Off-Topic Let's talk about second-wave radical feminism - Dynastia's Daycare for the emotionally troubled.

[TerribleIdeas™]

Of the two topics that you seem oddly hyper-focused on. Bye.

Those are the 2 topics where people here have shown they have a weird discrepancy in how they treat women's agency. I'm in favour of accepting that women should have 100% autonomy, in all aspects of their lives, clearly there's those here that disagree. I'm trying to figure out why people that label themselves some variety of feminist are in favour of only very specific expressions of agency, because it seems bizarre that they would take positions that match up to positions taken up by people that are, on pretty much every other topic, their opposites. Or why they'd take up anti-agency positions, at all.

I've made other comments too, but those 2 topics are the ones that people seem dug in on, and there's no changing their minds, apparently.

Here's another question - where does the commonly mentioned "Only 2% of rape allegations are false" claim come from? I've looked a lot of places, and I can't find anything other than Susan Brownmiller's book "Against of Wills (1975) where it's cited, but I've seen stuff like Kanin's horrendously unrepresentative study, where he claims that false allegations are something crazy like 51%, or 63%. (I actually don't remember the number, and I'm not going to go look it up, because I thought it was outrageous, in the first place.) The actual consensus on false allegation incidence is "2-10%", but I've also seen claims that the FBI has reported 8%, the DoD reported 17%, so I'm not going to say we have any concrete idea of the incidence of it. I'm also not going to say we have a concrete idea of the incidence of rapes, because there's some amount that aren't reported, for lots of reasons.

That said, regardless of the low incidence, whatever that incidence is, I think society needs to act to prevent false allegations, since there's lots of examples of horrendous consequences for false allegations, like people committing suicide, being killed, having their families destroyed, and live ruined. One rape is too many, one false allegation is too many, in my opinion.

There you go, a whole different topic. Besides having agreed that men and women are biologically different, and agreeing with Dynastia that evo-psych is, at best, post-hoc attempts to explain current characteristics by best guesses.

 

[2nd_time_user]

SMUGLY CHUCKLES
View attachment 870868
Here is the simplest, most babby way to explain the differences!

SMUGLY SHRUGS

Yeah, it probably was. If I were @TerribleIdeas™'s wife, that's what I'd do tbh.

I don't disagree with most of that, and the last line, I particularly don't disagree with. But that supports my suggestion that nothing said here (or, as you point out, reddit, twitter, etc.) makes particularly much difference, compared to the work of actual feminists, whether they're teachers, preachers, academics, or whatever.



Just from looking at a couple surrogacy websites, they make it really clear they don't take random people, and one of them specifically won't match a surrogate with a couple seeking surrogacy, if they disagree about the necessity and reasons that an abortion may be necessary.

You've thrown hypothetical cases at me, so I'm asking you to consider a hypothetical case where a lesbian couple wants to have genetically-related children, and neither is physically able to be pregnant. If that were to occur,should they be allowed to arrange surrogacy or not, and for either response, why?

The same stands for lesbian porn, obviously; if a lesbian wants to start a lesbian-only porn production company, no men involved in any aspect of the production, it's an entirely ethical process at all stages, and everyone involved is a consensual participant, would that be permissible? For either yes or no, why?

Neither of these hypothetical have men involved, so I want to know if your reasons for abhorring prostitution that involves men hold true where no men are involved.



No, I see inconsistency between the claims of many in this thread, that they support women's sexual and reproductive autonomy, because they're only supporting it sometimes, alleging coercion prevents women from adequately exercising agency, for those cases. So let's explore that - if prostitution and surrogacy are subject to instances when financial concerns or outside individuals can cause a woman to be coerced into either, then the solution being presented by some here is to ban both, right?

If that logic stands for those 2 situations, it also stands for abortion, because there are undoubtedly cases where women are subject to the same kinds of coercion (financial or outside individuals), and the same solution should be acceptable to the people proposing to ban prostitution and surrogacy on those grounds, right?

