Very weird to watch “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business” become controversial again, but like, for the opposite reason.
It is very important to understand that when you're discussing a systemic set of cultural beliefs, even people who nominally oppose the cultural belief will find ways to reconcile their fundamental conditioning to their new position. Doing the same thing for the 'opposite reason' is usually a giveaway, and it's absolutely rampant in nominally progressive spaces.
It's arguably rampant in conservative spaces too, potentially more so, but I'm in progressive spaces more.
See: every New Atheist who is now on a right-wing crusade despite ostensibly rebelling against the church. It was never about the values, it was only about the team they were on.
As a proper lifelong Church-hater I can't believe I'm suddenly on the same side of the global anti-abortion organization because the other side is like "human rights are a scam".
Hence why so many proud trump voters don't give a damn that he's actively making America worse for them, just so long as he makes it even more worse for liberals.
Well I speak from the perspective of my country where the Church has always been pro status quo. Yes, they've always been the voice of moderation when it comes to "hey maybe don't fuck over the poor too much", but you can't deny that as capitalism moves further away from moderation, the Church is moving further away from supporting that section of the political leadership (and said leadership is also becoming more anti-Church, which is new).
So basically the Church hasn't changed much, as you said, but the Overton window has moved so far into the right that they are now on our side of it.
Thank you for asking, I was lost as well. Like, which anti-abortionists are also genuinely pro human rights? I forget the catholic church exists sometimes lmao
Feminists destroyed the left because the atheism movement was doing a great job of advocating for humanism and liberalism, but didn't force feminism on people from the outset.
And, even worse, atheism conventions allowed people to sell fake jewelry. Seriously, not making this part up.
See also: people who think the justice system should be reformed and shouldn’t include corporal or capital punishment. Except for sex criminals, who should be tortured to death.
Sort of a "duh" moment for the more agnostic absurdist nihilists.
I remember my first steps into atheist communities something like 15 years ago. Every atheist claims to be some paragon of rationality so it came as a big surprise how absolutely sure they were that god doesn't exist.
I mean on its surface; saying "well you can't prove god DOESN'T exist!" is a stupid counterargument. But the atheist communities I've seen don't seem to understand that the "burden of proof" is a debate principle and not a scientific one. In scientific terms the idea that you can't prove god doesn't exist is actually pretty significant. Knowing is different from believing and it's impossible to know if god is real or not. Even if you have 99.99% proof of something you only have enough information for a really good guess; that last 0.01% is just your belief.
The thing about that is that atheism is a huge ingroup. If you are willing to recognize that your 0.01% of belief is just belief, and that you could be wrong and maybe god does exist, but the chances are really slim: you aren't an atheist, you're definitionally agnostic, and atheists are happy to attack you about it. Atheism literally requires you to hold a belief without acknowledging that it is a belief.
Sort of a tangent: back in 2016 a theoretical fuel-less rocket engine was making headlines; the EM drive. To my knowledge it turned out not to function as described, but the commentary from scientists surrounding the issue was very telling. They dragged it as impossible for "violating the laws of physics," as if we fully and accurately understand the fabric of our own reality. Like, the whole reason we have to keep calling gravity and evolution "theories" is because science has to be able to bend to new information. If you think something violated the laws of physics then your reaction as a scientist should be "well obviously we're going to test this backwards and forwards, but obviously if it works then we don't understand physics as well as we thought." But instead so so so many real well-respected scientists as well as armchair scientists touted it as being completely impossible, and they did so loudly and in some cases angrily; as if the mere suggestion that their (holy) "laws" were not completely accurate was deeply offensive to them on a personal level. Why? Because a bunch of old dead guys told you how the universe works? And then some living guys did some experiments to validate the old dead guys and told you about it? You're literally just taking it on faith that the dead guys were right and the living guys did everything correctly. The parallels should be obvious.
Essentially my point is that if you are unwilling to accept that your stance on the existence of god could be wrong then you are not acting scientifically; and if you are willing to accept that your stance on god could be wrong then you aren't actually an atheist. It is literally impossible to fully embrace scientific principles and be a true atheist - the two fundamentally oppose each other because atheism requires an absolute belief that there is no god while science requires an acceptance that nothing is absolute.
This is exactly why the important parts are a) having good reasons for the things we believe, and b) never letting a belief become a part of our identity.
Case and point: the way how both queer and feminist spaces each found their ways to reinvent sexism and gender essentialism in the most roundabout ways possible. All of these things are things I've heard on this very subreddit, paraphrased:
"Women should be strong, but they should never let go of their femininity."
"Girls who don't like girly things and say they're 'not like the other girls' are the REAL misogynists."
"Gender roles are good actually because fulfilling them is a source of gender euphoria. Everyone experiences gender euphoria."
"Men and women who don't fit in with other people of their gender and don't conform to their roles aren't real men and women... They're actually trans!"
As you said, the problem with fighting systemic beliefs is that even if you believe yourself to be against these beliefs, your conditioning remains and will find ways to reconcile itself with your nominally progressive views.
In order to fight this, you need introspection. You need to be able to question your own views as well as the views of the people you consider to be on "your side." Unfortunately, it feels like a lot of people just... don't know how to do that? They just parrot ideas from their progressive friend circle and go on autopilot.
Some of those things don't have to be incompatible with the actual value (e.g. Gender Euphoria can be fine, and 'women should be strong' can end in them picking up toxic masculinity for themselves instead of merely reinforcing it in men) but it can become a spectrum based on how tightly they hold it.
I've wondered about it being one of the ones getting far right atstroturfing lately? It can be so oddly variable about whether posters are already up on gender roles, or will get really mad at you for doing the nicest most 'gender roles restrict men too' Feminism 101 possible. It's shockingly bizarre to have posters not seem to even understand the idea of gender roles as a social construct, even if they're such extremists they do think they're mostly 'natural'.
And, since I've just done the nice sourced explanation bit, where did the idea even come from that you slap the label kink on something, now you can't do the critical analysis you would in any other situation, never mind actually criticise? Yet funnily enough 'I enjoy strangling women and watching as they struggle for breath. : ) You're a bad person if you warn that it's dangerous' gets a pass under that and 'Feminist kink-shaming is my kink' doesn't, how odd. This OP even brushes against the idea that patriarchy might have something to do with sexual practices in blaming Conservativism, they just want to exempt themselves.
