ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1hr ago
With what explanation?
Angry feminist regime butthurt they couldn't convict a semi-high-profile public figure for rape in a very similar case to this one. There's really no other charitable explanation other than Believe Wimminz.
Was there a recent case around that?
Just look up Jian Ghomeshi, you'll find it pretty quick.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
13hr ago
Her sex was taken for granted, taken advantage of; they treated her like a piece of meat.
Well, no.
I get that it's kind of a meme for angry men (hereafter referred to as "traditionalists") to state this, because men (and especially the more trad ones) don't actually understand that a good chunk of the benefit for women is that they don't have to be in control to have the sex. "Vampired billionairely across the room" is a meme for a reason- it's someone you don't want to be in control of because the symbols that you're going to have a good time with this guy are already there.
(It doesn't need to be a stable time, it just needs to be sufficiently good. Employers hire this way all the time- they have the money, but no agency outside of their employees, so it's in effect the employees that dictate the direction the employer takes. The same dynamic applies to the statistically-average woman "hiring" the statistically-average man to give the prizes of labor in exchange for that sex, in this case drugs/a party/an invitation to what was understood to be basically a sex show at said party.)
"Consent" simply doesn't work the same way for doms/men as it does for subs/women; subs/women only really have the one option of "fuck this, I'm out" (for the same reason they can't send open-ended rejections as it's still a signal that they might be open to further pursuit with suitable improvement- it has to be completely unambiguous rejection and even that doesn't work all of the time.).
Doms have a much broader array of tools simply because the mating dance has "be able to be talked into, and then it just happening" as a primary feature of the selection on the part of the sub. That is the appeal of it; if the fanfics are to be believed, the lead-up to the sex is the overwhelming majority of the sexual pleasure.
This, of course, creates some unique liabilities (disease, pregnancy, being shamed by progressives for undermining their collective sexual bargaining) that it is perfectly reasonable on the side of the bottom woman to believe they weren't appropriately priced in at the time. And men that don't intentionally place themselves in that situation will never really realize that (generally because it's against their nature to do so).
The woman is now allowed to cry that this was rape, so she does, and the consequences after that are generally uninteresting power politics that have more to do with privilege of group actors than they do the woman herself.
The only way out I personally see is to deny that asking her consent is sufficient repayment for a woman's sex, and look down on men who attempt that. But that is a stance I was already happy to take.
I mean, thanks for acting as exhibit A for why a social conservative/traditionalist and a progressive are exactly the same, I guess? Though the irony there is that both of them treat women's sexuality as a tool and not as an end, though in truth both pretend as if they're on the side of women. (Much like classical liberalism and the sexual revolution do for men, at least when using a traditionalist/progressive lens.)
The rage is over men's, as a collective, perceived ability to dodge consequences for sex.
Again, something on which trads and progs agree; trads because they don't understand women, progs because they are paid a salary to intentionally misunderstand women.
But it is aggravated by any incident where a woman is forced to pay for sex while a man is not.
The woman paid for the drugs and the party with sex; the men paid for the sex with the drugs and the party. The woman is now trying to renegotiate that contract because she doesn't think those things served as sufficient payment even though she clearly believed they were at the time (and further text messages apparently corroborate this, which is why more progressive countries, like Canada, intentionally exclude those as exculpatory evidence).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
17hr ago
Not unable; perhaps as a refinement, 'recognizes and answers the meta-question'.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
17hr ago
But you contradict yourself:
Crimestop is designed to prevent a rational consideration of undesirable matter
the cow question, if pondered seriously, would most likely lead people to
become disgusted and more entrenched in the value of their current culture[the definition of crimestop]
The question is designed to get those kinds of people- the ones that have disgust-forward personalities and conventional morality (we're talking Kohlberg 3/4s)- to throw out the survey.
Crimestop by contraposition, if you will; this works because Kohlberg 3/4s see the behavior of 5/6s as indistinguishable from 1/2 and, by observing that they are quite literally morally superior, are emotionally protected from the cognitive dissonance that someone actually better would feel if they let their moral indignation get in the way of being able to answer the question.
See also: bell_curve_iq_meme.jpg (positions are 'answers question', 'noooo u can't that's disgusting and sacrilegious', 'answers question').
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
17hr ago
· Edited 17hr ago
There used to be a time when resistance to the attempted assault was a precondition to criminal liability.
