That requires a substantially higher amount of effort and planning, with a higher rate of failure. All a man needs to do is follow a woman foolish enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their need to rape is also virtually non-existent, obviously (rape isn't all about power like feminists suggest, it's an inherently sexual act but they want to divorce the action from sex--I am not saying there's not an element of power but it is not usually the main motive).
One of the biggest reasons women don't rape much is the physical logistics of it, men are simply better equipped to, so to speak (although sexual assault more broadly is just as possible).
I don't know about this part, but I'd also assume male on male rape is typically committed against smaller, physically weaker men for similar reasons.
There is also the attitude from sexes towards being sexual assault, harassment and rape.
To PL abit to give an example. I work security, any door man will tell you women don't know when to keep their hands to themselves. Men are just unlikely to complain and even enjoy that kind of attention.
Considering the difference between men and women in theft crime, violence crime and sex crime is somewhat comparable, I always assumed that the underlying cause is similar and probably testosterone/risk driven rather than mainly related to body strength.
Yeah, it's basically tautological that these emergent behaviours from the same system are related and that includes both stress/risk response and strength expression. Men get to be the genetic kitchen sink across the board due to the nature of sexual reproduction which makes them more flexible and readily express extremes in any sense, but the relative sexual contrast is temporary and anything other mammals do we could do too if our environment (including cultural economics) demanded it for any length of time. Testosterone is a factor in both risk/stress processing and physical robustness but the other side of the equation can always be biologically modulated too (and it's not male-specific anyway). The point is all these negatives are just offshoots of positives or necessity.
It's interesting and something to be proud of as mutual collaborators in the human organism but pretty much totally irrelevant to this discussion since there's no comparable flip side. If Earth suddenly got invaded by sabretooth tigers from space we'd all be thankful that gays fuck kids.
I'm 18. Gay. And for the long time I've understood my sexuality, it's become inherently clear- there is a disproportionate amount of pedophiles in the gay community, and it's very clear to see why.
This "community" nonsense around what we like sexually needs to stop. It's gross. It protects those that deserve nothing, and endangers those who haven't lived much of a life at all.
Edit: Clubs, Sports, anything but indulging in soley your sexual identity. You are not all of that, and it is not all of you. You are a person, not a character.
Being apart of the gay community for me is not about sex. The reason why I hang around the gay community is because it's composed around a bunch of outsiders. Effeminate men who for any reason couldn't fit into straight society. Not everyone goes to gay event or gay clubs to get sexual satisfaction. Some people go there because they want a safe & secure place. So where are homosexuals to go?
I have the image of chicago being very black, but I'm sure that's not exactly true for the suburbs. Do you think that played any role in the low acceptance of homosexuality for you growing up?
Why quit a winning strategy? Every regime needs it commissars, its secret police, its enforcers.
The myth of calling these people a community allows them to leverage being a kind of celebrated class (among the left wing loyalists) to lead charges against everyone unwilling to submit (including small time bakers).
If they more honestly wore their secret police uniforms it's harder to do their sting operations. They're not even officially employed and therefor hard to point to any accountability.
Like I'm sure @ryu289 is not on the payroll. In fact, by being organised around sexual desires, there is simultaneously a kind of passionate fervor behind it and the fear that every engagement of that passion will be curbed if they "lose the culture war". And considering the connection to anything long term (multigenerational) is rare for sexual deviants, it's all about the materialistic here and now, the next orgasm.
So yeah, what's the incentive for the "community" to give up their PR shield? And lose their power? Sure we might end up saving some kids, but what about my discord chats with that cute 16 year old?
What your talking about is a human problem. Like I mention above the gay community is composed of a bunch of individuals that couldn't fit into heterosexual society. Your argument makes the assumption that the sole motivator for the gay community not holding its members accountable or abdicating its power is because of the orgasm. This statement misses the forest for the trees. But since this is sexuality and politics it would be hard to find the simple answer. To me, it's not about the sex. but the power. Power to protect what some people see has a safe space.