Those are the 2 topics where people here have shown they have a weird discrepancy in how they treat women's agency. I'm in favour of accepting that women should have 100% autonomy, in all aspects of their lives, clearly there's those here that disagree. I'm trying to figure out why people that label themselves some variety of feminist are in favour of only very specific expressions of agency, because it seems bizarre that they would take positions that match up to positions taken up by people that are, on pretty much every other topic, their opposites. Or why they'd take up anti-agency positions, at all.

I've made other comments too, but those 2 topics are the ones that people seem dug in on, and there's no changing their minds, apparently.

Here's another question - where does the commonly mentioned "Only 2% of rape allegations are false" claim come from? I've looked a lot of places, and I can't find anything other than Susan Brownmiller's book "Against of Wills (1975) where it's cited, but I've seen stuff like Kanin's horrendously unrepresentative study, where he claims that false allegations are something crazy like 51%, or 63%. (I actually don't remember the number, and I'm not going to go look it up, because I thought it was outrageous, in the first place.) The actual consensus on false allegation incidence is "2-10%", but I've also seen claims that the FBI has reported 8%, the DoD reported 17%, so I'm not going to say we have any concrete idea of the incidence of it. I'm also not going to say we have a concrete idea of the incidence of rapes, because there's some amount that aren't reported, for lots of reasons.

That said, regardless of the low incidence, whatever that incidence is, I think society needs to act to prevent false allegations, since there's lots of examples of horrendous consequences for false allegations, like people committing suicide, being killed, having their families destroyed, and live ruined. One rape is too many, one false allegation is too many, in my opinion.

There you go, a whole different topic. Besides having agreed that men and women are biologically different, and agreeing with Dynastia that evo-psych is, at best, post-hoc attempts to explain current characteristics by best guesses.

Dude. If you want to start a MRA thread, go ahead and do that to talk about how prostitution is just a job, men get more HIV than women and how false rape allegations damage men. How second-wave feminists differ from your position has been asked and answered multiple times.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

Dude. If you want to start a MRA thread, go ahead and do that to talk about how prostitution is just a job, men get more HIV than women and how false rape allegations damage men. How second-wave feminists differ from your position has been asked and answered multiple times.

Actually, I asked where the 2% claim comes from, because the only place I can find it is Brownmiller's book, and all other places that mention false allegations have different numbers. I also mentioned that 1 rape is too many, and that I know that because of unreported rapes, we also don't know the total incidence of it. I also pointed out that Kanin's study (with its' insanely high claim) was bullshit and unrepresentative, having been done on 3 small campuses in the midwest. Those aren't MRA talking points, that's asking where a common feminist claim comes from, and pointing out that feminists are right about not knowing the total incidence of a horrific crime, due to under-reporting.

I also asked about why people in this thread are inconsistent about support for women's agency and autonomy.

But keep being mad on the internet, I guess.

 

[2nd_time_user]

The title of the thread. Why wouldn't I come here to ask 2nd wave feminists to elaborate on their positions?

Because many of us did elaborate, repeatedly. You deflect. You off-topic the conversations. You don't bother to qualitatively explain your arguments regardless of your overly quantitative textwall wailing. You bring in buzzwords to gaslight people. "Mad on the Internet" being a current fav. Dude, I'm not mad. I'm irritated at your Troll 0.1.0 beta version tactics.

You're like Yaniv in that way. Just here to get a reaction.

 

[homewayhalf]

Those are the 2 topics where people here have shown they have a weird discrepancy in how they treat women's agency. I'm in favour of accepting that women should have 100% autonomy, in all aspects of their lives, clearly there's those here that disagree. I'm trying to figure out why people that label themselves some variety of feminist are in favour of only very specific expressions of agency, because it seems bizarre that they would take positions that match up to positions taken up by people that are, on pretty much every other topic, their opposites. Or why they'd take up anti-agency positions, at all.

I've made other comments too, but those 2 topics are the ones that people seem dug in on, and there's no changing their minds, apparently.