Well yeah, this is why certain religious texts have "if it took place in an area where people could hear her resisting" as a pre-condition for prosecuting rape. Feminists hate that because it's fair to men (while at the same time intentionally ignoring the fact that, if the act doesn't take place in a place where anyone could reasonably hear, it's treated as having been resisted by default).
Incidentally this is why I can't accept full consent-based morality without both a harm requirement and some social guardrails for individuals of 'reduced capacity.'
It's probably worth remembering that the people who came up with that in the first place were autistic/academic types (the same people who were advocating child sex 10 years prior, but that detail seems to have been conveniently forgotten). If you asked EA to be in charge of sexual morality, this is what they would do, because (as autists) they have no other workable protection from bad actors.
End of the day, even with your proposed high tech solutions, there will always be a 'mind reading' element b/c men are extremely motivated to seek out sexual contact and initiate the encounter whilst women, when their desire is inflamed, are ALSO motivated to seek sexual contact but to never, ever make that overt, or at least to rarely actually initiate it and always maintain some plausible deniability as to whether she wanted it or not right up until the event horizon is crossed.
It doesn't escape my notice that the 'consent' framework (as originally designed, not the modern perversion) is the kind of thing a sufficiently-intelligent little kid would design (or a classical liberal, but I repeat myself). In fact, said demographic tends to approach sex this way; why would they do otherwise, considering that 'mating dance' is not the information-gathering approach they're trained on and sexual activity at that point is more opportunistic fact-finding than adult pair bonding (because the subsystem for that isn't ready yet).
Consent's meant for a type of fact-finding that happens to carry certain novel risks (that's kind of why it's the legal standard for every other activity of this nature), while normal sex uniquely runs on pair-bonding- feminists are correct that the act of sex in truth extends to the way the 'mating dance' is conducted right up to the request to initiate it (their conclusions being entirely selfish doesn't diminish that). The fact that the former framework is easily hijacked such that "unaware of certain risks" could be set up to exclude women entirely was probably not considered in the analysis.
95% of the problems could be fixed by returning this sort of 'consent violation' to being the civil matter that it is (theft should probably be treated that way too, though it already is in practice- but this is unambiguously a privilege fight since men treat petty consent violation as seriously as women treat petty theft, so punishing one yet exempting the other is what you'd expect when one or the other gender is privileged).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
You have limited slots of good-enough jobs for a huge population
We've already established these places are overpopulated relative to the available economic opportunity.
Absurdly wasteful education schemes are a religious rite. The youth have the 'youth' part of themselves sacrificed in exchange for a promise legitimizing the killing of anyone who flips the table.
I’d say it’s more like tryouts
I wonder what's going on?
I think it's pretty simple.
My hypothesis: TFR and current economic projections on the value of a future human are linked.
When TFR is 2.0, it means today's projection of the total projected economic productivity over the average future citizen's life is zero.
A TFR under that means it's negative (population is in surplus), a TFR over that means it's positive (population is in shortage).
Market distortions can affect this, especially when the sum of people born in positive-value conditions attains more political power than the sum of those who were born into eras of zero or negative value, because they will always inherently believe those conditions exist (which is generally how you get Great Replacement-ism).
As for why the collapse in future human value is more pronounced outside the modern West? Well, countries that were extremely late to the industrialization party- South Korea being the standout example at a TFR of 0.7- never enjoyed the kind of automation-induced economic boom in the '50s-'70s. Remember, that was back when AI mechanization wasn't yet good enough to do all the work itself; operators were not only required, but paid handsomely.
Once you hit the '80s and '90s, automation gets so good that the demand for unskilled operators ends completely in favor of its new manifestation, robotics- but in countries that were just industrializing at that time, that demand never materialized in the first place (they mostly skipped straight to the advanced implementation). They never really had a legacy economy full of rich former operators to mine, either (which is also part of why Europe is also not as affected as they should be) so there's no other residual economic value to be captured.
What the total value of a future human being is depends also on culture; again, South Korea (and India) being two standout examples of that given how they treat their kids. Education at that intensity is entirely worthless, yet it must be conducted precisely because it's a ritual sacrifice of child [and an increasing portion of young adult] life that legitimizes the society's choice to gradually wind the overpopulation down non-violently (for the alternative is 'you get a good 20 years of early life, then you go to war and die'). [This is the future of all societies where enough humans exist that automation/State capacity can be leveraged to consume the totality of a human's life as a sacrifice for "not being killed in war as the ultimate price of economic uselessness"- Ingsoc being the best fictional example.]