Have you thought that the reason why it most collectivists groups like blacks, Asians, and other is because they don't want to feel defenseless and powerless? It's like China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States giving up their nuclear weapons. No individuals wants to feel like worthless piece of shit in world full of terrior. (no pun intended) Although, I don't agree with most of the LGBTQ National Organization stance and polices, I don't want to be without it.
If there is no community, who is going to protect them? What do you suggest?
And be more truthful about history, how homosexuality wasn't the kind of death sentence it previously was? Like Turing, who lived in a time where it wasn't accepted to be openly gay. British intelligence was long aware of his homosexuality and put extra tabs on him for the risk this made him to be blackmailed by foreign spies.
But it wasn't until he reported a break in crime and autisticly admitted to homosexual relations in a public, legal document, that he forced the authorities hand at responding to it.
I suggest that we treat it the same as the catholic church; keep shitting on the collective group that defends these practices instead of bringing them to justice and treat convicts like the pariah they deserve to be, and as example for others. Keep shitting on groups that prefer to close ranks instead of excising the bad actors and what's more than that, actively help bring them to justice, as virtuous people would without being asked.
Why does this need to be spelled out?
Btw kowtowing to minority groups is no less like giving up nuclear weapons. Your argument cuts both ways and is purely motivated by power.
I suggest that we treat it the same as the catholic church; keep shitting on the collective group that defends these practices instead of bringing them to justice and treat convicts like the pariah they deserve to be, and as example for others. Keep shitting on groups that prefer to close ranks instead of excising the bad actors and what's more than that, actively help bring them to justice, as virtuous people would without being asked.
My question was meant in regards to how people treat groups. Like I said no one wants to be treated like they're worthless. Sorry for not being more clear about the context of the question.
Btw kowtowing to minority groups is no less like giving up nuclear weapons. Your argument cuts both ways and is purely motivated by power.
From that perspective you probably think I'm being soft on fags. I haven't even killed any.
This is exactly compatible with what I said about lgbtq almost all being permanent culture warriors with only an interest in what happens during their own lifespan.
From that perspective you probably think I'm being soft on fags. I haven't even killed any.
This is exactly compatible with what I said about lgbtq almost all being permanent culture warriors with only an interest in what happens during their own lifespan.
LOL. I'm NOT interested in being a cultural warrior. I was just making an observation. It seems like every group is at each others' throat. I was talking to my straight female friends and they were telling me about how hard dating is for them.
LOL. I'm NOT interested in being a cultural warrior. I was just making an observation. It seems like every group is at each others' throat. I was talking to my straight female friends and they were telling me about how hard dating is for them.
Find people you know and personally like. The entire "COMMUNITY" shit is a big grift by NGOs and Companies to steal your wallet and tell you they are helping you.
Find people you know and personally like. The entire "COMMUNITY" shit is a big grift by NGOs and Companies to steal your wallet and tell you they are helping you.
So they wasted their most bankable years not getting married and are now closing to the wall, or have just past it (officially at 30, but in practise somewhere between 25 and 35 depending on genetics).
Not sure what n count you consider "low". To me that is n=1-3. But I'm assuming you mean 4-6?
Best way to go about it is to lower standards in how sexy they find a guy (one of the tragedies for women is that every new partner is likely to be less attractive than the last, due to youth and its fertility markers being prime selective pressures) and increase standards with how serious the guy is (even if that is a turnoff, and it usually is for women).
They should be going to places where they meet men. Dance classes, bookgroups, ultimate frisbee, church group. Basicly anything with mixed genders that fits with their own personality. Then they should have fun, make sure to look good going there and if they like a guy, not be afraid to move things along. But when going on dates, make some effort at finding how serious he is. Making some moves is a risky strategy for women, as it allows men who would not date them seriously to take advantage of them (I know I have), but it can help them land good men who are less players (aren't used to hitting on women and therefor; more likely to commit).