Here's another question - where does the commonly mentioned "Only 2% of rape allegations are false" claim come from? I've looked a lot of places, and I can't find anything other than Susan Brownmiller's book "Against of Wills (1975) where it's cited, but I've seen stuff like Kanin's horrendously unrepresentative study, where he claims that false allegations are something crazy like 51%, or 63%. (I actually don't remember the number, and I'm not going to go look it up, because I thought it was outrageous, in the first place.) The actual consensus on false allegation incidence is "2-10%", but I've also seen claims that the FBI has reported 8%, the DoD reported 17%, so I'm not going to say we have any concrete idea of the incidence of it. I'm also not going to say we have a concrete idea of the incidence of rapes, because there's some amount that aren't reported, for lots of reasons.

That said, regardless of the low incidence, whatever that incidence is, I think society needs to act to prevent false allegations, since there's lots of examples of horrendous consequences for false allegations, like people committing suicide, being killed, having their families destroyed, and live ruined. One rape is too many, one false allegation is too many, in my opinion.

There you go, a whole different topic. Besides having agreed that men and women are biologically different, and agreeing with Dynastia that evo-psych is, at best, post-hoc attempts to explain current characteristics by best guesses.

Dude, feminism is not about giving women free passes to do anything they want because they choose to. That’s some libfem bullshit. You sound like a guy who argues Sasha Grey getting a milk enema while being facefucked by ten guys is feminist.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

Because many of us did elaborate, repeatedly. You deflect. You off-topic the conversations. You don't bother to qualitatively explain your arguments regardless of your overly quantitative textwall wailing. You bring in buzzwords to gaslight people. You're like Yaniv in that way. Just here to get a reaction. Start your own MRA thread somewhere else.

I'm the one that deflected, when I'm not the one coming up with hypothetical situations about drinking surrogates? I asked for examples of prohibition that were less harmful than legalization, and didn't get any examples, just assurances that people that wrote anti-porn books were representative of all experiences in sex work.

No, that continues to sound like you're mad on the internet, because you don't have anything that proves that prohibition is less harmful than legalization with oversight.

Dude, feminism is not about giving women free passes to do anything they want because they choose to. That’s some libfem bullshit. You sound like a guy who argues Sasha Grey getting a tard cum enema while being facefucked by ten guys is feminist.

Yeah, I've already heard the "2nd wave feminism is an offshoot of Marxism", and I've yet to see a societal experiment involving Marxism that wasn't a horrendous idea. You keep believing that women should only have the autonomy you permit them, and I'll continue to believe that women are competent adults that should be entirely responsible for their autonomy.

 

[homewayhalf]

I'm the one that deflected, when I'm not the one coming up with hypothetical situations about drinking surrogates? I asked for examples of prohibition that were less harmful than legalization, and didn't get any examples, just assurances that people that wrote anti-porn books were representative of all experiences in sex work.

No, that continues to sound like you're mad on the internet, because you don't have anything that proves that prohibition is less harmful than legalization with oversight.



Yeah, I've already heard the "2nd wave feminism is an offshoot of Marxism", and I've yet to see a societal experiment involving Marxism that wasn't a horrendous idea. You keep believing that women should only have the autonomy you permit them, and I'll continue to believe that women are competent adults that should be entirely responsible for their autonomy.

I don’t know why I even responded.

 

[Cryin RN]

Dude, feminism is not about giving women free passes to do anything they want because they choose to. That’s some libfem bullshit. You sound like a guy who argues Sasha Grey getting a tard cum enema while being facefucked by ten guys is feminist.

How about meninists arguing that men shouldn't exercise the agency to jizz wherever they want? It's so fucking hypocritical. "His body, his choice" except when they want to paint a bus stop ad white. Ridiculous. Prove that prohibiting free-jizzing leads to less harm than legalizing it. It's okay, I'll wait.

 

[adorable bitch]

I liked lurking this conversation because it was initially very interesting and made me think but at this point it's becoming similar to twitter discourse.

cut

It's not their job to personally convince you of anything dude. You asked, and they provided their position, citations and reasoning and you're just strong-manning past it with little to no compromise or intellectual respect (which people here provided you with for many pages of this thread) because you have a personal stick up your ass about this particular topic and you genuinely do not want to believe anything other than what you came here believing. Now you're just spouting the same stupid bullshit (hEr BOdy hEr ChOiCe x100 HEHE GOTCHA FEMINISTS) and it's not clever or funny.

