Canadian Oil Company Facing Backlash Over Disturbing Greta Thunberg Poster

[tstorm823]

Really? I recommend you watch the recent TV dramatisation about the Chernobyl disaster. Also Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc.

I can see 3 mile island from my house. The environment is doing just fine, thank you.

Even Chernobyl has some interesting environmental stuff around it, but outside of Russia blowing that one, a lot of nuclear plants are basically nature preserves.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Let's have a story.

Once upon a time there was a little nation called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. DPRK was very sad because other nations had nuclear weapons which could kill millions of people, so DPRK went to his friend USSR. "Please USSR, show me how to make nuclear weapons" said little DPRK, but USSR just laughed "silly DPRK, you are far too weird and irresponsible to have nuclear weapons." DPRK was even sadder now. How would any of the other nations take him seriously?

Then, DPRK had a very clever idea. He went back to USSR. "Please USSR, I am only a small and weak nation and I have no electricity. Could you show me how to make nuclear power?" USSR felt sorry for little DPRK, and taught him the secrets of making nuclear power.

But DPRK had played a clever trick, because it turns out once you have the knowledge and facilities to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power, you can use those same facilities to produce the material for nuclear weapons. So, as soon as USSR wasn't looking, DPRK set about converting his new nuclear energy program into a nuclear weapons program.

When they finally found out, all the other countries were very upset by DPRK's trickery, and they got quite angry with him. But by then it was far too late. DPRK already had all the technology and equipment he needed, so the other countries refusing to give him more help didn't bother him at all. It didn't take him very long to develop nuclear weapons, meaning at long last he could kill millions of people whenever he wanted, and all the other countries of the world had to take him seriously.

The end.

The moral of the story is that it's all very well to sit in countries that already have massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, or have nuclear weapons sharing agreements, or have strong, democratic governments which have formally disavowed nuclear weapons, and talk about how nuclear power is a realistic or credible solution to the world's energy needs. But signing up for a nuclear powered world also means signing up for a world in which any nation which wants nuclear weapons can get them, fairly easily, within a timespan ranging from a few years to a couple of decades. It's not just North Korea either, every country which has developed nuclear weapons or begun a nuclear weapons program since the non-proliferation treaty has used expertise and equipment provided or purchased for a civilian energy program.

In terms of existential threats to human civilisation, it's pretty hard to top climate change, but nuclear proliferation is up there.

 

[Agema]

I can see 3 mile island from my house. The environment is doing just fine, thank you.

And you don't think there's a significant risk either?

Even Chernobyl has some interesting environmental stuff around it, but outside of Russia blowing that one, a lot of nuclear plants are basically nature preserves.

Yes: because they need to make sure no-one lives that close in case something goes seriously wrong. In other words, they're potentially dangerous.

 

[Kwak]

In other words, they're potentially dangerous.

Significantly less so now.

A Generation III reactor is a development of Generation II nuclear reactor designs incorporating evolutionary improvements in design developed during the lifetime of the Generation II reactor designs. These include improved fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, significantly enhanced safety systems (including passive nuclear safety), and standardized designs for reduced maintenance and capital costs. The first Generation III reactor to begin operation was Kashiwazaki 6 (an ABWR) in 1996.
...
Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are a set of nuclear reactor designs currently being researched for commercial applications by the Generation IV International Forum, with technology readiness levels varying between the level requiring a demonstration, to economical competitive implementation.[1] They are motivated by a variety of goals including improved safety, sustainability, efficiency, and cost.

The most developed Gen IV reactor design, the sodium fast reactor, has received the greatest share of funding over the years with a number of demonstration facilities operated. The principal Gen IV aspect of the design relates to the development of a sustainable closed fuel cycle for the reactor. The molten-salt reactor, a less developed technology, is considered as potentially having the greatest inherent safety of the six models.[2][3] The very-high-temperature reactor designs operate at much higher temperatures. This allows for high temperature electrolysis for the efficient production of hydrogen and the synthesis of carbon-neutral fuels.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

In conjunction with other renewable methods they are really our only viable option to date.
Governments need to get on it now.

