ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1d ago
fujoshi that get the ick from guys who bottom
Straight women get the ick from guys who enjoy the female/submissive role in a relationship and only enjoy romance fiction because they're self-inserting as the bottom (M/F or M/M, doesn't matter)? What a complete surprise, say it ain't so.
I would expect the 'bisexuals will be driven to cheat, etc.' concerns apply to both top and bottom, though for slightly different reasons for each (and believe it'd be a more salient concern with the bottoms simply due to how human instinct works)- for instance, tops driven to cheat more just because they're tops and have twice the opportunity.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
If she's having fun with the new hot guy but didn't think you'd find a possible replacement for her
Sure, but now you're into the "this is just cheating with extra steps" failure mode.
Note that this is a failure mode because "being poly" is being used as a weapon/to get one over on the original partner and not actually in that partner's best interest at all. But then again, it's that [attitude], and not necessarily the object-level, killing the relationship; other than shits and giggles/not actually liking the partner I don't understand why anyone would do this.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
I suspect many of the early outspoken advocates for polyamory were asexuals (or at least people with atypically low sex drives) who were inadvertently typical-minding the more conventionally-sex-driven people in their vicinity, assuming that - "well, if I could easily overcome my (vastly lower than typical, if not nonexistent) romantic/sexual jealousy, why can't everyone else?
You aren't the only one who has come to that conclusion.
I still believe this, for that matter, especially that last part about "if you're doing this, please just shut the fuck up and enjoy the sex, you're scaring the normies with your Ace Pride". Not having a strong emotional response to this stuff can be an absurdly powerful relationship tool, but incredibly destructive if paired with a personality type given to using that as a weapon (normies, predators) or as a means to go 'lol, I'm smarter than u'.
maybe if you literally don't feel at all jealous when thinking about your girlfriend getting railed by another man, it might mean that you don't actually love her as much as you claim to? Just a thought
The implication that I'm still invited in that case would be doing a lot of the heavy lifting; but there are relatively specific/unlikely circumstances that would need to be fulfilled for that to occur (and "fucking some random dude for basically no other reason" does not qualify).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
You could write the exact same thing about classical liberalism, except the relevant time period was the late-1800s/early-1900s (objectively, the freest time period ever to exist on planet Earth- rich enough for people to rapidly distinguish themselves, scientific progress was making quantum leaps [ironically, the discovery of quantum mechanics actually marks the end of this era], demand for industrial labor was so high that even single-digit-aged children were gainfully employed, and very little effective State capacity to enforce any sort of morality whatsoever).
Actually, you can do that with sexual liberation in the '60s and '70s, too: yes, some people are capable of maintaining the kinds of relationships categorically called evil by some tradition or other, but those people are not you. And the tools and concepts we left laying around have been misused as weapons in their hands; words like "homophobia", "consent", and "orientation" are incredibly useful/necessary tools when minds like ours talk amongst ourselves, but they're thermonuclear-grade infohazards to normies. (And just because someone is in a special sexual category, that doesn't mean they're like us.)
that despite looking up and admiring those people for various reasons, the horde wandering said field now has to contend with the revelation that they are not those people
And now they're resentful of the people who went before simply for having dared to go before- you can usually identify this group through their virtue Georgism (they believe things can be "ruined for everyone" for that reason).
So, now we've seen the end-game - a group of people with a very tenuous relationship on sanity whom carry the shield of rationalism by murdering their enemies, and the same people whom have considered themselves rationalists are now stuck in a very uncomfortable position with some very awkward questions to answer.
Those people are generally called "Jacobins" (also "progressives"). Liberalism in France never truly recovered after the Revolution.
As for where we'll go from here? Well. I don't know. I guess we'll see.
At this point I'm mostly just focused on self-defense- defending both my right and responsibility to be better than everyone else, one person at a time. It's not sustainable, and it tires me out, but I do what I can.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
at best, an ambivalent relationship with dancing
And at worst, it's full-blown hysterical about "grinding", "Leave Room for Jesus", etc.
The hysteria is, in my experience, the more typical route.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
Otherwise, it seems self-evident to me that God would not have made something so fundamentally part of our nature feel good to us if he didn't intend for us to enjoy it
Counterpoint: It also feels good to dominate other human beings, but I don't believe God intended for us to enjoy that.