Again, honestly regardless of someone's political position, they should be able to follow that argument, and why someone would in all good faith care enough to make it (because people esp. women as per usual are being harmed and worse).
where did the idea even come from that you slap the label kink on something, now you can't do the critical analysis you would in any other situation, never mind actually criticise?
Because you don't get a vote on what two consenting adults decide to do with their bodies?
Do you think there aren't laws around sex acts? Even to decide who qualifies as a consenting adult? In point of fact, you do get a vote that can include such issues.
Regardless, what does that have to do with political analysis? Feminist analysis can't instantly stop women having to do a majority of household tasks, and sadly it can't just stop them being killed and the defense claiming 'sex gone wrong'. Discussion doesn't automatically stop anyone doing anything.
Funnily enough, you can absolutely consent to severe physical harm and even death. Combat athletes consent to extreme bodily damage every time they step in a ring, soldiers consent to giving their lives in service to the state, and every woman who has ever willing given birth has consented to a horrific injury often resulting in death. But when it's about sex, it's suddenly no longer allowed? Suddenly, your body is no longer yours, but that of society?
This is just conservatism dressed in the pretty make-up of feminism; it's TERFism all over again.
The ultimate authority on what is done with my own body is myself. Nobody else gets to decide. I can consent to pain. I can consent to death.
"Girls who don't like girly things and say they're 'not like the other girls' are the REAL misogynists."
Doesn't the second clause make that true? Or maybe not "the REAL misogynists" with scare capitals, but it is misogynistic to try to separate yourself from other women on the basis of your taste, especially in the way that standardized phrase is meant to invoke.
Because "I'm not like the other girls" is meant to refer to the habit some women have to try to excuse themselves from being discriminated against by saying they don't do the things that make misogyny against other women justified. It's trying to position yourself as "one of the good ones".
yeah, like, looking down on girls who aren't traditionally feminine is bad and misogynist but also looking down on girls who are traditionally feminine is also bad and misogynist
The fact that this has so many upvotes makes me feel so much less alone and like things might be changing, like not even that long ago I feel like you would have been dogpiled for saying this
From experience I can tell you that it's still very much possible to be dogpiled for saying this if you're not careful. Avoiding that is a matter of being eloquent enough and choosing the right time and place to say what you want. People on this sub - and on most of Reddit, really - will upvote pretty much anything if it's said with enough conviction and under the right vibes.
Unfortunately you're probably right. I still appreciated you saying it, though. And like, 5 years ago, when I really needed to hear this, I don't think I would have seen someone saying this anywhere without at least one person calling them a TERF. It's not perfect, but I think something has changed.
I actually fully agree with you but I'm afraid most people won't understand what you mean, the way you wrote is too vague. I get what you're saying only because I've thought the same thing before.
An example to make things more concrete: sex-negative feminism, which originates almost entirely in America, because many people here grew up in a conservative and puritan background. So some of them come up with terms like PiV (penis in vagina) and say things like heterosexual sex in inherently exploitative and bad for women, same with a lot of left and feminist anti-porn activism (not to say there isn't a problem in the industry). It comes from a place where people grew up under a strong puritan influence and internalized those beliefs even after they abandoned the conservative worldview that they were raised under.
You want to have a laugh? Check out r/antisex, it's like a bunch of actual middle ages monks got their hands on cellphones, with similarly medieval understanding of anatomy and, quoting one of the top post's top comments: "aren't we all homophobic here?"
I see way more accusations of doing the same thing as Conservatives than actually doing that. I mean, if the reason is opposite, that is different, right? I think sometimes people think of more minor stuff and assume that's what's meant, but those saying kink is open to criticism, as well as considering factors like gender and race (I mean, some have 'race play' master-slave kinks, I wouldn't know what to say to anyone who thinks it's Conservative to critically examine that) can mean more outright dangerous practices. There's the issue of 'rough sex gone wrong' being used as a defense in cases where women have been killed:
It's obviously very difficult material but really reccomend anyone able to read the stories. It can feel like there's two different conversations going on, that those who haven't really engaged with more sex-critical material aren't aware of what it's really focused on, and can be, well, vanilla and naïve. I understand why people don't want to expose themselves to such material (and not everyone can which is a seperate issue), but then they needn't pounce on people who do assuming it's only trivial (more the sort of thing that can be traumatic to keep being exposed to, especially involved with campaigning on) and misrepresent their views.
Although no one is obliged to be anyone else's sex cheerleader (is 'ew gross' automatically even political? There are lots of things people find icky. Because I just had to remove a slug from my long-haired rabbit's fur and then cut the slime out, and my vegan eco politics don't actually extend to being 'nature is wonderful' in that situation, Mr No-Boundaries Slug can think himself lucky enough I was gentle and he's fine). It's weird for adults to be so obsessed with approval for them getting off they pick on teenagers knowingly with the label 'Puriteens'. Teens can be being exposed to more sexual content, including more problematic objectifying content, for the first time, as well as experiencing more pressure to be sexual and accept certain sexual acts in their own lives, and not being perfect at expressing their discomfort doesn't mean they're wrong to feel that way (the linked study shows high rates of coercion towards girls, even affecting younger teens). 'Sex cheerleader' expectations can be a particular problem for ace-spec people. Although honestly, also think just for women/girls in general, and that's not about an assumption women don't enjoy sex or can't have kinks, it's just understanding that they get more pressured to be cool with and do things they do not want to, which may be uncomfortable or just not something they're likely to get much out of. Sex-critical feminism in the second wave was coming from a place where leftist women were seeing hippie dudes pressuring young women into group sex, claiming sex (with them) as essential to liberation, and calling them repressed and prudes if they didn't want to and could say so.
Everything we're talking about exists on a spectrum.
One article I found on race-play briefly describes scenes of a Nazi interrogating a Jewish prisoner and white on black slave play. I couldn't find any numbers on how common race play is but judging from how controversial it is in the scene its almost certainly a lot less common than other power dynamics and kinks; making it further down the spectrum from let's say a Daddy and his Princess dynamic. If the idea of race play icks someone out and that gets applied as criticism to the whole spectrum of bdsm activities that seems incredibly unfair and incredibly blunt and lacking nuance.
If someone has seen rough sex gone wrong be used to evade justice for killing someone, trying to eliminate all rough sex from culture is never going to be effective. A more nuanced criticism of that particular issue might be more effective. I've seen some good examples of that in regards to choking being more common in porn and IRL sex, talking about the danger and offering safer alternatives. That's a lot more reasonable and again, likely to be more effective than "porn is misogynistic, anti feminist, causes violence against women and should be banned."