 

[Agema]

In conjunction with other renewable methods they are really our only viable option to date.
Governments need to get on it now.

There's carbon capture technology as well, traditionally considering subsequent storage although there's also research on utilisation of captured CO2 for other manufacturing purposes.

 

[tstorm823]

And you don't think there's a significant risk either?

Yes: because they need to make sure no-one lives that close in case something goes seriously wrong. In other words, they're potentially dangerous.

I don't think there's a likely risk. I'll concede the microscopic chance something goes horrible is a problem of significant scale if it does. But mostly nuclear is just a great example of how bad people are at risk assessment. More people die falling off ladders installing solar panels then every nuclear accident combined, but people fixate so heavily on the worse cast scenarios they fail to assess the likely cases.

I was focusing in on the effects on the environment rather than risk to people because you grouped those together, and they need to be broken apart. Potentially dangerous to humans isn't the same as bad for the environment. Frankly, the environment is potentially dangerous to humans. Floods, wolves, snakes, etc. Places where people don't want to live are some of the best untouched nature on the planet. Potentially dangerous to people and environmentally bad aren't synonyms.

There's carbon capture technology as well, traditionally considering subsequent storage although there's also research on utilisation of captured CO2 for other manufacturing purposes.

And the issue with both right now is the lack of carbon-free energy production to run those processes.

 

[Agema]

I was focusing in on the effects on the environment rather than risk to people because you grouped those together, and they need to be broken apart. Potentially dangerous to humans isn't the same as bad for the environment.

I can assure you it is harmful to both humans and the environment in the case of a nuclear power plant going critically wrong.

But mostly nuclear is just a great example of how bad people are at risk assessment.

I would suggest your comparison of falling off ladders to nuclear disasters is an example of poor risk assessment.

And the issue with both right now is the lack of carbon-free energy production to run those processes.

??

You don't need carbon-free energy production to run carbon capture.

 

[Satinavian]

In conjunction with other renewable methods they are really our only viable option to date.
Governments need to get on it now.

There's carbon capture technology as well, traditionally considering subsequent storage although there's also research on utilisation of captured CO2 for other manufacturing purposes.

Pretty much all of those Processes would work far better if you would use fossil fuels instead of CO2. By using CO2, you need more energy. More or less the amount of extra energy you got when you produced the CO2 in the first place.

All of this stuff is basically a fancy way of turning CO2 back into coal or oil with green, renewable, availabe energy. That might be a thing somewhere in the future. But it won't make sense as long as we have still any neeed of burning stuff to get energy.


That is why capturing and storing does have a use now. But using it for manufacturing does not.

There are some projects trying to use exclusively oversupply of renewable energy (which does happen in some countries at certain times) to start those processes. But that is just another energy storage solution at best and arguably not a particular efficient one.

 

[Agema]

Pretty much all of those Processes would work far better if you would use fossil fuels instead of CO2. By using CO2, you need more energy. More or less the amount of extra energy you got when you produced the CO2 in the first place.

Eh? Obviously you can't burn CO2: it's already fully oxidised. Carbon capture is a tactic for burning fossil fuels and vastly reducing or even elminating CO2 release into the atmosphere. Some are theorised to potentially be able to also absorb additional CO2 from the atmosphere.

The assumed utility here is that as we move to renewables we can continue burning oil, gas etc. to some extent because it has been rendered far less problematic. The basic tactic is storage - such as pumping it back into emptied oil fields - but there is the potential to convert produced CO2 into other products that may be useful for manufacturing. Obviously you can't realistically convert it back into oil because due to less than 100% efficiency it would be energy negative.

 

[Satinavian]

I never said anything about burning CO2.

Only that you can build anything that you could possible make from CO2 better by using coal or gas. And that the additional effort you have to invest to make it from CO2 consists of at least enough energy that you would have been better off not producing the CO2 for energy generation.

All this "convert CO2 into products" is exactly as useful as making oil out of it. Nothing but a waste of energy. In fact, some of those projects likerally are "making synthetic fuel out of it".