Now, match "domination" to "sex", combine that with the degree that marriage is inherently an exclusive prostitution agreement for sociobiological reasons, mix that with a generally-productive instinct for men to do this sexually more often... and now you know why traditionalists have an emergent, adversarial relationship with sex. For progressives, mix that with the female zero-sum social game, and the result is "yes, all men do that for power reasons, and they all do it on purpose".
Modern parents precisely are NOT grooming their children.
Time after time I see otherwise-competent Boomer parents utterly fail to delegate effectively or otherwise inspire the want to risk/reward in their children. They think giving their teenagers literal societal puberty blockers is the height of parenting- or more charitably, failing to administer the appropriate antidote to puberty blockers society forces down their throats (and then those of a traditionalist bent freak out when progressives take that to its logical conclusion).
I have yet to encounter a case where this has worked well; when it occurs, it occurs by accident.
I don’t really know how to create an environment more conducive to courtship today but the clinical answer of high school sex ed isn’t very sexy and doesn’t seem to be working.
Just make young men more attractive to women (again). This will require the old and women to pay some socioeconomic or sociopolitical taxes, or as is just as often the case, for a war to break out.
Are the parents not possibly creating sexual minorities (which are to some degree sexual dysfunction in my opinion) in their children through the lack of education surrounding courtship ritual?
Yes, they're taking tops/potential active partners and turning them into bottoms/passive partners (I call this transgenderism, because statistically men are meant to top and women are meant to bottom, but most people do not share that definition). This is why Boys [must] Beware- because they try it, actually get some fucking validation for the first time in their lives, and stay there without progressing back to the top/active role (or they get turbo-AIDS and die).
This functions independently of actual orientation, but most people don't actually understand that distinction because they're too focused on "peepee in but", much like how most people don't understand that consent for tops and consent for bottoms functions differently.
straight people calling trans and/or homosexuals “groomers”
Oh, that's just traditionalist men failing [intentionally or otherwise] to understand how female sexuality works. If they knew how it worked, they could combat its excesses (in the gay case, where older men take younger men-who-would-be-tops off the market, and in the trans case, where women with a castration/sissification fetish encourage younger men-who-would-be-tops to castrate themselves, or lie to them that people will still want them after the modifications), but they are unwilling or unable- so they're reduced to that characteristic impotent screaming.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4d ago
Australia's and Canada's right has failed completely at reforming itself and is still running old school mainstream conservatives that only appeal to some boomers
No: in Canada’s case, the old school mainstream conservatives that only appeal to Boomers are the Liberals, not the Conservatives (look at the polling data if you want to see that). Contrary to their stated names, of course; but there’s a reason the Conservatives are traditionally called ‘Reform’ (or similar) in this country.
Appetite for reform among the old is quite limited in all American provinces at this time due to how the Americans are carrying out their reforms.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4d ago
Not in a way fundamentally indistinguishable from any other word/combination of words when replaced, though.
I’ve never had a mod address me for “nigger” despite having used that multiple times here, and the ability to use it is very useful to me when discussing “it’s OK because they’re less than human, with all the same justifications we used here that may or may not be grounded in fact or science” discriminatory events: I need to evoke the state of mind used [by everyone else] to justify saying that to the demographic it describes in the first place, and nothing else does that better.
Thus the fact I get to use it is good and proper.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
It is honestly good that Twilight fanfiction is present in public libraries precisely because, while it is porn for women, it is not necessarily politically advantageous to them [as a gender] for that to be known. Most of the dime-store romance fiction is like that, too.
porn for kids
The Japanese call this "shonen", I believe, but every culture has this. Lots of it is corny porny, unrealistic stuff- people actually getting along to accomplish a task or series of tasks, motives are simple, conflicts are {tractable, comprehensible, winnable}, and morality is black and white.
And I get that when you say "porn" there's a normative component to that (because sex is, like, special or whatever), but I remain unconvinced that these things are actually, in fact, different- they both create unrealistic expectations of the same/the other gender and how to interact with the world in general, to say nothing about actually attaining those goals.
The problem is, and remains, trying to force porn meant for adults onto kids. This is why "but can you see sex in the book?" is kind of a distraction, where it's more just a coincidence that it lines up- for a somewhat-related example, you can't see anything traditionally considered explicit in Adolescence, but that doesn't not make it child porn all the same.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6d ago
Sure, but they’re delusional.