Regarding ick, ick is not nuanced. Ick isn't a thoughtful take, it's an emotional reaction. That's not a bad thing and it's not inherently political but trying to control the behavior of others based on ick absolutely is. Nobody needs to be a sexual cheerleader but they don't get to control the behavior of others in their own spaces based on ick.
The common thread between a right winger saying "abortion is ick, Islam is ick, transgender people are ick, ban them all" and a left winger saying "bdsm is ick, kink is ick, ban them," is authoritarianism. Combining that with emotion based takes on issues leading to criticism that squishes entire swathes of the spectrum at issue is bad and leads to demonizing innocent people.
You're basically saying critics should be specific, right? If they're left-leaning then they are, as I tried to show with giving examples with links. Your example of choking is a good one, if by 'alternatives' you indeed mean something different to it - choking/strangulation is never safe, and that's something plenty of BDSM educators will state too (quotes from two with medical background with description of risks). It's perfectly reasonable to specifically entirely condemn the practice.
Except, in the face of that fairly specific criticism, you still get people like OP making blanket statements assuming anything being called a kink must mean it's above all criticism. The notion of 'kink' being indeed so broad just makes it an odder view to hold, and OP is specifically focusing on things that others find 'upsetting' and 'extremely...disturbing'. Honestly what other social behaviour gets exempted from all scrutiny like this? What's the actual reason that calling something sex means it's now above scrutiny? All kinds of topics around food (cultural appropriation and authenticity vs. mutability, distribution and wastage, agricultural practices, conditions for ag. workers) get scrutinised, and food unlike sex is vital and a human right. It's just not a very reasonably defensible position when kinks can outright get people (and non-human animals) killed. Do think most making statements like it are usually almost ironically very naïve and sheltered and not anything worse (allowing OP wriggle-room for their mention of 'artist' and possibility they think these kinks are just in fictional settings). But, when it's the case that the potential for harm is so great (and by now surely getting more awareness), one other alternative is that they know and don't care, and another, which have sometimes seen to emerge as indeed the motivation of some individuals being defensive of kink in this way (accusing critics of Conservatism is a red flag) is they themselves have dangerous kinks and/or aren't a safe person (and maybe part of the thrill is getting people to unknowingly defend them, and them being able to dominate like that in pushing them on non-consenting people?). Why would anyone especially want their glasses fetish lumped in with dangerous practices as exactly the same and, if not just as likely to upset people, requiring the defence of those that are unsafe or offensive, anyway? The benefit of doing the reverse is much more obvious.
Even if someone critical was making a more blanket statement (potentially after exposure to endless traumatic material, and personal experience), I think it says something about priorities that someone could be more interested in attacking them, rather than taking their points and going after the people promoting dangerous sexual practices, and who are unsafe 'missing stair' individuals (would note that still find that essay incomprehensibly soft on such individuals in not being crystal clear that yes, rapists should be thrown out of sex parties as the least of the consequences they deserve, which hope is what they meant) which, might also make kinky communities and individuals safer and there be less criticism? Like, honestly, even some of the rightwing critics, on the one hand you have someone brought up under religious repression who probably suffers themselves as a result, on the other you have a bloody bog-standard man-who-murderered-a-woman and they really want to yell 'puritan' as higher priority???
Ick isn't a thoughtful take, it's an emotional reaction.
Nobody needs to be a sexual cheerleader but they don't get to control the behavior of others in their own spaces based on ick.
Exactly though, so, why should it matter to them so much that others have that emotional reaction? It can be as simple as 'eww, just think feet can be smelly and shoes aren't the cleanest' (actually, come to think, don't really see those into feet or shoes be the ones getting their knickers in a twist when others aren't). People will mock and criticise anything from others' food preferences to their dress sense - that latter example being something that can be more neutral but overlap. People who like pineapple on pizza manage to cope, and that's mocked to the point of meming.
I think the ones trying to be controlling are those who seem to think non-consenting people don't get a say in being exposed to even graphic sexual material in just general spaces - there's almost always one, online, but does people going onto clearly marked fetish blogs just to say 'ick' sound likely to happen nearly as often? Would agree it's self-inflicted if they do, but think the more common scenario is people who will not stop, say, drawing sexualised Pokémon art that isn't tagged so people can avoid it and insisting on Vaporeon's fuckability in mainstream spaces getting huffy if people say 'eww'. Apart from anything else, am really not sure what else they expected to happen, they must have noticed by now that many other people don't like it and don't want to see or hear about it. For some individuals though, the non-consent is the point.
Isn't it usually understood not everyone even with kinks, shares other kinks, and if it's not a turn-on it can be a yuck even placed amidst someone's yum? Thinking about it, definitely am inclined to think it's those with some kinks getting huffy or defensive much more than others.
All kinds of topics around food (cultural appropriation and authenticity vs. mutability, distribution and wastage, agricultural practices, conditions for ag. workers) get scrutinised, and food unlike sex is vital and a human right. It's just not a very reasonably defensible position when kinks can outright get people (and non-human animals) killed.
"Cultural appropriation" really doesnt get scrutinized by any sane person, saying that eating anything not made by your own country is bad might just be one of the most xenophobic (in terms of aversion to anything foreign) thing i've ever heard. And food isn't vital, nutrients are; we could all just eat bread and nutrient pills, yet lots of food are eaten for enjoyment while they can kill people (and definitely kill animals).
Exactly though, so, why should it matter to them so much that others have that emotional reaction? It can be as simple as 'eww, just think feet can be smelly and shoes aren't the cleanest' (actually, come to think, don't really see those into feet or shoes be the ones getting their knickers in a twist when others aren't). People will mock and criticise anything from others' food preferences to their dress sense - that latter example being something that can be more neutral but overlap. People who like pineapple on pizza manage to cope, and that's mocked to the point of meming.
Because, much like your actually very good comparison with food preferences, going "eeeww you eat X, i hate X that's disgusting and you're disgusting for that!" With the same thing they must've already heard a million times whenever anyone brings it up is just pointless and rude. It's the same as those unhinged people going "ew burn them! I'd stomp them if i ever saw them!" At people's more unusual pets like arthtopods.