I also wrote that the storage is useful. Just not the use as raw material, at least not until you have free energy supply.

 

[Agema]

Only that you can build anything that you could possible make from CO2 better by using coal or gas.

Yeah, but then you aren't getting electricity out of it. But getting electricity is the aim here.

All this "convert CO2 into products" is exactly as useful as making oil out of it. Nothing but a waste of energy. In fact, some of those projects likerally are "making synthetic fuel out of it".

Potentially, some of this might be very easy: the right kind of bacteria or algae in industrial tanks may be able to turn CO2 into all sorts of interesting stuff with little more energy required than the free sunlight supplied by our local star.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

That's a pretty dire estimation of the impact of stem cell research.

Frankly, this militant belief in the benefits of nuclear power are really no less pathological than absolute opposition to it. It's just as much a cultural thing. People associate green energy with idealism and environmentalism and just assume nuclear must be better because fuck hippies, basically.

But the reality is nuclear has a lot of problems even once we bracket out the occasional major accident (which has huge consequences, children born in Belarus today will still face reduced quality of life because of environmental radiation). It's certainly not practical for most of the world. It's a provenly dangerous form of power which has some economic benefits over intermittent renewables, but probably only really for right now.

Considering I look like what a lot of people alive around the 60s would define as a hippy if I don't shave and wash my epic metal hair for a couple of days, I definitely don't think I fall in that fuck-hippies demo lol.

And look, I said I'm for more research into it, not into implementation. I think the freezing of research in just about anything is just insane. You don't have to use the thing but at least do an earnest estimation of it.

So, you seem to have missed the point.

When you make your "darkest thoughts" or "worst moments" public, they do affect others.

We aren't talking about some private moment of sexual sadism. The target of this cartoon has seen it. She has commented on it. She is aware of its existence. She is affected because she knows about it. What exactly is she supposed to assume the implication is? How is she supposed to feel about the fact men who clearly hate her are fantasizing about her getting violently fucked?

You're being slippery with your definition of affect others. I'm talking about directly affecting others, as in, the people who were killed in the holocaust and their families were directly affected, meanwhile completely uninvolved people learning about what happened there may have been saddened or horrified or a million other ways of affected, but that was indirect and massively lesser. To conflate the two is wrong.

And I dunno what she's supposed to feel, I'd have to know her kinks to be able to answer that, though not sure it's appropriate to discuss that about a 17 year old lol. I'll just say if there was a cartoon image of me being violently mounted by a hot babe, I'd not be traumatized one bit. But yeah on a more reasonable level, she's supposed to just ignore it as internet humor seeping in the real life, don't give trolls the joy of acknowledgement and all that. (which I think she sorta was doing until other people forced a reaction out of her, those are the real assholes here)

That is a genuinely terrible policy.

Men do not have an interior supply of rape-energy which they need to use up by telling rape jokes otherwise it will build up and explode into actual raping.

Men who joke about having sex with women they dislike as a means of punishing, controlling or silencing them are doing that because they actually have a view of sex which is inherently bound up with male domination and male pleasure at a woman's expense.

That is an extreme red flag.





Yeah, but if I did that, it wouldn't be true.

Look, maybe you actually are free of the neurotic bullshit most straight men seem to carry around. Maybe you are unaffected by a culture which relentlessly devalues the worth of your body and thus seeks the continual humiliation of anyone who finds it attractive. Maybe the word "slut" (or variations thereof) has never crossed your lips. I don't want to invalidate any personal experience you think you've had. I'm just saying if so you're the extreme minority, and if you've never noticed what the straight men around you are like, then I'm also not entirely sure I trust your self-perception.

They don't have particularly rape-energy, but they have energy, which can be converted into rape energy or it can be converted into science or engineering or heroic deeds. And some people have no outlets for such acts, yet still have this energy and their inability to manifest it into the world can turn them bitter. You may not like it but that's a fact.