Birth control has put a competitive pressure on women to engage in sexual activities (or lose the guy to someone who does). But birth control does not eliminate all the risks (broken heart, pairbonding capacity).
One of the biggest problems for women these days is inflated self-perceived value. Whether the amount of responses they get on dating apps, or the amount of men giving them attention (for sex, not long term relationship). But also because all of their experiences are based on how young she was yesterday, yesteryear etcetera.
Look at someone like leonardo dicaprio who has all the choice in the world. Every girlfriend has been drop dead gorgeous. And everyone got dumped when they passed the age of 24.
There are about 8 women out there who have tasted the best of the best; but afterwards they have to settle for someone less than dicaprio. And less than if they had gone for someone lesser that they could lock down, because now they're 26, 28, 30.
This kind of mistake is made by women across the board.
Wanted to chime in with my experience. Get your TMI stickers ready, folks, or just skip the ill-advised powerlevel in the spoiler below.
IRL gay here. I was groomed and molested as a kid. Definitely nowhere near as bad as what happens to some people but what happened to me wasn't right. Ofc I often wonder why he 'picked' me; maybe it was because I was clearly sensitive/vulnerable/whatever. Ofc I often wonder whether that experience 'made me' gay; it definitely shaped how I feel about my sexuality and my body. I was 19 before I started letting my friends and family hug me. That was also when I admitted to myself that I probably liked guys. My first real sexual experience, later that year, basically involved a guy getting me drunk and having his way with me. I was too autistic to understand how dating worked so it was kind of my fault tbh. Thankfully things have been safe for me since then.
Might edit and delete this later lol I know the Farmz isn't the place to share this shit but I wanted to show where my perspective comes from.
My feeling is that there is some kind of issue with childhood sexual abuse in the gay community. Instinctively, and maybe this is just projecting, it feels like a lot of the gay guys I know have some kind of formative male/male sexual experience at a young age. While some of these in my view straightforwardly amount to abuse, others are seen (at least amongst gays) as a slightly older guy showing a younger guy the ropes, à la Call me by your name. That film is super-popular, as are other gay films/literature with similar dynamics, despite the age gap. I have been surprised by just how many gay guys are into the age gap (e.g. daddy/son fetish, which is very common) or non-consensual situations (e.g. rape or incest, fantasies of the latter being shockingly common IME). All this doesn't mean much, of course: I could probably write some of the same things about the straight 'community'. But there is a difference: what I wrote here I would never be able to verbalize amongst my peers.
The Born This Way™ crowd has monopolized discussion of homosexuality and its aetiology to the extent that questioning it amounts to homophobia. I have lots of thoughts on that and have sperged about it elsewhere. Suffice it to say that not being able to talk about the origins of homosexuality does more harm than good in my opinion, since it forces people with homosexual desire to buy in wholesale to a set of ideologies and practices which can cause harm e.g. hookup culture, or just gay culture in general really - people who don't fit into that feel really alienated and alone and usually solve that in pretty self-destructive ways e.g. too much sex, gayceldom, substance abuse. I've seen too many gay guys fuck their souls to death in their 20s to ignore it. The correct therapeutic response to issues of that kind is to take an open, wide, deep and compassionate investigation; however, in the case of gay malaise everything can be investigated and blamed except the nature and origins of the sexuality itself. You spend your evenings huffing drugs and getting your ass torn apart as you're gang-raped by a bunch of men you call 'daddy'? Forget therapy, forget asking why! "Yassss Queen, go off!!!" is the only acceptable response! Cut to Freud spinning in his grave.
