Canadian Oil Company Facing Backlash Over Disturbing Greta Thunberg Poster

[SupahEwok]

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 that Dreiko is right, but you stating that an "extremely typical" trait of straight men is wanting disposable women is akin to me stating that an "extremely typical" trait of gay men is pedophilia. Can you not?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

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".

Just like how with homophobia it's over-compensating and the people truly secure in their sexuality have no reason to make displays to convince others, so is it with the women and the sluts. It's not that men are pressuring them but rather that they are too insecure and unable to handle it without harming others. Both things are a failure of the person to stand up to the pressures their culture is exerting on them. Of course we acknowledge there are these pressures but that doesn't mean that it's acceptable to bend to them and sacrifice common decency. This is why being a good person is hard, because it takes you to stand against such forces and not harm others to benefit yourself.

And hey, why wouldn't it be a favor? Orgasms are awesome. Why do we need to deny this or to pretend only men get something out of sex and should be grateful for having it? Women should be grateful for my penis just as much lol.


Finally, the chaste are chaste only because of these benefits we are removing through the removal of judgement. So someone who was hedging their bets on this chaste system will inadvertently end up feeling like they wasted their opportunity to have fun for the promise of superior virtue status that is not valid any longer. Very few chaste people are actually just low interest/asexual. They're just using that to obtain things, and when we remove the privileged position of being chaste, we lose those things.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

It's a kind of weird coincidence that you used France as the example, because one of the first people assassinated by Israel under the Begin doctrine was killed in France. Yahya El Mashad, an Egyptian scientist, was murdered in his hotel room in Paris in 1980.

Heck, the first facility bombed by Israel under the Begin doctrine was an Iraqi research reactor built in France and supplied as part of a nuclear sharing agreement between the two countries.

You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about how we need more nuclear research, and then complain that scientists from countries you don't like might have access to that research. Science isn't limited by borders.

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.

It clearly is.

Mainly cause Hitler fisting anyone is genuinely hilarious, and it being me alters this not one bit.

I'm glad I could make you laugh.

How much thought have you given to how it would feel or what would happen to you if someone actually fisted you. Like, make a fist right now. What do you think would happen to you if that suddenly went inside you?

The reason it makes no difference to you whether or not it is you is because you're not actually capable of imagining anything like that happening to you. It's funny to you because you've never had to think about how it would actually feel, or what would actually happen, if it did happen to you. Heck, you're probably imagining a very funny and sanitised image, but what if the actually it wasn't funny and sanitised. What if I actually drew the things that would happen to your body if someone did that to you?

I've been trying to get you to understand why a person might feel threatened by the idea of sexual violence, but the simple fact is that it's futile because you don't find sexual violence upsetting or disgusting at all.

Which is why straight men are terrifying.

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.

Bleeding when you have sex is in absolutely no way an indication of whether or not a woman is a virgin. That idea is so ridiculous that I refuse to take it seriously.

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.

I mean, I'm not a woman so it's not really about what I want, but let me tell you where I am.

I don't have casual sex with cis men.

I used to, and I stopped because men are not safe to be around, and I realised that if I carried on I was going to end up getting either hurt or sexually assaulted.

When I go on dates with men, it's not because I need a deep personal connection in order to have sex with them, or because I'm looking for a serious relationship. I go on dates with men because I need to weigh up whether or not they are going to pose a risk. That is a thing anyone who dates men, and in particular anyone who bottoms in sex with men, has to do. Because for some reason men will commonly assume that bottoming in sex means you either like to be abused, or are a person who can be abused without consequence.

Heck, leaving aside the issue of actual threat or violence. For me, if I'm attracted to someone, then I'm kind of inherently predisposed to like them and to be nice to them. With men, that seems to be highly optional. Maybe expecting basic niceness is too much to ask, but then I could just not sleep with men and get that as standard.

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.

Noone owes you sex.

Maybe if you want people to want to have sex with you, you need to get used to being a little more sexually selective, and only sleep with people you're actually willing to put the bare minimum of effort in for. Because if noone can expect even the bare minumum, what is actually the point?

Better get used to not being put up in a pedestal.

Imagine being so self-loathing that you don't believe your sexual partners should put you on a pedestal.

I thought sex was this amazing experience you were giving someone. You mean to tell me you don't even expect that person to be grateful?

Not that Dreiko is right, but you stating that an "extremely typical" trait of straight men is wanting disposable women is akin to me stating that an "extremely typical" trait of gay men is pedophilia. Can you not?

I'll stop saying it when I stop seeing it.

 

[SupahEwok]

Not that Dreiko is right, but you stating that an "extremely typical" trait of straight men is wanting disposable women is akin to me stating that an "extremely typical" trait of gay men is pedophilia. Can you not?

I'll stop saying it when I stop seeing it.

I only don't reply to Dreiko because I concluded he was a thoroughly hopeless case in a Persona thread a week or two ago, as he talked about fetishes being explored. So I'm only cherrypicking you because I don't want to bother dealing with him. But you attributing his behavior and that of other "straight men you've encountered" to all straight men doesn't really help you at all, and frankly, I think it's dipping into site rules on hate speech, for whatever the rules are worth anymore.