And hey, never mind crossing my lips, I never even thought of someone as a slut in a pejorative sense. To me slut sounds like a term of endearment because it indicates someone with whom I don't need to bullshit around and play this whole charade before getting to where be both know we're headed. Though of course it's rude so I don't actually think of people as that myself, I just think of them as fun people with an open mind.

It may be the fact that I actually grew up in a place distinctly lacking sluts where every girl had an internalized sense of this neuroticism you describe as present exclusively in men, as a direct result of enforced religiosity, that I can appreciate sluttiness lol. If you think it's not accurate to narrow down the definition as I did above you have not really seen what it's like for women who internalize this idea and go on to condemn each-other. They're way more vicious to each-other than the men are, because they see the sluts as breaking the rules to the game they're all playing and having an unfair advantage. No mercy for the rule-breakers.

Easy way to illustrate the point. When a marriage happens, the next day the wife hangs bloody sheets outside her window to virtue signal she was a virgin. This was a thing happening still in the villages when I grew up, it prolly still happens sometimes I'm sure, and was common practice for centuries. Try to find a slut in a society with these traditions lol.

 

[Kwak]

Only that you can build anything that you could possible make from CO2 better by using coal or gas.

Yeah, but then you aren't getting electricity out of it. But getting electricity is the aim here.

All this "convert CO2 into products" is exactly as useful as making oil out of it. Nothing but a waste of energy. In fact, some of those projects likerally are "making synthetic fuel out of it".

Potentially, some of this might be very easy: the right kind of bacteria or algae in industrial tanks may be able to turn CO2 into all sorts of interesting stuff with little more energy required than the free sunlight supplied by our local star.

I read something cool about that recently.

Recent technology developed at Rice University is taking the idea that one man's trash is another man's treasure to its extreme. Banana peels, coffee grounds, single-use plastic containers, coal ? all of these and more are being turned into one of the most valuable materials around: graphene. Chemist James Tour and his team have developed a rapid process that can transform bulk-quantities of junk into flakes of graphene.
"This is a big deal," said Tour in a Rice University press release. "The world throws out 30 percent to 40 percent of all food, because it goes bad, and plastic waste is of worldwide concern. We've already proven that any solid carbon-based matter, including mixed plastic waste and rubber tires, can be turned into graphene."
...
The new technique, called flash Joule heating, is far simpler, cheaper, and doesn't rely on any hazardous solvents or chemical additives. Simply put, a carbon-based material is exposed to a 2,760?C (5,000?F) heat for just 10 milliseconds. This breaks every chemical bond in the input material. All atoms aside from carbon turn into gas, which escape in this proof-of-concept device but could be captured in industrial applications. The carbon, however, reassembles itself as flakes of graphene.

What's more, this technique produces so-called turbostatic graphene. Other processes produce what's known as A-B stacked graphene, in which half of the atoms in one sheet of graphene lie over the atoms of another sheet of graphene. This results in a tighter bond between the two sheets, making them harder to separate. Turbostatic graphene has no such order between sheets, so they're easier to remove from one another.
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/flash-graphene

 

[Seanchaidh]

I read something cool about that recently.

"It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks be made into a space elevator, and become one with all the people."

 

[Agema]

I read something cool about that recently.

"It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks be made into a space elevator, and become one with all the people."

I had visions of a tower of bones reaching up into space, but given the entire population of the world could stand on Zanzibar, I figure that might need a lot more time and population.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I am not afraid of the person who talks publicly about these things, I'm afraid of the guy who is repressing these thoughts, cause those are the people who actually snap, not those who just say a dirty joke and that's the worst of it. At least I know what I'm dealing with, it's better than the alternative of being completely in the dark.

Imagine you're were in a bar and a guy was in the corner reading a book, not bothering anyone, and there's another guy by the door jumping up and down screaming with a machete yelling " I'll kill the next ************ who walks in here"....Who you gonna watch?

 

[Terminal Blue]

And look, I said I'm for more research into it, not into implementation.

I mean, me too.

But here's the thing. Nuclear research isn't being limited by environmentalists crying about how there aren't enough windfarms.

Israel, for example, has a semi-official policy of assassinating nuclear scientists in neighbouring states. I mean, just straight up blowing people up with magnetic bombs attached to their cars.