Tell that to the voters. There's nothing in a political system that magically protects it from supremacy movements and hysterics- white supremacy in the 1920s, black supremacy in the 2020s, androsupremacy in the 1800s, gynosupremacy in the 1900s, etc.
Yes, we have examples in living memory when the political system did in fact protect them against those things (because the ruling class was sufficiently virtuous), but they're dead now.
there is no analog to blood-and-soil MAGA voters in Canada
Sure there is- those are, counterintuitively, Liberal party voters. That is who all the jingoism was coming from.
If you're of an age sufficiently advanced that you remember that your parents actually took Canada seriously (i.e. you're 60+), you think that insults to Canadian 'sovereignty' are a big enough deal that you're going to latch onto whoever you perceive promises to do the most about it.
(Everyone else understands that this is a post-national country, so they don't care so much... if they can even afford to care in the first place.)
And that's not going to be some foreigner from Alberta (and, to the peoples of ON/QC/Atlantic, this is what he is) no matter what he otherwise says or does- because "he isn't aggressive enough against Trump" wasn't a legitimate criticism of him in the West (where he gained seats, unusually, in urban areas). I believed that not taking a suitably aggressive stance was still a mistake in the beginning, but now I'm starting to think that if he had the Liberals would have secured a majority simply because they are more likely to believe that Trump is directionally correct even if they disagree with the incidentals (cynically, it is in their socioeconomic interest to do that because "kill all new development, degrowth now" hurts their ability to accumulate wealth in a way it doesn't for Toronto retirees, federal government employees, and provinces that are already financial have-nots).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6d ago
If you want a breakdown of the situation in BC you have but to look at the election map- notice how, much like some states, the small city runs more or less roughshod over the rest of the province.
It didn’t necessarily used to be that way, but it is that way now, functionally permanently; turns out city vs. everyone else is a strong local maximum for the city.
The Canadians in industrial/resource/economically productive areas voted nearly unanimously for the Cons (look at the map).
Those in areas not so blessed (Quebec, Atl. Canada, Ottawa), or those in service economy areas (Toronto, Vancouver) voted for the Libs.
The people who are actually going to be affected by a hostile stance very clearly don’t want “maximum reeeee about Trump” as Canadian foreign policy but, because they’re a numerical minority, what they want doesn’t matter. [Which is why the West is starting to think it should move on from “ballot box”.]
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
there might be a small niche for them
Of course- if the Western Leftist party returned to being the Western Leftist party there's obviously still a niche there.
The problem is that the Western Leftist party is unwilling or unable to meaningfully distinguish themselves from the Eastern Leftist party, and so trying to outcompete the Eastern Leftists on destroying Western culture in general is- in a shocking twist- not an election winner in the West.
If the West were its own country, as it should be, this would be a natural political progression. But it's not, and Westerners are (when you look at the election map) clearly more focused on having a West to begin with rather than whether left or right should rule it.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
but it Liberals did not pick up anything like all of the NDP losses
The problem is that the Conservative side does, from an economic standpoint, what the NDP is supposed to be doing far better than the NDP itself does... and from a social policy standpoint, the Liberal side does what the NDP does but better.
There's no room for them in Canadian politics now that they're as polarized as US politics are (by the same forces that resulted in that polarization).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
you need something to occupy your excess labour force.
Note also that the education-managerial complex itself exists as a type of universal basic job to occupy that excess labor force, and it also serves to keep what would normally be the labor force warehoused and suppressed.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
but the NDP will come back
Not with Canada in its current configuration, they won't. Western Leftism (which is what the NDP is) has given way to Westernism, and until that is satisfied there's no future for anything else. The last 3 elections have shown that pretty conclusively.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
That makes this sound like the same order of improbability.
Yes, but Texas has never actually tried to do this.
Quebec has actually tried it a few times; this idea is in the Canadian political lexicon to a much greater extent than the American one for that reason.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
And they know they're fake, and they're very, very self-conscious about being fake.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
people would be happy with integrating Alberta, Sasketchewan, and the non-Vancouver parts of BC
The Canadians in those areas say the same, and (as you can see from the election map) have voted accordingly.