If you're so sure about your position in surrogacy then why do you feel the need to constantly justify yourself here?

 

[2nd_time_user]

I'm the one that deflected, when I'm not the one coming up with hypothetical situations about drinking surrogates? I asked for examples of prohibition that were less harmful than legalization, and didn't get any examples, just assurances that people that wrote anti-porn books were representative of all experiences in sex work.
You keep believing that women should only have the autonomy you permit them, and I'll continue to believe that women are competent adults that should be entirely responsible for their autonomy.

Porn was technically illegal almost everywhere until the 1980 Freeman decision by California Supreme Court. That's why Porn Valley exists in California. Conditions for women there haven't improved since legalization. Women still get hit, but if she CONSENTS and it's in the bts reel, that's agency to you.

You believe in agency until, well, a woman says fuck your contract and flushes your $50K designer IVF embryo.

And "anti-porn" books? I stipulated that both these individuals are still involved in the porn industry. You don't like books? Look them up on Wikipedia. Pornhub. The Internet.

Like @SourDiesel said, I'm done for the moment not because I disagree or have been triggered or because you win. For now, I'm done because not only have you failed to deliver arguments, or read, but your autistic tl;dr sperging is so boring that it's not even worth responding to anymore.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

How about meninists arguing that men shouldn't exercise the agency to jizz wherever they want? It's so fucking hypocritical. "His body, his choice" except when they want to paint a bus stop ad white. Ridiculous. Prove that prohibiting free-jizzing leads to less harm than banning it. It's okay, I'll wait.

I'm 100% in favour of anyone having sex using condoms and birth control. I'm also against all infant genital cutting, based on autonomy. I'm also 100% in favour of prosecuting rape based on the absence of consent, rather than the existence of a penis, which is the current legal definition in the UK, so that means if anyone takes advantage of a drunk person, they're a rapist, regardless of their sex.

Also, meninists is a satire twitter account.

I liked lurking this conversation because it was initially very interesting and made me think but at this point it's becoming similar to twitter discourse.

It's not their job to personally convince you of anything dude. You asked, and they provided their position, citations and reasoning and you're just strong-manning past it with little to no compromise or intellectual respect (which people here provided you with for many pages of this thread) because you have a personal stick up your ass about this particular topic and you genuinely do not want to believe anything other than what you came here believing. Now you're just spouting the same stupid bullshit (hEr BOdy hEr ChOiCe x100 HEHE GOTCHA FEMINISTS) and it's not clever or funny.

If you're so sure about your position in surrogacy then why do you feel the need to constantly justify yourself here?

Why do they keep throwing the same hypothetical scenarios at me, to try and argue that women shouldn't be entitled to the agency to choose to be surrogates or not? Or involved in porn, or not The haven't provided citations for surrogacy that don't also apply to adoption, if you're referring to the citation about post-natal attachment. 6 sources (2 books and 4 forums) evidence against porn when at least that many positive opinions on porn exist isn't conclusive, it's anecdotal. If I go find 6 sources that talk glowingly about porn, that's as many citations as they provided that are negative towards it.

It really does boil to to the autonomy of the individual, and that they're claiming they have the right to interfere in an individuals autonomy. I've pointed out how that position mirrors positions of regressive religious nutjobs, and opens the door to using their same logic in other areas. I also don't by the Marxist concept that individual women have to do what best for women as a class, because women aren't a monolith, any more than feminists are one.

Porn was technically illegal almost everywhere until the 1980 Freeman decision by California Supreme Court. That's why Porn Valley exists in California. Conditions for women there haven't improved since legalization. Women still get hit, but if she CONSENTS and it's in the bts reel, that's agency to you.

You believe in agency until, well, a woman says fuck your contract and flushes your $50K designer IVF embryo.

And "anti-porn" books? I stipulated that both these individuals are still involved in the porn industry. You don't like books? Look them up on Wikipedia. Pornhub. The Internet.