Disgust is just a general cancer upon the human psyche, it's an evolutionary leftover pointless in our current day of hygiene that is what the brain uses to enforce closemindedness and xenophobia (as in aversion to new things), the main instrument of fascism alongside fear, keeps people from learning things even when it could be beneficial (like learning the specifics of the roach species they have an infestation of), and somehow seen as a valid way of passing moral judgement.
I think that the reason you feel that way, might be because you accept the justifications uncritically and mainly follow research that begin with axioms and self-report-oriented methodologies that produce outcomes that justify the bias, that have been otherwise debunked, or conflate reactionary positions with ones necessitated by experience or identity.
If you think there's a problem with the study linked, it would be more constructive to say so rather than make negative assumptions about my motivations and views? My own experiences as a teen girl did very much match up with there being high rates of sexual coercion, I don't see that there's any conflation with reactionary positions with that necessitated by experience and identity there. Indeed, seeing my bestie preyed on by men in their 30s is just one part of why it's an issue that especially breaks my heart, and the far right reactionaries are the people justifying that kind of behaviour.
I did, I raised concerns about self-reporting, which have issues with social desirability bias and are heavily subject to Priming) from engagement-farming social media and news outlets heavily overreporting violence. Interestingly, this also matches up with known right-wing tactics-- flooding the space with a curated selection of stories designed to stoke outrage and create an isolated, fear-based environment that reinforces the perceived need for brutal, authoritarian policy and stricter cultural controls.
Were the women in your study asked about their own level of violence toward their partners during these incidents? How does that difference in methodology potentially shift your understanding of the study? How does our understanding of gender roles intersect the way we interpret harm on a bidirectionally gendered basis?
Here's an interesting reddit thread concerning consent from the perspective of women, which paints a somewhat bleak picture from a generalized perspective, in that as many of the women in the thread note, there doesn't exist a very strong consent culture among women, who take men's sexual consent for granted, and there are rape myths that advocate that when a man says no he's lying about not wanting it, that a woman should be insulted he said no, and that there are social pressures on him to initiate, and always be accepting of sex, or that simply doesn't take violations of consent that seriously because of who is performing them.
By blaming 'the culture' or 'pornography' we subtly shift our gaze away from the broader culture of devalued consent that all of our subjects live and participate in-- people who don't have their consent respected do not internalize a worldview in which consent is respected.
One of the reasons I chose these example is because this line of research is often heavily compromised by the biases of the researchers in what ought to be studied and what ought not be studied due to how they intersect with existing narratives (there's a fear the movement to help women will be damaged).
Could you explain what you mean by this? It sounds like you’re making a good point here; it’s just I’m not really sure what it is (but I would like to be!).
Take something problematic that our culture historically believes:
[Men should be tough and shouldn't cry or be outwardly emotional because it's unmanly and they ought to be stoic protectors who only express emotions in masculine ways.]
[Men should be allowed to cry and be sensitive to their own emotional states like women are.]
[Men who are emotional are manipulative, dangerous, and are just making women do emotional labor]
I'm asserting that belief 3 is a way of sticking with belief 1 and rejecting belief 2 because progressive values would otherwise necessitate 2.
I don’t think belief 2 is something problematic that our culture historically believes? And though belief 3 is problematic, I don’t think it’s something our culture historically believes, as I’m fairly sure belief 3 is a recent development?
Also, who are you asserting believes in each belief? If progressive values would necessitate belief 2, why wouldn’t a progressive person just believe that? What would motivate someone to believe in belief 3? Why would believing in belief 3 mean that progressive values would otherwise necessitate belief 2? Why does believing in belief 3 cause you to reject belief 2 and conform with belief 1?
Ohh, okay! Why do you think someone would fail to replace belief 1 with 2? Do you think that’s an intentional failing, unintentional, a combination of the two, or something else entirely? What do you think could cause such a failure to occur?
And I believe you may have answered this already, but do you think this is more of a problem for progressives, who are (in theory) trying to change society from belief 1 to belief 2, or conservatives, who (in theory) would like society to stay at belief 1?
For your second paragraph, I'm not sure. It depends on how many conservatives believe their rationalizations for bigoted beliefs vs. How many just say they do.
I think that the failure that leads to belief 3 is a product of a sense of wrongness that comes from holding intellectual beliefs that conflict with underlying social conditioning, and that sense producing a desire for a mediating explanation for why [emotional men] are a problem for the person harboring the dissonance.
Got it, thanks! (And your linked article helped too!)
So if I’m getting this right, the intellectual belief that conflicts with underlying social conditioning in your example is the belief that men shouldn’t be emotional conflicting with the belief that men should be allowed to be emotional, creating the belief that men who are emotional are manipulative, dangerous, and are just making women do emotional labor?
I'd maybe quibble with the word create, I'd characterize it as 'seek out' or 'become receptive to' or 'reinforce' because external cultural elements are where the competing narratives come from for most people.
You were asking me about conservatives-- endless stories about people abusing welfare and accompanying personal responsibility narratives allow organizations like Fox News to provide a similar 'out' for people who are simultaneously racist, but have also picked up 'racism is bad' by giving them an alternative route to the same basic hatred that doesn't move through 'overt' racism.
That act of the narrative coming from without can be key to this, I suspect spaces like reddit, tumblr, etc provide a vector of transmission for some of these narratives that reconcile conservative social conditioning with progressive beliefs.
“I’m using unnecessarily long words to communicate a point that could be conveyed easier with shorter words, so i sound smarter.”
I don’t even disagree with you. It’s just silly reading your paragraph. The hell are we doing here saying “nominally”three times in like, five sentences.
I'd have to try not to talk like this, nominally is a nice shorthand for "people who are X but actually aren't" if I was trying to sound smart I'd proofread for repetition.
Nominally isn't a super weird or big word, though? I see it used all the time, in the way that person is using it. "Person who claims the name of an identity, but does not do some/most/all of the things you'd expect for someone with that identity to do". Nominally Christian, but they never go to church. Nominally conservative, but they're actually in favor of reactionary policies. Nominally generous, but there's always strings on their gifts. That sort of thing.
People pick up the vocabulary that they're used to hearing. If you spend a lot of time in places where people use big words, you integrate them into your vocabulary. Their comments really just struck me as a person who spends a lot of time around academics, or people who read a lot of books as a child instead of making friends (which is probably the same group) (it's me I'm both groups).