Otherwise, you end up like Europe in the early 20th century where you set up the Fields of Ritual Suicide in scenic northern France and order every man you can get your hands on straight into the machine guns. Or, once automation (and being outcompeted for 10 years due to neighboring countries that could afford to embrace it) does wreck your society as well as reparations imposed for killing more of your own men, you proceed to declare yourself the Master Race and as such decide to depopulate the nations to your East to punt on your current/eventual overpopulation.
And now there's even more advanced automation: though the short-term effects remain to be seen as increasing or decreasing the value of a human being, the long-term effects are clear that it will decrease. This is a problem that's here to stay (and not engaging with it leads to destruction as soon as a neighboring country decides it has a population problem that you or your land could conveniently solve; Butlerian Jihad might be topical, but is ultimately an isolated demand for rigor if you think about it for more than 5 seconds).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
A literal translation of his name is "Good times". Nominative determinism strikes again, perhaps?
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
due to have no intrinsic worth
This coin has two sides: they must work a job to be of value, but evolutionary reality ensured they always have a job (and are generally well-paid for it relative to women because their work wholly depends on the man).
This is the reason why traditional/evolved double-standards of behavior really weren't unfair. Men always have a pathway to acquire what they want, so their stealing or taking shortcuts to access women (as in, what the resources that job buys you are to be spent on) is logically treated much worse as a consequence.
[The way it is for women is mirrored, but not symmetric. Women were not generally paid beyond a dividend for selling their services to men, but in exchange men provide the ultimate in job security. "Double standards" that treat women better than men are fair in this context.]
Automation (and the practices of on-shore or off-shore slavery to a lesser degree) throws a monkey wrench into the works specifically because it largely disrupts that second tenet while leaving the first intact.
Which means that, in the wider societal context, that in all highly automated societies that weren't already predisposed to communism[1], men will eventually bear all the responsibilities without any rights and women have all the rights without any responsibilities.
Which is the exact root of the problem. (And per @faceh, the quantity of women (and men) who are naturally evolved enough to both realize this and detached enough from their own instinct [education can help the marginal cases] to take advantage of the situation is way smaller than it needs to be. They'll still be who the future belongs to, and evolution will mean this is less of a problem in the future as a direct consequence, but that's beyond any of our lifetimes.)
[1] OG communism makes way more sense once you realize that it was all about why men fear AI today- only a very small minority of men would hold that kind of guaranteed job ever again. Remember, communism equalizes men's wages with women's, and equalizes women's punishments for anti-social behavior with men's, so it destroys the ability of all women in all generations to sort men based on wage (yet in practice also incentives women to get married anyway) and forces them into the same punishments for the same crimes (and drafts them both in times of war).
It's very obviously a first draft, and the countries that implemented it were generally far too poor to make use of it, and the people who parrot it today are (as always) too stupid to figure out it wouldn't actually help them (hunger jokes aside, a fat bitch will still be a fat bitch under communism).
Elite fears of what a second draft will contain are warranted.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
The damning part that exudes the ick is not when you don't follow the advice correctly (which to be fair also happens), it's the very fact that you need advice in the first place, or generally heed any sort of external information to improve your chances
Which is where the fundamental anxiety comes from in the face of an environment that's so complicated that you can't just know it all (and to a point, that your competition will destroy you without warning for failure).
Perhaps the parts of your brain that function as the inference engine for this, more than previous evolution could ever have prepared it, must now run at full power all the time (and anxiety and a particular kind of burnout perhaps comes from it not being enough).
Maybe that's why these sorts of people tend to require stimulants to compensate for that.
that seems to often be taken as deception of the most craven sort whenever it comes out
Women in general were prepared by evolution to wait on men, so being waited on is (naturally) unattractive. And yes, there are trans-gender women out there that don't (one notes that this kind of woman is still intentionally suppressed; it's a big Mean Girls-style joke entertained by women as class that if you're like that, you are a man, and should become one surgically). They're just rare.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
Which is why the most ardent feminists are also the ugliest.
Men could have evolved for an environment too unlike the one we inhabit today.
The consequences of sexual dimorphism are:
- Men have evolved for an environment where they were automatically useful.
- Women have evolved for an environment where they were not.
Automation has displaced men and destroyed that automatic value.
It has not done the same for women. Therefore, women's power has increased relative to men's, and furthermore, the constraints on the use of the limited power they did have no longer exist (and automation helps them enforce that more, not less).