Like @SourDiesel said, I'm done for the moment not because I disagree or have been triggered or because you win. For now, I'm done because not only have you failed to deliver arguments, or read, but your autistic sperging is so boring that it's not even worth responding to anymore.

Conditions in porn haven't improved in the US at all, in almost 40 years? And you're telling me that illegal porn prior to 1980 was safer than it is now? And 2 people that wrote anti-porn books, and 4 forums, are proof of that? And yeah, if your saying their books talk about how horrible porn is, and how those books support your position on porn, then those books are anti-porn. And I'll bet I can find 6 sources that say porn is great, so we'll end up with 7 for, 7 against, including the 2 of us.

Still waiting to hear if lesbians that start ethical porn studios are considered to be verboten by you, since there's no men involved in the exploitation, just some men being suckered into buying porn made by women that won't ever sleep with them. Wait, that's 99% of porn - erotic material made by people that won't sleep with 99.9% of the people that consume that material. Out of curiosity, do you think Belle Delphine is a marketing genius, or not?

And every single surrogacy agency I can find online states they won't match couples with a surrogate if they disagree on abortion. I'm in favour of women's access to abortion, and if she's not fulfilling the surrogacy contract, then she's not going to be paid for the surrogacy, as far as those surrogacy sites indicate. She wants an abortion, it's not my body, I'm not going to stop her, but if she's signed a contract to be a surrogate to term, why would I pay her whatever amount is contractually agreed upon for carrying to term? She didn't fulfill the contract, and any notion that she'd be entitled to the money for carrying to term for not doing so would just lead to abuse at some point, exactly like Bill C-16 and the rest of it's attendant stupidity has lead to abuse, exactly as people warned.

Also still waiting to hear if my hypothetical about a lesbian couple that wants to engage a surrogate would be allowed, since there's also no men exploiting any women in this case, either.

I'm also definitely waiting for examples of prohibition that reduce harm compared to legalization, because 2 books, 4 forums, and an assertion that "conditions haven't improved in 40 years" aren't proof; there's at least 6 places that present porn positively, and I can point to rape rates having coincidentally having dropped since 1980 as a rebuttal. As someone else pointed out, there's lots of women doing cam-work with no men involved, ranging from Belle Delphine to women that do hula-hoop stuff to women that do private chats, and those make up a lot of the industry now, and those women aren't working in skeezy rented mansions with a fat Italian dude that has a golden spoon on a chain around his neck as the director.

Are those kinds of porn actresses allowed to continue, since they're parting fools from their money without being put at anything like the same risk as a "traditional porn star" is?

Or, keep being mad on the internet, if it suits you.

 

[Cryin RN]

Also, meninists is a satire twitter account.

I literally did not know that, buddy. I made it up because I'm riffing on you. Great minds meme alike.

 

[Bugs_Galore]

No, objectively C-D cups are the best. If you like small tits then you're;
A. A closeted homo
B. A closeted nonce

Fight me

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

I literally did not know that, buddy. I made it up because I'm riffing on you. Great minds meme alike.

Alright, serious question, though - this article got just got posted in off-topic. although the story is a year old - http://archive.fo/TnlDu
(I archived it so you don't have to give The Star a click.)

If this eliminates exploitation, is it a good or bad thing? If I accept the argument that prostitution will always be somehow exploitative, and only options are banning it or carefully regulated versions, then this should reduce exploitation, because it's not women that are being subjected to commodification.

Agree, disagree, why?

 

[homewayhalf]

What in tarnation is this lesbian fixation? Should murder of lesbians by lesbians be legal since no men are involved? Why are men required for something to be exploitative? The world doesn’t revolve around your micropenis.

 

[Cryin RN]

If this eliminates exploitation, is it a good or bad thing? If I accept the argument that prostitution will always be somehow exploitative, and only options are banning it or carefully regulated versions, then this should reduce exploitation, because it's not women that are being subjected to commodification.

Agree, disagree, why?

This is actually a great question. So think about this: is a sex doll is an exact market substitute for a flesh hooker? Can you think of a reason someone would want a flesh hooker instead of a doll? Like Robert Pickton?