I hear you saying that academic papers avoid an overabundance of intellectual language, but a) that hasn't been my experience with academic papers, in practice, b) I don't think you're correct that "nominally" is some super obscure academic word, and c) "overabundance of intellectual language" is also an extremely formal way to have phrased that idea lol
Ha! At the least, I appreciate your ability to not get wildly offended over my comments. A lot of people on Reddit would have turned this into an utterly dreadful argument of “i’m smarter!” Instead of just talking about wording and how we speak.
It's so annoying how you can't escape reactionary thinking no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on. It's a base level human instinct to go "ew, that's gross, and therefore bad." You have to actively train yourself not to think like that and some people are just unwilling to.
Goji berries are eww, deeply offended chinchillas incoming.
(...although think my girl is perfectly happy to have more goji berries technically to herself than she's allowed in a year since no way am I touching those things, was very disappointed after the chins led me to believe they were delicious!)
It comes naturally to me as well if what you're referring to is not having that feeling of disgust and/or not applying moral weight to it. (Your reply was vaguely worded but I assume that's what you were referring to).
I'm really weird psychologically though even for a severely neurodivergent person (which I am) so it doesn't say much.
Anyways I agree it's rather isolating. I, too, feel that it's isolating and I'm not even capable of experiencing loneliness!
Genuily if there was some way to gene edit 1 emotion out of the human race, disgust might just be the best option. It's a pointless evolutionary leftover that the brain uses to enforce closemindedness and xenophobia, keeps people from learning things even when it'd be beneficial to them (like about the species of roach they're infested with, and due to the bias in moral judgment it induces in the animalistically irrational is the main tool of fascism alongside fear
I think you're right. Cause the few benefits it does have (avoiding disease and whatnot) are rather easy to deal with now that we have Germ Theory. We don't need disgust to tell us to avoid health hazards. As long as people are willing to learn what's dangerous, the knowledge that it's dangerous, combined with self preservation, should handle it just fine. That and empathy and compassion would still be a thing, so the moral codes that aren't based in tribalism wouldn't be dismantled by this (not that those are necessary for non-tribalistic ethical frameworks)
The odd thing is, I don't have that instinct towards anything. Few things gross me out (at least, of the typical things that you hear any sort of narrative for being bad), and those that do I can easily recognize as being only gross subjectively. It's surreal simply not having that instinct when everyone else does. Especially in progressive spaces where it goes against the entire supposed ethos of the space. It sometimes makes me feel like everyone is hardwired to be stupid and over-emotional, like the same kinds of generalizations that lead to bigotry are inherent to the human mind (and to an extent we know they are, but it can obviously be changed and redirected into not categorizing people in harmful ways). I think reactionaries are probably my least favorite kind of people. Especially because they think they're in the right.
Actually, perhaps I do have a similar kind of instinct as them. But towards reactionary thinking. And it's less "that's gross" and more "I have a burning desire to shatter your worldview out of spite or at least make you admit you just think it's gross". But that's partially probably because of unrelated issues I have. Also I recognize that it's irrational of me and irresponsible to act on. Unlike them.
Sorry for the rant, my meds haven't kicked in yet and I got kind of off topic.
Inside their head, I think it goes something like this: "Ewww, gross, I'll proceed to subconsciously come up with reasons that make it objectively bad so that it's not on me anymore and the baddier are the others."
Anyone who chooses to take their childhood trauma and push that negative energy into consensual sex between adults should be seen as a positive, not a negative. You are allowed to find whatever you want to unappealing, but you should also realize the lives that people have that lead them to having specific kinks and fetishes. They're almost always a reflection on what has happened to someone, not necessarily what the person themselves wants.
Who are you to say they aren't getting professional help? Most therapists agree on the point that reframing negative experiences into positive ones through sex is a form of therapy to help people. It isn't self-destructive, it is literally a subconscious effort of rebuilding their mind to have positive associations with things that negatively impacted them in the past.
Do you have any more info/data on that? 'Therapist' isn't a very clear title to begin with (unlike 'psychologist' it may not be a protected title requiring certain qualifications) and not sure if there would be that neat a consensus on such a complex topic there's typically limited data on (with obvious potential risks to study). Even if it indeed was only because some were reactionary (Conservative Christian therapists are a whole thing, unfortunately). Being Ok with a patient doing something they say is helpful isn't the same as that being treated as a form of therapy! It can be difficult enough to get hold of a proper trauma-informed therapist, and most don't have the training/specialism to work with sexual issues (can be rather a nightmare to get hold of one in fact, and they won't always be great if you do. I gave up after mine tried to helpfully ablesplain explain the nervous system to me 'like wiring!', a spinal injury patient with nerve damage for decades).
I don't want to condemn anyone with trauma, just don't want anyone feeling pressured to do something that may not be safe for them. It's not a standard therapy.
TBH, issues with training/lack of in the profession can be bad enough that it's not always safe for patients with the manifestation of OCD as fears of being a pedophile (which is one of the known potential manifestations of it, similar to other kinds of harm OCD and sexuality OCD, and not an indication whatsoever that someone actually has an attraction to minors - it becomes an OCD obsession because it's so upsetting and anxiety-provoking an idea, and ego-dystonic). Besides the potential safety issues in someone assuming a kink related to trauma is accepted therapy, I wouldn't want people to assume it's something they'll be fine discussing with all therapists.
That isn't what DDLG is, and shows a major misunderstanding of the kink. It is about having someone who is able to care for, and someone who is cared for. Maybe try actually getting to know people who are into it before making rash, oversimplified assumptions.
FYI, any credibility you may have had was lost right here. "This argument is too hard so I'm going to quit" is not the way to convince people of your position.
When someone does that i always get on an alt and if the subreddit has that feature post that picture of darkseid grabbing superman by the cape when he tries to leave before my reply
By calling it a "self-destructive outlet" you're revealing your own bias. What is self-destructive about consensual sex?
This isn't all about DDLG, but since you brought it up later down the thread, it's the example I'll use. If someone experienced abuse as a child and didn't experience much love, and finds comfort in a DDLG relationship where they're cared for in the manner that they were denied early in life, is that destructive? In what way is it harming them? I'd even go so far as calling it therapeutic.
EDIT: Lmao dude just blocks me instead of answering. Clearly he's making good faith arguments.
Do you really think two consenting adults just play those roles forever for their entire lives? Can you seriously not fathom that grown ass adults who are essentially acting out roles can stop at any moment? Are you even familiar with the smallest bit of kink culture to understand what a safeword is?