Even researchers whose work is purely theoretical and have no obvious ties to their governments have been assassinated in this way.

Nuclear research, and especially research into nuclear energy, is potentially very dangerous if it gets into the "wrong" hands. The people who want to control it are not environmentalists, but security services, the governments of powerful nuclear states and the enforcement bodies of the NPT who want to preserve an effective monopoly on nuclear research.

I'm talking about directly affecting others, as in, the people who were killed in the holocaust and their families were directly affected, meanwhile completely uninvolved people learning about what happened there may have been saddened or horrified or a million other ways of affected, but that was indirect and massively lesser.

The people who were killed in the holocaust are dead. They aren't "affected" by anything.

But if I went up to a Jewish person and started talking about how Hitler was right and we need another holocaust to get rid of all the Jews, then they are directly affected. I might think I was joking, but there's no telling the people I'm talking to are going to find it funny.

Directly affecting someone doesn't have to mean physically harming them. Threatening someone, for example, doesn't physically hurt them, but it could make them very afraid.

I'll just say if there was a cartoon image of me being violently mounted by a hot babe, I'd not be traumatized one bit.

What about a cartoon image of you being violently anally fisted by Adolf Hitler.

I mean, I could sit here and defend that by saying that I don't actually know whether you'd be into that or not. I could argue that maybe you'd be super turned on by the Fuhrer going elbow-deep in your sudetenland and therefore I can't assume any kind of malice on the part of whoever created that image, but I'm pretty sure you can see how dumb that argument would be. The cultural associations there are pretty clear-cut.

Easy way to illustrate the point. When a marriage happens, the next day the wife hangs bloody sheets outside her window to virtue signal she was a virgin.

Why is that important?

Presumably, the husband in this weird display of heterosexual nonsense doesn't have to signal that he was a virgin. He doesn't have to hang his jizz-covered sheets outside his window to show that he prematurely ejaculated, or make a big public speech about his inability to find his wife's clitoris. He doesn't "virtue signal" his virginity because it's not really a virtue.

He and his wife live in the same society, yet their value as people and the value they contribute to a marriage is judged by completely different standards. That's weird isn't it.

So, while these nice, traditional, socially acceptable women are sitting at home protecting their virginity, who do you think their future husbands were fucking?

The sluts have always been with us. In historical societies, they were often literal prostitutes, or they were just poor and vulnerable to sexual exploitation, or (in some societies) they were literal slaves. Occasionally they were none of these things but were just women who liked sex and wanted to have it even if it meant never being the kind of girl someone would want to hang a bloody sheet outside a window with. Regardless those nice traditional men have always needed someone to keep their dicks wet until they married. This is an intentional, deliberate part of patriarchal ideology. You have the nice virginal women who you should marry, and you have the sluts. The disposable women. The people who exist for the use of men and are discarded when they cease to be useful.

You want us to reclaim the idea of being a slut. You want women to be proud of their slutiness. I can respect that, I remember reading The Ethical Slut back in the 2000s and thinking much the same thing. Heck, I'm a slut. Most of my friends are sluts. But, and forgive me if I'm wrong, it sounds like the reason you like sluts is not because you value the act of claiming sexual agency, but because you personally want to fuck them, because you like the idea of disposable women, because you like the idea of women who can't demand things of you, because you hate the "bullshit" of actually having to work around a real human being with needs and emotions.

And that, I'm afraid, is extremely typical of straight men.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I am not afraid of the person who talks publicly about these things, I'm afraid of the guy who is repressing these thoughts, cause those are the people who actually snap, not those who just say a dirty joke and that's the worst of it. At least I know what I'm dealing with, it's better than the alternative of being completely in the dark.

Imagine you're were in a bar and a guy was in the corner reading a book, not bothering anyone, and there's another guy by the door jumping up and down screaming with a machete yelling " I'll kill the next ************ who walks in here"....Who you gonna watch?

The barman, not sure what he gave the machete guy but I want a double of it.