This is why, from the male standpoint, women are correctly modeled as a monolithic bloc; this is why members of that bloc are, correctly, modeled as inhuman sociopaths (I submit the Clancy trial reaction and jurors as exhibit A, and will note that when this was true for men the exact same dynamics applied). At a group level, there is zero co-operation to be had; it's purely a power game.
The reason you're frustrated with most of what's said on the Motte is that most of it only discusses gender relations on the macrosocioeconomic level. Do people actually act like that on a micro level? If the posters are to be believed, perhaps, but everyone makes compromises and the strategies for "maybe move if you can't find anyone that isn't pathologically mercenary" are (again) micro, not macro. (I'm not sure if that's usually taken as a given, and question myself whether or not it is per-poster, but given other effects like how people against immigration on a macro level tend to date foreign women... and noting that further down you yourself do this.)
On a macrosocioeconomic level men are in oversupply, which inherently means that men are overpopulated. That's why the macro posture is overwhelmingly "wait until shit kicks off and be ready to survive the ensuing gendercide, but don't do anything that would disrupt the current system; we will accept never having a woman as the condition of living in a society that has largely solved scarcity until we die of natural causes" (most of the authoritarianism in the past 30 years is just the logical consequence of seeing how far that can be pushed).
Men are acting in accordance with their (extraordinarily poor) socioeconomic position and their natural incentives, and to me, that's what Motteposts confirm (culture war is by its very nature a macrosocioeconomic issue). I'm really not sure what else you can take from them.
means the extra money spent on oil just disappears from the economy
The oil is destroyed when you use it as a consequence of what oil is.
That money is recycled throughout the economy.
By what mechanism? Oil companies don't want to increase production capacity now because they are, inherently, long on oil (and perhaps short on Iran). So the money gets kept- and while sure, oil companies do invest in other areas (as you'd expect them to), they're going to maintain a buffer, so the economic shock of increased profit for oil companies (and decreased profit for everyone who uses oil) is going to take some time to propagate.
For relatively cheap we were able to almost completely neutralize
I think that describes every modern US conflict, including the intentional provocation of the Ukraine-Russia conflict; jury's out on what was actually more expensive. (It's certainly very expensive for Europe, and one might argue the current admin's strategy of continually blaspheming European powers is one way to bolster domestic American will to wage this type of economic warfare, a strategy also shared by his opponents.)
I think the main question about the reorganization of Rome's America's east-most provinces now is whether it's going to turn out Antony (where the East is successfully reorganized in a semi-co-operative fashion), or Octavian (where the East is openly dominated).
European elites obviously prefer the Octavian approach, preferably under a Blue consul, and believe they can simply ignore anything a Red consul dictates until they're out of office. The Antony one would germinate a rival power bloc in their nations (as in "you have to, in relative terms to everyone else, reward the people doing the work")- again, something they'd rather avoid.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
The question the Inquisition (or whatever the Belgians are calling it these days) is tackling is whether dissemination is malicious intent.
To the power structure and those whose meal ticket wholly depends on the power structure, the answer is obviously yes.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
If she’s not there, dressed in provocative clothing, blackout drunk, the rape doesn’t happen.
Or in other words, if she's not wearing a billboard that says I'm ready to sell and taking the actions that declare the bargain is drugs for sex, that transaction doesn't occur.
Again, the problem is privilege taking this far more seriously than it deserves. Sex offered at a bargain price was accepted; it's the female inability to accept that some women aren't maximally mercenary about sex that is the fundamental problem here. (Men can't figure that out either, but they have no power to enforce their inaccuracy.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5d ago
It is deeply unfortunate that sexually predatory behavior from women is treated even more lightly than the same behavior from men.
Yes, the male version of sexually predatory behavior is not treated as seriously when women do it.
The entire problem here is that you have no concept for the similarly-exploitative female behavior; given men and women are morally equal, we should expect this to be 50/50, so where's all the crime from women we're ignoring, and what does it look like?
(The answer to that question has a lot to do with "intentionally suppressing men from trying in the first place", of course; were the world fair then every single progressive teacher would be in jail for sexual interference, but we prefer feminism instead because it's easy.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
since the show at its core is a comedy and parody of the Isekai genre, not something with any serious intent
Yeah, the worldbuilding of Interspecies Reviewers was much more serious. (Konosuba isn't actually that thoughtless though I stopped watching it after S1.)