To carry on the analogy, I could stop saying that "an "extremely typical" trait of gay men is pedophilia" when I stop hearing it on the news. It's a slimy thing to say. It's a slimy thing you're saying.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I only don't reply to Dreiko because I concluded he was a thoroughly hopeless case in a Persona thread a week or two ago, as he talked about fetishes being explored. So I'm only cherrypicking you because I don't want to bother dealing with him. But you attributing his behavior and that of other "straight men you've encountered" to all straight men doesn't really help you at all, and frankly, I think it's dipping into site rules on hate speech, for whatever the rules are worth anymore.

To carry on the analogy, I could stop saying that "an "extremely typical" trait of gay men is pedophilia" when I stop hearing it on the news. It's a slimy thing to say. It's a slimy thing you're saying.

The two are only comparable in a fairly weak an tenuous way.

Firstly, pedophilia (or rather child abuse) is a terrible crime, one that is (nominally) deemed especially repellent in our society. The idea that gay men are pedophiles is constantly used to justify hate crimes and hate based laws. You flat out don't see anything like that in regards to men and viewing women as disposable.

Secondly, there's no truth to saying that gay men are typically pedophiles. However, that's not at all the case in regards to men and viewing women as disposable. That is something that society tolerates, hell, even encourages. It's the attitude of the male lead in any number of zillion dollar movie franchises. Sure, it'd be nicer it evilthecat was wrong about that, but that's not to say that they are.

 

[SupahEwok]

I only don't reply to Dreiko because I concluded he was a thoroughly hopeless case in a Persona thread a week or two ago, as he talked about fetishes being explored. So I'm only cherrypicking you because I don't want to bother dealing with him. But you attributing his behavior and that of other "straight men you've encountered" to all straight men doesn't really help you at all, and frankly, I think it's dipping into site rules on hate speech, for whatever the rules are worth anymore.

To carry on the analogy, I could stop saying that "an "extremely typical" trait of gay men is pedophilia" when I stop hearing it on the news. It's a slimy thing to say. It's a slimy thing you're saying.

The two are only comparable in a fairly weak an tenuous way.

Firstly, pedophilia (or rather child abuse) is a terrible crime, one that is (nominally) deemed especially repellent in our society. The idea that gay men are pedophiles is constantly used to justify hate crimes and hate based laws. You flat out don't see anything like that in regards to men and viewing women as disposable.

Secondly, there's no truth to saying that gay men are typically pedophiles. However, that's not at all the case in regards to men and viewing women as disposable. That is something that society tolerates, hell, even encourages. It's the attitude of the male lead in any number of zillion dollar movie franchises. Sure, it'd be nicer it evilthecat was wrong about that, but that's not to say that they are.

Knew this was coming, and it made me reluctant to say anything at all, but fuck it. Dreiko is far more wrong than evilthecat, but bigotry is bigotry, and sweeping generalizations are sweeping generalizations. And that's all the argument I'll commit to on that.

 

[Kwak]

but the simple fact is that it's futile because you don't find sexual violence upsetting or disgusting at all.

Which is why straight men are terrifying.

Hey! Not all men.
Too broad a brush, please don't do that.

 

[tstorm823]

However, that's not at all the case in regards to men and viewing women as disposable. That is something that society tolerates, hell, even encourages.

That's the most amazingly wrong thing I've heard in a while. Most of the ways women have been disadvantaged historically are based on the male desire to keep women out of danger. Society views women as indisposable, arguably to a problematic level that treats women as children in need of protection. Womanizing is so discouraged in society that it's often used as a trope in fiction to signal who the bad guy is.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Womanizing is so discouraged in society that it's often used as a trope in fiction to signal who the bad guy is.

And it's so encouraged in society that it's often used as a trope in fiction to signal how awesome the hero is. James Bond and any number of imitators immediately come to mind, but he's hardly alone in that behaviour.

 

[CaitSeith]

Womanizing is so discouraged in society that it's often used as a trope in fiction to signal who the bad guy is.

And it's so encouraged in society that it's often used as a trope in fiction to signal how awesome the hero is. James Bond and any number of imitators immediately come to mind, but he's hardly alone in that behaviour.

Although recently the James Bond trope has dropped in use, and the smooth-talker/womanizer hero has been replaced with the awkward-around-girls/oblivious hero; probably due to the change in recent fiction considering women to be more incomprehensible than the old trope of "women are simple; you just need to press the right buttons to get them to do what you want".

 

[CaitSeith]

EDIT: Sorry, wrong thread

 

[Thaluikhain]

Although recently the James Bond trope has dropped in use, and the smooth-talker/womanizer hero has been replaced with the awkward-around-girls/oblivious hero; probably due to the change in recent fiction considering women to be more incomprehensible than the old trope of "women are simple; you just need to press the right buttons to get them to do what you want".

Sure, though that trope is hardly new either (the Phantom was like that in comics in the 40s), the ratio of those sorts of things being depicted is changing. The James Bond type is around, though, and the old films are still popular. Apart from Lazenby, of course.