(Serious answer: Who reads books in a BAR? He's either a some hyper psycho or a cia agent or something signaling to the person he's meeting by reading the book, either way, way more suspicious than just another violent mad drunk, way more interesting to watch)

I mean, me too.

But here's the thing. Nuclear research isn't being limited by environmentalists crying about how there aren't enough windfarms.

Israel, for example, has a semi-official policy of assassinating nuclear scientists in neighbouring states. I mean, just straight up blowing people up with magnetic bombs attached to their cars.

Even researchers whose work is purely theoretical and have no obvious ties to their governments have been assassinated in this way.

Nuclear research, and especially research into nuclear energy, is potentially very dangerous if it gets into the "wrong" hands. The people who want to control it are not environmentalists, but security services, the governments of powerful nuclear states and the enforcement bodies of the NPT who want to preserve an effective monopoly on nuclear research.

Pretty sure Israel only murders researchers in the countries that would like to blow it up like Iran, not in like, France or something (and there's a big jewish flight from France so they're not in the best of terms with them either) so as long as it's other countries doing the research it's still doable.

The people who were killed in the holocaust are dead. They aren't "affected" by anything.

But if I went up to a Jewish person and started talking about how Hitler was right and we need another holocaust to get rid of all the Jews, then they are directly affected. I might think I was joking, but there's no telling the people I'm talking to are going to find it funny.

Directly affecting someone doesn't have to mean physically harming them. Threatening someone, for example, doesn't physically hurt them, but it could make them very afraid.

Yeah of course threats are their own thing, but just saying that you fount the Nazis funny for some reason isn't the same as threatening someone.

"I wanna hit you on the head with a pan" = threat, not funny
"Man, if you were hit in the head with a pan, I'd find that hilarious" = not threat, funny

What about a cartoon image of you being violently anally fisted by Adolf Hitler.

I mean, I could sit here and defend that by saying that I don't actually know whether you'd be into that or not. I could argue that maybe you'd be super turned on by the Fuhrer going elbow-deep in your sudetenland and therefore I can't assume any kind of malice on the part of whoever created that image, but I'm pretty sure you can see how dumb that argument would be. The cultural associations there are pretty clear-cut.

Genuinely laughed reading this, those snorty sorts of laughs that start at your nose and spread to your mouth. Not into it at all, but would find the depiction hilarious nonetheless. Mainly cause Hitler fisting anyone is genuinely hilarious, and it being me alters this not one bit.

Why is that important?

Presumably, the husband in this weird display of heterosexual nonsense doesn't have to signal that he was a virgin. He doesn't have to hang his jizz-covered sheets outside his window to show that he prematurely ejaculated, or make a big public speech about his inability to find his wife's clitoris. He doesn't "virtue signal" his virginity because it's not really a virtue.

He and his wife live in the same society, yet their value as people and the value they contribute to a marriage is judged by completely different standards. That's weird isn't it.

So, while these nice, traditional, socially acceptable women are sitting at home protecting their virginity, who do you think their future husbands were fucking?

The sluts have always been with us. In historical societies, they were often literal prostitutes, or they were just poor and vulnerable to sexual exploitation, or (in some societies) they were literal slaves. Occasionally they were none of these things but were just women who liked sex and wanted to have it even if it meant never being the kind of girl someone would want to hang a bloody sheet outside a window with. Regardless those nice traditional men have always needed someone to keep their dicks wet until they married. This is an intentional, deliberate part of patriarchal ideology. You have the nice virginal women who you should marry, and you have the sluts. The disposable women. The people who exist for the use of men and are discarded when they cease to be useful.

You want us to reclaim the idea of being a slut. You want women to be proud of their slutiness. I can respect that, I remember reading The Ethical Slut back in the 2000s and thinking much the same thing. Heck, I'm a slut. Most of my friends are sluts. But, and forgive me if I'm wrong, it sounds like the reason you like sluts is not because you value the act of claiming sexual agency, but because you personally want to fuck them, because you like the idea of disposable women, because you like the idea of women who can't demand things of you, because you hate the "bullshit" of actually having to work around a real human being with needs and emotions.