If I'm told contradicting the Born This Way™ mantra is haram, my go-to response is: Why does homosexuality have to be set aside a biological or genetic abnormality, when perfectly good psychological frameworks exist for explaining it? We wouldn't and don't do the same when talking about straight people. The point of my post is, ultimately, to say that links between childhood sexual abuse and adult homosexuality are left undiscussed because it would count as associating homosexuality and pedophilia. This also could mean, as others have mentioned, that degenerate sexual behavior is accepted (perhaps increasingly so) in the gay 'community' because questioning why someone is exclusively into 'dads'/'sons' 20 years older/younger is kink-shaming at best and homophobic at worst.
Wanted to chime in with my experience. Get your TMI stickers ready, folks, or just skip the ill-advised powerlevel in the spoiler below.
IRL gay here. I was groomed and molested as a kid. Definitely nowhere near as bad as what happens to some people but what happened to me wasn't right. Ofc I often wonder why he 'picked' me; maybe it was because I was clearly sensitive/vulnerable/whatever. Ofc I often wonder whether that experience 'made me' gay; it definitely shaped how I feel about my sexuality and my body. I was 19 before I started letting my friends and family hug me. That was also when I admitted to myself that I probably liked guys. My first real sexual experience, later that year, basically involved a guy getting me drunk and having his way with me. I was too autistic to understand how dating worked so it was kind of my fault tbh. Thankfully things have been safe for me since then.
Might edit and delete this later lol I know the Farmz isn't the place to share this shit but I wanted to show where my perspective comes from.
There was a study done that gender nonconformity in childhood is a risk for being sexually abused as well as other types of abuses. Gender nonconformity is more likely to be linked to adult heterosexuality. So why doesn't gender nonconformity increases ones chances at being molested? Where you isolated as a child? How was your relation with your male peers? How was your relationship with your father? All those factors increases one's chance up being molested or homosexual.
The correct therapeutic response to issues of that kind is to take an open, wide, deep and compassionate investigation; however, in the case of gay malaise everything can be investigated and blamed except the nature and origins of the sexuality itself. You spend your evenings huffing drugs and getting your ass torn apart as you're gang-raped by a bunch of men you call 'daddy'? Forget therapy, forget asking why! "Yassss Queen, go off!!!" is the only acceptable response! Cut to Freud spinning in his grave.
I agree that a broad deep investigation into the origins of homosexuality is needed. Why does homosexuals or homosexuality need to be handle with kid gloves.
Edit to Add:
I don't believe people are born homosexual. There is probably is homosexual tendency at most. I think the molestation is probably part of a bigger conversation. Molestation is a piece of the puzzle. Isolated, alienated children are the most likely to get to molested, even LGBT, or both. There is this book called "Fire Shut Up in My Bones " by Charles M Blow. He was molested on two occasions. Once by his male cousin and the other by his great uncle. He ended up being bisexual, but he's mostly sexually and romantically attracted to the opposite sex. In accordance to the the study I posted, Charles wrote about growing up as a gender nonconforming child in the South. That alienated him further from the people around him.
Would expanding the idea of what it means to be a boy or girl lead to less alienation which would lead to less molestation?
I'm Ryu-sexual. I'm sexually attracted to website links, devils advocate, and my attraction to pedophiles, trannies, and other lunatics; even better if they are all of them in one. Insta coom for da coomer.
It leads to more alienation, because it is based on lies and propaganda in the first place.
The thing about being a deviant that deviants must accept is that they are deviating. They take freedom instead of conforming and it actually makes sense for there to be a cost for that. If there is no social cost for nonconformity, then you don't make people safer, you put people in more danger as soft constraints are gone and people like Ryu can do whatever and everyone is told to accept it until they molest another kid again.
It does make sense for there to be a social cost in general for deviants; a soft social cost, not the hardwired and dictatorial social score cost of the technocracy that China already has and we are speeding up towards.
Considering the lgbtq generally supports everything that pushes us towards that regime, their freedom will be shortlived and cut short anyways. You get to be any gender you want, living in your pod, eating bugs and subjected to social pressures you can't even imagine yet, just like you couldn't imagine the current travel restrictions even 2 years ago.
