors to get pregnant are engaging in a sexual act (sexual reproduction) with a man. What's the difference between wanting to engage in a sexual act with a member of the opposite sex and being sexually attracted to them?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
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?"
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
It would more likely suggest to me that those aren't their actual fetishes, but are merely triggers for a deeper fetish. For instance, a person who gets off on being peed on may have a piss fetish or they may have a humiliation fetish (or some other fetish) that being peed on happens to trigger.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Allowing "none of the above" to win doesn't necessarily mean you leave the office unfilled. It could for instance force a new election with the candidates from the first barred from running.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
AFAICT, the only reason people look down on their argument is that it denigrates higher status people than them in doing so (ie, women). Remove that and you get a bog standard feminist argument that men shouldn't seek validation from women through sex.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
why do you believe that a majority of pedophiles pose little to no risk to children? I've already freely conceded that many don't, but I keep saying we can't quantify the risk because we just don't have the denominator. Given that we don't have that denominator, why do you seem so confident that "a large majority of pedophiles never sexually abuse a child"?
Confident is definitely not the right word. It'd be better to say I hope it is the case because it lets me believe in the possibility of a better future and not fall even deeper into nihilistic despair. Also, we're not completely unsure of the denominator--eg, there is some research that estimates it at 1-2% of the population depending on how strictly you define pedophilia.
I feel like that simplistic popular consensus is getting in our way again...
No, in this case I think it is probably my own paranoia getting in the way. I have a lot of hang-ups around sex even beyond attraction to kids (eg, see this old chain), so it is difficult not to be overly defensive here.
If people aren't stupid or crazy for connecting CP with the victimization of children, then your strong claim seems like an overstatement (though perhaps an understandable one born of personal suffering).
I think we're still talking past each other here. Let me try rephrasing my assertion in a less disdainful way and maybe that will help. The comment which I was replying to was making a utilitarian argument that the sexualization of kids in video games could not be immoral because the characters in games are not sapient and thus actions toward them have no moral dimension. I think it is more accurate to model people's response in terms of virtue ethics rather than utilitarian ethics, in which case the harm or lack thereof of the specific situation has little to no moral bearing. I used much cruder terminology because I don't have a very high opinion of that view for probably obvious reasons, but I think this is effectively the same thing you were getting at with
Our psychology is geared toward discerning what kind of person they are
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
I'm genuinely curious about the motivations you've described
I'm happy to go into more detail about my thoughts and experiences if people are honestly interested and don't just want a freak show. I struggle a lot in gathering my thoughts for broad expositions after a serious concussion a few years ago though, so more specific prompting would be helpful.
From your comment, I felt like I was accused of believing 1) child molesters are conscious evildoers, sadists fantasizing about harming children and plotting to get at them
Well that is pretty much what I felt you were saying about pedophiles when you said
there is a direct causal link between pedophilia and trying to have sex with kids
and
So they're not fantasizing about victimizing children?
It seemed to me that you do not recognize the possibility for sexual activity with a child to not be victimization even in a fantasy setting rather than the real world nor that someone could desire it without eventually trying to act it out. I reject a framing of my fantasies as a desire to victimize children, even if I acknowledge that would be the actual result were they to play out in the real world.
My model of child molesters...
I would broadly model child molestation as three largely separate categories: 1) the molester is viewing the child as a fetish, 2) the molester is attempting to have a sexual relationship with the child, and 3) the molester is asserting dominance (not necessarily sadistically) over the child.
An example of the first category would be something like this where the relationship between the molester and the child is largely irrelevant to the act. An example of the second category would be the relationship between Asia Argento and Jimmy Bennett. As you said, this usually involves some level of delusion or motivated reasoning on the part of the molester as to the nature of the situation. I think this category largely corresponds to how you model child molesters? The third category covers things like sexual hazing and other forms of bullying.
Are you asking in what way pedophiles can express their desires without me calling for punishment?
Ways pedophiles can actively seek enjoyment in them without sanction. So tolerating their use of virtual CP would be an example, but probably not explaining it to a therapist.
I'd prefer to wall off anything depicting preadolescents from the general public, to keep it on purpose-specific platforms, where no actual children are likely to stumble upon it. If that's "censorship," then I suppose I am calling for some of it.
I think that's reasonable so long as it is actually accessible to pedophiles and not merely theoretically "accessible" in the way say CCL permits are to residents of NYC.
People are not stupid or crazy for connecting child pornography with the victimization of children, is all I'm saying.
I agree that the reason for their disgust with people who consume virtual CP is both reasonable and understandable. What I'm asserting is that even if it were conclusively shown that consumption of virtual CP significantly reduced the likelihood of a person to molest a child, most people would still be against the consumption of virtual CP because their disgust is more motivating than their desire to reduce the incidence of child abuse. I think this extends well beyond CP as well. For example, I have a decently well-paying job that doesn't involve any interaction with children. I expect that were it to become known that I'm a pedophile, I would be forced out of that job because people don't believe pedophiles deserve such a job--a disgust reaction based not on any actual risk. Do you think I'm wrong in that assessment?
"Just happens"? No, that's on purpose to make it seem like less of a carve out to mitigate the shame of needing such a carve out.
More options
Context Copy link