 

[Agema]

However, that's not at all the case in regards to men and viewing women as disposable. That is something that society tolerates, hell, even encourages.

That's the most amazingly wrong thing I've heard in a while. Most of the ways women have been disadvantaged historically are based on the male desire to keep women out of danger. Society views women as indisposable, arguably to a problematic level that treats women as children in need of protection. Womanizing is so discouraged in society that it's often used as a trope in fiction to signal who the bad guy is.

Women have been indispensible throughout history pretty much only in the sense they're needed to shunt men's babies out of their crotch. It's evidently not like most historical societies felt they had much to offer otherwise, hence their near-absence from politics, art, science, priesthood, industry, etc.

That is the core of the promicuity thing to some degree: because that might not be your baby in a promiscuous woman, but it almost certainly is in chaste one. If they weren't the potential or actual producer of a man's genetic legacy, they were worth little more regard than cattle.

 

[Agema]

Just like how with homophobia it's over-compensating and the people truly secure in their sexuality...

No, homophobia is due to a wide range of reasons. I can assure you there are huge numbers of people very secure in their sexuality who are going to viciously condemn homosexuals. They will do it because they just believe it's immoral, and they will do it to gain favour with other people who believe it is immoral, or maybe just ordinary, boring malice. And so on.

Both things are a failure of the person to stand up to the pressures their culture is exerting on them.

Facile platitude. Actually, it's not just facile, it's insulting to how incredibly difficult it can be to do such a thing.

And hey, why wouldn't it be a favor? Orgasms are awesome.

My point is more along the lines that they're doing you a favour at least as much as you're doing them one: you just sound comically egotistical.

Finally, the chaste are chaste only because of these benefits we are removing through the removal of judgement.

Wrong. A huge number of people prefer and even only have sex with a sufficiently strong emotional / relationship bond. It really is not that they are frustrated celibates who would fuck like bunnies were they not held back by extrinsic pressure.

 

[Sanderpower]

So like what is it exactly that people have a problem with her? I hear accusations that the parents are using her to push their agenda or something.

I've also heard people complain that she and others like her are put out in front of movements because they can get away with more because it is hard to hit back at a young autistic girl without looking like an asshole, though clearly not everyone is worried about that as evidenced by the OP

Why do they need to hit back? Are these people unable disagree with somebody or criticize their viewpoint without making personal and degrading attacks towards them? If they can't do that, then they should just say nothing, because they clearly lack the maturity to voice their opinions in the realm of public discussion.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

So like what is it exactly that people have a problem with her? I hear accusations that the parents are using her to push their agenda or something.

I've also heard people complain that she and others like her are put out in front of movements because they can get away with more because it is hard to hit back at a young autistic girl without looking like an asshole, though clearly not everyone is worried about that as evidenced by the OP

Why do they need to hit back? Are these people unable disagree with somebody or criticize their viewpoint without making personal and degrading attacks towards them? If they can't do that, then they should just say nothing, because they clearly lack the maturity to voice their opinions in the realm of public discussion.

A more generous interpretation is that they are frustrated by the trap that is set up that even if you don't respond with personal attacks and solely criticize their viewpoint, arguments, or hypocritical behavior, those that support that individual or cause will turn it around as if those counter arguments were personal attacks on the individual by highlighting those aspects of their spokesperson that supposedly make them vulnerable. The headlines will be "X attacks school shooting survivor" even if in the hypothetical scenario the survivor said something ridiculous like "All gun owners are complicit is mass shootings and are sexually attracted to their guns" and X calls them out on that being wrong on whatever their talk/news show is.

 

[McElroy]

To understand why a person might feel threatened by the idea of sexual violence, but the simple fact is that it's futile because you don't find sexual violence upsetting or disgusting at all.

Which is why straight men are terrifying.

Well you win some you lose some. The "empathetic burden" or "emotional work" seems to burn many women out. It sure has made me much more insecure, pessimistic, compulsive, and reactive towards people (especially women). Not a good development and a wrong way to advance equality, but perhaps there is room for better ways to deal with it when growing up. I'm skeptical about letting empathy run wild because you can't even apply the golden rule there, and thus echo chambers and circlejerks are all but guaranteed.

A huge number of people prefer and even only have sex with a sufficiently strong emotional / relationship bond. It really is not that they are frustrated celibates who would fuck like bunnies were they not held back by extrinsic pressure.

Can we really cast judgment one way or the other? There is no population on Earth in which everybody gets to have as much sex as they want and even if it existed every person would be held back or pushed forward by some extrinsic pressures. Like, the stereotypical selectiveness of women can be undone by giving them the initiative at least in speed dating

 

[Agema]

Can we really cast judgment one way or the other?

I don't think it's much of a judgement to say lots of people approach sex with lots of different motivations and interests. I'd agree that in practice everyone will experience some form of extrinsic influence (e.g. peer pressure) but we could easily expect a society where there are relatively weak societal norms about whether someone should or should not have sex.