That Megumin "wins" in the end is probably just a reflection that there are a very large number of paedophiles creating and watching Japanese anime.
Yes- by the social conservative and feminist definition, "wanting a decent-ish relationship with a relatively-close peer at any age where you'd actually be attracted to said peer" is absolutely indistinguishable from pedophilia. She was only barely post-menopause, you sick fuck.
The reason men tend to watch anime is mainly because it's free from this bullshit. Even though their birthrate is relatively poor Japan really doesn't seem to be a country whose men and women hate each other. Perhaps it's because women look way younger for way longer, so there's correspondingly less temptation for the collective of older women to re-enact Snow White on everyone younger.
Which, it turns out, is easiest to do simply by pathologizing natural attraction to them (by any group whatsoever).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
Come to think of it, this means that
The legal definition of robbery is theft plus assault
Which I think kind of proves the point that it's specifically the assault that makes the theft notable, where theft itself is boring, abstract, uninteresting, and provokes "well, didn't the victim deserve it a little?".
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
I do not believe that there is any amount of 'deterring inchastity among consenting adults' that can outweigh 'preventing one instance of rape'.
You misunderstand the purpose of slut-shaming (which is generally [collective] women vs. [individual] woman, not men vs. woman). "Deterring inchastitty" is not its goal.
Somewhat counterintuitively, the collective benefits from more instances of rape, not less (though only to a point).
"See what happens when you price yourself too low, or give your only worth away for free?"
And yes, it does result in scratch-and-dent models having to sell at a discount, but it reinforces the idea that collective bargaining for the worth of sex is collective bargaining (and the rape is simply justification/encouragement to be maximally mercenary when selling), which benefits all women except the raped one. Who, naturally, deserved to be raped for working outside union protection.
In that case, it's natural the woman in question would then proceed to attack targets of opportunity to recover some of the damage. Her product can't be repaired, but she can, correctly, tell herself it was all the buyers' fault. (The only weirdness here is that the collective will attempt to back her up when she does this, but then again, buyers tend to fall over themselves claiming rape devalues the collective so maybe that's not as weird as it sounds. It'd be in the buyers' interest to lie.)
Men doing this is kind of a legacy thing. Their moral opinions fell out of favor around 1900, but so long as people believe in them, they can be used to launder the above operation.
Cartels coordinate.
That's called an in-group bias. Women have one, men not so much.
Since the amount of available product on the market depends on women and not men (also for biological reasons), we put women on the selling side and men on the buying side.
If sellers co-ordinate, then it's a cartel, by definition. Slut-shaming (a classic practice among women) is kind of the basic example of this: given women form a union, that is scab behavior [it's working at a discount from the cartel's perspective, defeating the power of collective bargaining], and discouraged accordingly. See also the concept of a "pick-me", where the woman throws in some other value-adds to gain an individual advantage, and the chain is similar: why would you do that, unless you want to sell -> you're trying to undercut everyone else = slut = scab -> punish.
If you honestly think that "all women" are in a sort of cartel where they determine the cost of entry for "family formation" or engage in "resource siphoning,"
The idea that there is some grand war in incentives between women, as a class, and men, as a class, is precisely the mindset that I think is fallacious.
This isn't really a conscious thing; it's merely human instinct. Revealed preferences by the relevant actors (as buyers compete with buyers, as sellers compete with sellers, and as both negotiate between each other) demonstrates the collective negotiation between men and women has the character of a market, so economic analysis is the correct framing with which to make predictions.
perhaps your attitude has not shifted with the majority
'What the average market participant is willing to afford' is actually kind of the central issue here, so 'attitudes' are inescapable here (and again, this has biology/instinctual roots). Sexual attraction obviously has a lot to do with that, and that's something you simply don't get to decide.
In this case, the clearing price of the sexual marketplace has risen to the point where it's created a much larger proportion of men and women who are either unwilling or unable to afford each other; even when they can, they have far smaller families as a result.
Feminism is to blame for a little bit of that (in the "why bother buying into someone they're only marginally attracted to" and "government-enforced wealth transfers from men to women handicaps buyers and frustrates price discovery for sellers"[1] senses- this also matters on the seller side, particularly when considering [2], but inherently affects buyers far more than sellers), but a lot of it is that the substitute goods have become far better and cheaper than they used to be (and the cost of everything else associated with supporting a family has become far higher), so the value each party must bring also must be correspondingly higher.