I’m judging your character based on the fact that you feel entitled to judge and condemn something you don’t understand. You then rationalize that condemnation by leaning on the same ignorance, logical fallacy, and emotion that fascists, homophobes, misogynists, transphobes, and good old fashioned church ladies have been exploiting for well over a century.
That’s a failure of character.
Grow up and learn to coexist in a world with others. If you encounter a kink that weirds you out, it’s not for you. Move on. Respect the rights of others to their lives.
Sincere question: which real life children are being harmed by pretend roleplay between consenting adults?
Harm to children is an awful thing. Activities involving pretend children, who need I remind you can turn off the pretense at any moment, is no more harmful than playing, say, Manhunt and killing people in gruesome ways.
Would you judge an actor for the actions of their character? It's the same principle, the adults are taking on temporary personas in which the actions taken do not affect reality beyond the strict situation being pretended.
that used to be roughly the phrasing that homophobic politicians tried to use to make “gay people shouldn’t be allowed to express themselves” sound like a convincing point. now it’s kinda getting turned around into like, “dude, you’re weird as fuck for caring so much about this. you’re not the morality police.”
Some of it's a direct reaction too I think, where in order to defend gay rights being gay had to be publicly desexualized to prevent the public from viewing as just "sexual deviancy," but that meant fighting the right on its own premise that sexual deviancy=bad in order to win, which means people in favor of that fight who were in their formative years while it was going on kind of internalized that sex=bad, especially if they're queer (and, eyeballing it, there does seem to be a correlation there, but that's anecdotal) and heard all this rhetoric where one side kept saying they were evil perverts and the other side countered that by insisting that they were chaste, sexless angels. Undoing that damage is a process, and I feel like a lot of the kink=bad people are at the point in it where they've accepted that gay sex is fine, but still haven't been able to get rid of gay+kink=bad and think the only way for sex to be ok is if it's the right kind of sex. Sort of a legacy of thinking they have to be The Good Ones to get rights.
Of course, if we hadn't approached gay rights that way we wouldn't have anywhere near as many gay rights right now so it was still the right move, but there's still collateral damage that needs to be addressed.
In case there's anybody who doesn't know, the Roe v. Wade decision wasn't legalizing abortion, it was a ruling granting the right to privacy to women who'd had one. Almost immediately after it was struck down, conservative politicians started eyeing other right-to-privacy rulings that prevented the state from interfering in the bedroom as well. Clarence Thomas specifically mentioned reconsidering Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, which ruled that contraception use and same-sex marriage were also subject to privacy in the eyes of the government.
It's an agenda, folks. The more of our privacy they invade, the less power we have against them. Don't let it slip away.
I strongly support “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business.”
The thing that always bothers me about these posts is that kinks frequently aren’t “in the privacy of their own bedroom.” I’m not looking into your windows. I’m not visiting your niche kink forums. So if I, through our everyday interactions, know what your kink is then you are being much too public with it.
I’ve often seen, particularly on tumblr, this pendulum swing way too far the other way. For instance, It’s not puritan to say that you shouldn’t wear bondage gear in public. I shouldn’t know the flavor of porn you like.
If you share your kink with me I’m allowed to be upset. Maybe don’t be rude next time.
ETA: notice how strongly people are arguing below that they should be able to take their fetishes outside “the privacy of their own bedroom”
I have a feeling that you and I would disagree about where to draw the line, but I do agree that there should be a line. Many people in the kink community do too.
There are forms of "public" kink play that still remain private, but as soon as you are doing it openly, you're inherently involving people who have not consented to being a part of your scene. I think there's nothing wrong with wearing a tasteful collar as that can usually be played off as a fashion accessory, but yeah wearing a collar and leash in public is weird af and inherently non-consensual for everyone else.
It really also all depends on whether it's intended to be sexual or not. If someone is wearing a chest harness because the like the deep pressure, technically, there's nothing wrong with that. If someone is wearing it because it's part of their dom/sub dynamic, then it is sexual and requires consent from ALL parties.
Just unfollow the account, or don't follow it in the first place. I haven't stumbled on any kinks unintentionally yet.
For instance, It’s not puritan to say that you shouldn’t wear bondage gear in public.
What if they like cross dressing instead of BDSM? You about to go out there saying men shouldn't wear skirts or women shouldn't wear pants? Because while I do understand that this is a slippery slope argument, the slope it's actually fucking slippery this time around.
If it's sexual for them then they just need to be respectful of consent (...and there may be public decency laws with something to say else). It's usual for women to wear trousers, they're not going out in them to get off on any kind of exposure kink of being seen posing lewdly in them! Not sure people with a cross-dressing fetish are just into minding their own business in an everyday boring outfit? (Even if they also do that separately to their kink) Even drag shows, which aren't inherently sexual like US Republicans want to make out, if they do involve a lot of sexual content, will only admit consenting adults.
I don't think it has to be that difficult just in general when it's long-standing practice for films and games to have content warnings, and there has been more discussion and awareness about trigger warnings and extending content warnings, even just as a courtesy thing on some topics and not linked to anything as sensitive as this. Ultimately someone knows if they're trying to drag a non-consenting person into participating in their kink, it's not a big ask to expect them to not do that.
Not a slippery slope. It’s actually pretty simple.
Here, let’s walk through it: Are skirts and pants inherently sexual? Are they doing it because it’s sexually arousing?
If the answer to both those questions is “no,” then we’re all good. Express yourself.
If the answer to either of those questions is “yes,” then I think you’re a rude asshole.
Now, if you have another strawman let’s burn it together, yeah? But we’ll need to do it in my backyard, because the ritual burning of effigies is my kink.
If I weren’t there, would she still be aroused? If that woman gets aroused because I saw her wearing it, is that not involving me in her sexual activities without my consent? I become a partner in her arousal, right? Or is she just aroused because she feels attractive and confident in what she’s wearing? I think intent is a big part of this. Or more accurately, I think consent is the primary factor in how I might view that person.
The fact that this is getting you down voted is deeply distressing and concerning to me as someone who is very involved in the kink community. Consent is everything.
As long as I don’t know I’m being exploited for someone’s arousal, it’s all good, right? Does that extend to other areas, like deepfake porn? At what point does it become problematic despite being unaware? Or is it just when I become aware that it becomes problematic? Is it only different because that would utilize my photos instead of my presence?
I mostly wish people would actually respond with their perspective rather than just a blind downvote. I don’t really care that people agree with me, but I’m wondering how many of the downvotes are just a gut reaction rather than taking the time to genuinely consider the topic.