The thing about Manitoba is that it's always been quasi-Canadian [Canadian as defined by the East] due to being the last stop into the Prairies (also that thing in the late 1800s when the Metis fought it out with the Upper Canadians); it's also sufficiently French for official language to actually be a concern (and Winnipeg is the westernmost city for which that's true). It could go either way with them, honestly- the fact they're also a resource-poor province on average compared to the rest of the West makes for some unique politics (and is part of why, historically, MB and SK are where the NDP come from).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
whatever about public libraries?
So long as we're willing to stock porn men like, we should be willing to stock porn women like.
If the first is not acceptable, neither is the second.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
We'd get a large influx of left-leaning population who are already culturally desensitized to the right's worst nightmares
That's why you don't annex the East first; all the problem people are out there (just like in the US, for that matter).
You want to pull the places that actually care, are actually culturally similar to the US midwest (which the productive, Western parts of Canada very much are), and those that are actually willing to negotiate. Trump could force the East to the table with the tariffs (you'll notice that all the people in the affected areas voted Conservative, and that's not an accident) but the West was already getting interested in some level of sovereignty on its own (permanent disenfranchisement in a rich province will do that).
A Western party, for the most part, cannot win in Canada; that much has been known for the last 150 years. If the West wants to preserve its culture it will need to act.
how much Trump's "51 state" shenanigans mattered?
Ever seem to notice how the old get into wars the young have to fight, and love excuses to have those wars?
This was a referendum on whether we should fight that war or not.
Naturally, the old love that idea (and in fairness, jingoism with respect to the US is a part of the [Eastern] Canadian identity), and voted accordingly. Since Canada doesn't have any checks and balances against those people running roughshod over the rest of the country, that's all that's needed to win.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and this is one of those times. That said, I hope the East loses this trade war and gets annexed quickly, or Alberta successfully petitions the USG for statehood, so the good people out there/here (and they do exist) don't end up suffering too much under the retaliatory tariffs. The productive, industrialized areas of Ontario voted all against this war anyway (just like they have voted against this government in every post-2015 election) and the Western provinces became even more tilted towards the Cons [their regional interest party] despite Eastern Boomer bluster (even the cities, it's worth noting, with the obvious exception of Vancouver).
All that remains to be seen is what Alberta will do in response- Smith (and to a point, Moe) seem competent enough at this game to get the tariffs reduced on energy, but as far as running an entire country I don't know.
Remember that the part of Canada that defines what Canada is [the East] has effectively no land border with the US (it's 100% dependent on long bridges these days), and the part of Canada that does not define what Canada is [the West] has literally all of the land border. Additionally, remember that each province does more trade with the US than they do with each other. An EU-style state of affairs (with respect to Canada and the US) is economically the correct one, something we were closer to at one time (before 9/11), and to a point where we've been headed all this time (especially given NAFTA; the way you stop your best and brightest running away is to become a part of that country yourself) but the US needs to control our immigration policy for that to work. And I'm OK with that given how it's been abused already.
You misunderstand- yaoi isn't quite a match for yuri since most of the appeal (and remember, that's why it's called yaoi) comes from self-inserting as the bottom [edit: this isn't entirely what happens, but I think it's a useful first-approximation in this case].
So the attraction from an otherwise-straight woman seeing two dudes having sex would generally be that self-insertion. If her husband is the bottom, he's assuming her role, and women don't tend to like that very much -> "feels like you're not invited".
If that was another woman instead the dynamic is instantly and instinctively different, since she by definition isn't going to be topping the man and the "invitation" comes in the form of "watch his attractive might and dominance without being replaced". The distaff/mirror counterpart would be if a woman brings a boy home (as in: young/inexperienced enough to dominate [and not replace the man's role in the relationship], cute enough not to be aesthetically repellent), but the average age of such a participant quickly creates practical problems [it ain't the '70s no more].
Two women doing it, from the male perspective, extend the "invitation" by "come and watch the show" (and the other woman gets some variety out of it that the man himself cannot provide- women are generally more aesthetically pleasing than men are when naked), which is why MFF/MmF threesomes are inherently stable if all the participants are nominally straight, but MMF/MfF threesomes are not (the latter inherently replacing the woman's submissive role).
More options
Context Copy link