Which means that, at the clearing price floor, attraction (and perhaps the compromises thereon) is making most of the difference (and perhaps providing more of the buyer's remorse upon purchase), so the fixation on it at that point makes sense.
[1] Forced-diversity initiatives as well as intentional subsidy of college degrees increase a seller's perception of their real value; once they realize they're overvalued, their more advanced age has devalued them further (again, this is a thing men value, and no, you don't get to pretend they don't). Discovering this is more likely to lead to their leaving the market entirely, creating further distortion.
[2] Divorce laws in the "she took everything including the kids" direction result in buyers perceiving more risk than there actually is. This should actually decrease the price a woman can charge due to fewer buyers willing to take that risk, and can lead to sellers competing with each other in ways like "known adherent to a religion where divorce is a sin".
The idea that there is some grand war in incentives between women, as a class, and men, as a class, is precisely the mindset that I think is fallacious.
feminism [exists], continuing significant political split between men and [particularly unmarried] women
If you can't agree on the facts there's nothing further to discuss. Having interests is not inherently malicious; good and evil are not life's concern.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
Even if they did, it only impedes automation of low-value labour.
Oh, so that's how mass immigration serves the lower/underclass.
So why isn't it being practiced, then?
Because the State has incorporated most of Christianity's community-building aspects. You don't make the choice to donate your time to the soup kitchen any more; the government simply confiscates your time (through a process known as "income tax") and runs that program itself (at times it will pay religious groups to do this). Same thing with permitting crime, actually- the way Western society donates to the poor is simply by permitting them to walk into any store, take what whatever they require, and the cost of that is redistributed through something called an "insurance premium".
they have high youth unemployment despite an enormous pool of well-educated young people
The education, of course, was mostly just to dissuade young people from dealing with unemployment the traditional way. Education to those who can't use it provides no bonus.
My armchair theory is that this is because the prototypical crime people imagine is entirely gratuitous.
It's the same effect whereby people imagine the average robbery to involve a gun and the words "stick 'em up", and ignore the fact that most of it's done through means diffuse (white-collar crime, embezzlement, contract violation, etc.) or direct (scams, fraud). They even blame the victim, usually saying "well, they should have noticed the signs/paid more attention" or "people who fall for get-rich-quick schemes deserve it".
Rape, as a subtype of theft, is exactly like that too. Forced entry is obviously criminal; but that's more because it clearly involves assault. The others, as you mention (and for the same reason), are far less clear; justice in cases tackling who consented to what is arguably best handled as a civil matter as well.
(Perhaps surprisingly, this is also a feature of Deuteronomic law; "pay her father some amount and must never divorce her" for casual sex the woman feels wronged by has the character of a civil violation, not a criminal one. One notes the modern standard for this is 'preponderance of the evidence' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.)
nearly as bad as murder, if not worse
This is more downstream of an human instinct to Protect Women more than anything else. In an environment of equality, this is wage theft.
reactionary-reactionary
You have correctly identified that DreadJim is a male feminist. Feminists take the posture that women are better than men and tend to take "well, what are they good for" for granted. So does DreadJim, with the valence swapped.
Anyway:
Further, women suddenly getting careers, delaying childbirth, or even having more sex doesn't make them fundamentally unattractive
Yes, it absolutely fucking does.
It does in the same way and for the same reasons as the listed behaviors make men unattractive to women. You're making the same tired mistake the social conservatives and feminists (though I repeat myself) do where they fail to weight the desires and worth of men and women equally in an environment where they by all rights should be.
Which is why the assertion it's a double-standard is correct: what you've listed are all the ways men want to skip the bill for providing what women want, and you claim that's bad, and then you list all the ways women want to skip the bill for providing what men want, and you claim that's good.
Now, in the before times, "it's worse for men to skip the bill" was OK because there were external factors that balanced it out; mainly that, because women were not capable of primary resource extraction, women were dependent on those resources and had to sell (which is why you correct observe marriage is an economic bargain).
But, exactly coincident with the dawn of feminism, men destroyed that constraint in a massive wave of automation. So the instinctual double-standard remains, but now nothing else exists to moderate the impulse.
The nugget I can share is this: paying attention to the behaviors of "women" and "men" as a whole, when examining the dating world, is an incredible fool's errand and bound to produce resentment.
I really don't believe you are as free of resentment as you claim to be. Systems design begins with observing the users.
Which is an odd thing to attempt, considering sororities have that reputation by default.
More options
Context Copy link