And that, I'm afraid, is extremely typical of straight men.

Not sure you know how men work but being able to jizz prematurely is not an indication that you're a virgin the way bleeding during your first time is for women. Men still jizz quick after their first time too so this wouldn't be the proof you think it is. Also maybe they didn't wanna get pregnant so that's why it got on the sheets. Either way, presumably there will be some jizz mixed in with the blood too lol.

But yeah, the husbands were fucking the incognito sluts or actual hookers. Point is, the mentality of demeaning the sluts was way more prevalent in the women despite that. You can say it was because the men wanted to only marry virgins but still, they could just not be vicious to each-other despite that. You don't get any benefits from being vicious since unlike the men who have this preference you don't benefit more from other women being virgins.

I don't really see why women should get to demand things out of me when I don't demand things out of them just because we have sex, since as I explained above I see the sex itself as a benefit I'm offering to them. I think this is you wanting to have your cake and eat it too, you want to be rid of the paternalistic control over your sexuality and being demeaned for lack of purity but you want the benefits of being this virginal precious thing that needs to be bargained with and coaxed because she couldn't possibly want to fuck without an extra incentive or some type of personal connection, based on just pure unadulterated attraction and libido.

If you are to be free from patriarchal norms, you better get used to being just as little sexually selective as men are, and not dozens of times that amount. Better get used to not being put up in a pedestal. Liberation doesn't mean turning everyone's respectability and power to equal that of the virgins, it means bringing the virgins down to the level of the sluts. Incidentally, that's the same level the men occupy in the sexual marketplace, hence, equal. The way you describe women as disposable is exactly how men are viewed. If you want equality you wanna get used to that.

 

[Agema]

But yeah, the husbands were fucking the incognito sluts or actual hookers. Point is, the mentality of demeaning the sluts was way more prevalent in the women despite that. You can say it was because the men wanted to only marry virgins but still, they could just not be vicious to each-other despite that. You don't get any benefits from being vicious since unlike the men who have this preference you don't benefit more from other women being virgins.

Women have very high motivation to demean "sluts" in a society which strongly disapproves of promiscuous women - because women are the ones at threat of being accused of being sluts and having their reputation destroyed. Thus it becomes extremely important for women to distinguish themselves from and demonstrate disapproval of promiscuous women, because the implication of not doing so could be that they are promiscuous, too. This is particularly important in patriarchal societies, because women tend to have very little social, economic and political power except through their husbands.

You can consider a lot of things the same way, such as homophobia. People who are afraid - and obviously in a homophobic society rationally afraid - of being thought to be gay will be more inclined to aggressively assert their heterosexuality and condemn homosexuality.

I don't really see why women should get to demand things out of me when I don't demand things out of them just because we have sex, since as I explained above I see the sex itself as a benefit I'm offering to them.

Oh, how kind of you to do women a favour and honour them with your penis.

If you are to be free from patriarchal norms, you better get used to being just as little sexually selective as men are, and not dozens of times that amount. Better get used to not being put up in a pedestal. Liberation doesn't mean turning everyone's respectability and power to equal that of the virgins, it means bringing the virgins down to the level of the sluts. Incidentally, that's the same level the men occupy in the sexual marketplace, hence, equal. The way you describe women as disposable is exactly how men are viewed. If you want equality you wanna get used to that.

I think liberation actually means that someone can be promiscuous or chaste and no-one judges them for the worse either way (unless they are emotionally hurtful or neglectful about it). No-one's being brought "down".

 

[CaitSeith]

You are choosing the interpretation that uses rape to explain this while I come into this open minded with no confirmation biases.

You are grasping at any remotely imaginable possibility which allows you to avoid seeing the obvious. That in itself demonstrates a level of bias I cannot even comprehend.

I wonder if whenever someone says "fuck you" to Dreiko, he empties his mind out of all context and go oblivious on whatever they are telling him to "go away", "come to have some sex" or any other plausible interpretation. Does he decides then with a flip coin or something? Willful-ignorance is the worst bias of all.