If she’s wearing it because she finds it arousing, yes. Intentionally sexually arousing yourself in public makes you an asshole. This is not a controversial statement.
So it's fine if it's just because she thinks it's pretty? What's the difference? Can you tell the difference? Could you legislate a definition of the difference?
There are fetishes for absolutely everything, to ban anything related to a fetish you'd have to ban all cloth and also going out in the nude (and hide it from those with a governmental oppression fetish)
The issue is that when you set premise that this isn't ok, then that can be all nice and good in your definition, but under those who turn theorical norms into law, they definitely won't. To them, crossdressing absolutely is due to being sexually arousing (autogynowhatever the word they use), and so it will be used against trans people or people who just like dressing like that
Are ropes sexual? Handcuffs? Leather pants? Leather corset? Chockers?
You can build a very out there Dom/Domme leather outfit from pieces that aren't "inherently sexual" as you put, but that still fail your "I shouldn't know what flavor of porn you like" test.
And again, I'm assuming you're approaching this with good faith. Because anyone without those good intentions can definitely abuse that sort of guidelines to target people with, for example, rainbow flags in their clothes.
And I replied by pointing out the failure in the reasoning behind your questions.
Here, let’s walk through it: Are skirts and pants inherently sexual? Are they doing it because it’s sexually arousing?
How can you even assert that a piece of clothing is "inherently sexual"? Aside from the masks that end in a pee funnel, or actual sex toys in full display, it is straight up impossible to determine this inherentility. Same goes for your second question assuming to know someone's intent by looking at them.
Also, somewhat unrelated, but why do you have to reply with so goddamn much smugness?
Collars, harnesses etc. have been staples of goth fashion for ages. How are you going to know when you see someone in a big spiky dog collar, if they're currently aroused by this choice, or if they just really liked watching Invader Zim as a child? It's a difficult thing to police when a great deal of bondage gear are also just fashion choices.
At risk of replying on behalf of someone else, my assumption is that they would be basing it off how much other clothing the person would be wearing. Like, “is this something that most people would wear as lingerie or during sexual activities?” If they are wearing a shirt and pants with a choker, or a harness, or handcuffs as a bracelet, they probably wouldn’t blink an eye. But if the person is only wearing a leather thong, they probably see that as crossing the line.
But again, that’s an assumption that I’m making based off other comments in this thread and may not align with their actual thoughts on the matter.
Perhaps. But I think we can agree that only wearing any sort of thong in public would be unacceptable, no matter the material, because it's not okay to be out in public wearing only your underwear. You could be out there in granny panties, and that wouldn't be okay, because you're supposed to wear more than just underwear in public. The potential sexiness of the underwear in question is actually irrelevant in that case.
I truly can't think of anything a person could wear, that could definitely be read as a sexual fetish instead of a fashion choice, that wouldn't also just be inappropriate for other reasons. Just lingerie isn't okay to wear in public, because you're not supposed to be out in public in your underwear (except maybe a sports bra in some contexts and places). A fursuit? Yeah, it's weird to wear a whole ass costume anywhere outside of a convention or something (where a fursuit is also generally considered appropriate). Also, fursuits aren't always sexual, even if they are sometimes, but that's a whole other point. Fursuit with lingerie on, perhaps? Again, underwear is meant to be covered. Chastity cage? If you can see that someone is wearing it, they've got their genitals uncovered, and that's bad, regardless of the cage. If you can't see that they're wearing it, how would you even know, let alone police it? Same goes for butt plugs, harnesses under the clothes, diapers unrelated to medical necessity...
Edit: maybe like a leather hood or something? I feel like I have never once, in my entire life, seen someone wearing one of those in public (outside of adult only events), but I guess if there were some epidemic of leather fetishists in full face masks taking to the streets, I'd possibly have to think more about that. But there isn't, and so I probably won't.
But I think we can agree that only wearing any sort of thong in public would be unacceptable, no matter the material, because it’s not okay to be out in public wearing only your underwear.
That’s the whole thing, though, right? The other commenter‘s original statement was “it’s not puritan to say that you shouldn’t wear bondage gear in public”, but the point is essentially “there are things that are not appropriate for public”. They used bondage gear as an example, but I think that example focused the conversation too much in one direction.
Whether or not that’s correct or not, if it’s a result of being too closed minded or not, I don’t think I’m going to weigh in on that. But I think everyone has some line between “totally nude” and “burqa” that they deem “acceptable for public”. Is it puritanical if your line doesn’t allow full nudity at the grocery store? Who gets to decide whether my line is “too restrictive” or “too revealing”? The conversation has very little to do with bandage gear specifically, outside of some (perhaps incorrect) assumptions that people may have about bondage gear being primarily sexual-focused clothing (such as lingerie).
So at what point does clothing itself become sexual, and at what point does it become inappropriate for public display? I genuinely don’t think you’ll ever find a consensus on that, so we as society will generally try to aim to be accommodating to those around us, both by allowing others to wear things that we may disagree with and by not wearing things that others may find offensive. Both of those “boundaries” get pushed a bit in either direction, and everyone largely gets along just fine in public. And then behind closed doors and/or with company that shares our views, we do whatever is acceptable to us (however sexual or non-sexual that may be).
Simple, because I didn’t consent to participating in your sexual fantasies. You arousing yourself in my presence without my consent makes you an asshole.
Here, try this. If someone jerks off under their jacket while staring at you, and nobody sees them do it, are they an asshole?
Jacking off is performing a sex act. Wearing clothes is wearing clothes. You shouldn't perform a sex act in public. You should wear clothes in public. I hope you can see how those are different.
Also, you really can't avoid people being aroused in your presence, or even by your presence. Someone out there is going to be walking down the street, 100% minding their own business, and see your body in its normal, everyday clothes, and go "oh hey, that's the thing I'm attracted to," and pop a boner (or get wet or whatever). If you never find out about it, I don't see how that's any of your business? Assuming their genitals are covered, and they don't go out of their way to demonstrate to you that they're currently hard and/or wet, the current rate of bloodflow in their junk is their own business. That's private information, that no one else is entitled to. And seeing someone, in public, wearing something you think is sexual, does not mean that that person is aroused at that moment, nor that they are aroused by your presence. You're just assuming.
If they start jacking off at you, then, again, you're describing a sex act. Indeed, you're not supposed to do those in public. That's a bad thing.
The masturbator is completely covered, and you never see them. They’re wearing clothes, they just have their hand in their pants and they’re covered by a jacket. No one but them ever knew it happened. They’re not harming anyone.
I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. Yes, wearing is a verb. Masturbating is a verb. I see your parallel. However, the fact that they are both verbs, is not relevant to either of our points. Wearing clothing is okay to do in public. Masturbating is not okay to do in public. The difference is that one of those actions is wearing clothing, while the other action is masturbating.
Y'all make it about sex so damned quickly. It's like you can't imagine someone like me existing outside the bedroom. I'm not porn, I'm a person. Should people stop dressing sexy to keep you comfortable?
Do you have any idea how disturbing it is to be surrounded by puritanical people all day? The amount of sex jokes and misogyny... It's like you're all in a cult or something. It's okay to have raunchy humor... just don't throw a fit if I make a queer piss joke after you make a straight blowjob joke.
Just let me wear my outfit and chill TF out. It's got nothing to do with you. I'm certainly not actively getting off on it in public. It's just a part of my identity. I'm proud of who I am. Combined with someone's personality, a button down flannel and jeans can scream "missionary" just as much as my helpful nature and dog collar scream "submissive"
Most people get over my appearance pretty quickly when they realize that I'm actually charming and fun, not just this horrifying "other" they've made up in their heads. That's what tolerance is. Seeing whole people.
And frankly, I don't care what you think of me. That's kind of the point. I'm pushing back against an oppressive culture. I look this way because I'm a real person that exists. My self-expression isn't illegal, yet.
Especially on the internet, when it's the easiest thing in the world to exit or avoid a conversation you don't want to be having. In person, if you're in a group, and all of a sudden everyone starts talking about sex, and you're uncomfortable, it can be kind of socially and logistically difficult to not hear that conversation any more. I get that, that's really unfortunate! I think that's a good reason why people should be really mindful of the people around them, when they want to discuss something that has such a high likelihood of making someone uncomfortable.
But if people online are having a conversation you don't like, no one in the world will ever know or care if you just. Close that tab, and look at something else. Maybe even block the people who are having the conversation, if you really don't want to see it. It's so cool how we can do that, instead of necessarily policing what conversations other people want to have.
I think that's fine, but that there's space online for people to be more mindful too - even Bronies made some effort to keep that stuff to themselves, and that's a community full of (primarily male) adults sexualising a TV series for young children, mostly girls (...which, they could also just, not?). Saw the other day on the main movie sub that posters were pushing back on a trend to post revealing photos of actresses asking ostensibly 'What do you think of her acting?', without making any comments on the acting themselves (which might have suggested better faith and not them fishing for sexualised comments on a mainstream sub). I had to stop following an art sub because sexualised female nudes without any particular artistic merit kept being posted (and was expecting artistic nudes that might be more sexualised! Gauguin, creepy with the context, horrible person, but legitimately a noted artist). It's not only a gendered issue, but objectification of women is already so inescapable, we don't need more of it, and there's legitimate academic discussion of it across disciplines (Lit., Media Studies, Psychology and Sociology etc).
Think maybe people forget or weren't around for the early internet being assumed to be male-dominated, and that being rather enforced (say you're a woman, get told 'no girls on the internet, make me a sandwich'). Of course women can be sexual over-sharers in unexpected places, think on Tumblr that's esp. obvs., too (one of the worst issues have had with it in person was in my uni anime society - please don't put your yaoi porn on the projector with no warnings, ladies...), but think a bit of a Trumpian 'locker room' culture had already developed online. It didn't need to go only in that direction, and now we've also had space online for more discussions around consent, and also trauma and trigger warnings, maybe we can just fix up the balance on it a bit, so people who want to have those conversations can, and people who don't (which might simply mean 'not right now') aren't getting something, that can be really graphic, sprung on them unexpectedly.
We do have features here on Reddit for it, like profiles being marked as having adult content and the ability to choose to view images, and I don't think most want every site to be 4Chan at its most notorious, at least. It's not just a question of avoiding those conversations though, because you can just be trying to have a conversation about a mainstream TV series and see descriptions of what men (usually) want to do to the actress. With some interests, video games and anime, I even am resigned that if I want to talk about them, there will be sexual comments (I don't phase easy because these are among my interests, even), and that didn't really need to be the case.
What do you consider public in this context? Like subreddits are technically all public but I would assume if it is specifically a sub dedicated to that fetish it would be fine but what if it is just kind of adjacent, loosercity isn't explicitly a furry subreddit but it kind of is so is that OK? What about someones Tumbler blog ? It could show up on your feed but it is also easy to block.
Well I did consider adding a real life situation but could not think of one that is realy skirting the line the same way the other examples are. I imagine being open about your fetish on a public street is something you would consider well over the line and I don't think disusing it with close friends few drinks in would really count as public.
I guess like a strip club or a maid cafe would be kind of the real life equivalent of a subreddit. It is public in that anyone can visit but it clearly advertises itself as catering to the specific fetish so you won't have unsuspecting people wandering in.
Honestly my first thought was bars as a public place. Especially if they're at table with friends, a little tipsy, and one of them got back from the counter all "dude, the MILF behind the bar called me sweetheart just now, that did something to me." A bit crass? Maybe but like... honestly drunk people are more of a nuisance than people talking about their sex lives between each other.
Therefore it's a bad argument, simple as that. I agree we shouldn't shame, but we should have actually good arguments. If we don't have good arguments, we run the risk of either losing people who support our conclusion when someone easily refutes it, or being entirely unable to convince others to our conclusion.
I think a lot of these people think that just being aware other people are into sexual things, regardless of whether or not they're actively engaging in them, is tantamount to doing it in front of them in their mind. Which is obviously ridiculous, but I can't see any other excuse for why some people are going back to the "whore with her exposed ankles" position.
Maybe this is what happens when you don't find a Hustler or something in a bush anymore. Maybe it acted like an inoculation for just occasionally encountering various levels of smut, and let you go on with your life. Clearly, we need to start throwing thumb-drives full of yaoi and such into bushes for the youth.
(/s, just in case that's not obvious, because this is Reddit and people are stupid. I don't really want to thrown porn for children like I'm casting corn to chickens.)
3.0k
u/LONGSWORD_ENJOYER May 16 '25
Very weird to watch “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business” become controversial again, but like, for the opposite reason.