What in tarnation is this lesbian fixation? Should murder of lesbians by lesbians be legal since no men are involved?

Actually The Purge being legal, but only for lesbos, would be a kick-ass Tarantino concept.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

What in tarnation is this lesbian fixation? Should murder of lesbians by lesbians be legal since no men are involved? Why are men required for something to be exploitative? The world doesn’t revolve around your micropenis.

I'm asking because the stated concern is "exploitation by men." Does that concern hold true if no men are involved? It's also not "a fixation" if it's been in a few posts, of the whole of the posts I've made. I'm 100% content with the knowledge that lesbians aren't attracted to me. It's a matter of confirming the consistency of the position. That said, I thought you were disappointed about responding here, so I figured you weren't coming back.

This is actually a great question. So think about this: is a sex doll is an exact market substitute for a flesh hooker? Can you think of a reason someone would want a flesh hooker instead of a doll? Like Robert Pickton?

I don't believe it's an exact analog, nor will it ever be, because of the uncanny valley. It's the same thing a lot of people here have noted about the few MtF trannies that pass - there's just something.... off, about them. But if it keeps some incel from going Elliot Roger, then I'm all for these dolls being available, separate from the "is there an exploitation risk" question.

Actually The Purge being legal, but only for lesbos, would be a kick-ass Tarantino concept.

Or only legal to hunt down Laura Loomer and pile slashed tires on her lawn. Her and Ann Coulter are just fucking obnoxious, if I'm being totally honest. The last thing Henry Rollins did I liked was his angry love letter vlog to Coulter, talking about hate-fucking her, iirc.

 

[Horus]

Can you find me somewhere in this thread where someone that disagrees with me about sex work has openly stated they're in favour of a regulated model for sex work? At least one person suggested that even the Nordic Model (which is the best known legalization model) isn't good, because there's still harms associated with it, but I can't find anyone here suggesting they're in favour of regulated models for sex work, other than myself and maybe @Horus.

I'm open to being corrected, but after searching this thread from the time I first posted, I haven't found anyone that has openly stated they're in favour of any kind of regulated model, but I have been told that the German model still has harms, even though there's no proof those harms are worse than prohibition.

I am just realistic about sex work, and I know that it will never stopped. No government, no religion, no police or military force on this planet has stamped it out. So long as the demand for sexual services exceeds supply, a thriving sex market will exist on the fringes of legitimate society and business.
My argument has been that I do not see it as a sexism issue though, but rather just humans being malicious towards each other. It is no more or no less dangerous than any other industry that the poor and the desperate flock to, regardless of gender. I see it the same as young men stuck in the narcotics trade.
We might as well admit it is just another shitty industry full of shitty people and place some taxes/regulations on it. That way we might be able to improve public health a bit and cut down on pimping, and perhaps improve the quality of life for the people stuck in it.
Why deal with a violent pimp when you can just go work at the mega-chain brothel that has some health and safety standards instead?
For some reason, when I think mega-chain brothels, visions of Applebees flashes in my mind. Your local Applebees would definitely not think twice about having a brothel attached to it.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

I am just realistic about sex work, and I know that it will never stopped. No government, no religion, no police or military force on this planet has stamped it out. So long as the demand for sexual services exceeds supply, a thriving sex market will exist on the fringes of legitimate society and business.
My argument has been that I do not see it as a sexism issue though, but rather just humans being malicious towards each other. It is no more or no less dangerous than any other industry that the poor and the desperate flock to, regardless of gender. I see it the same as young men stuck in the narcotics trade.
We might as well admit it is just another shitty industry full of shitty people and place some taxes/regulations on it. That way we might be able to improve public health a bit and cut down on pimping, and perhaps improve the quality of life for the people stuck in it.
Why deal with a violent pimp when you can just go work at the mega-chain brothel that has some health and safety standards instead?
For some reason, when I think mega-chain brothels, visions of Applebees flashes in my mind. Your local Applebees would definitely not think twice about having a brothel attached to it.

I don't disagree, which is why I think there should be some form of regulation, and the gov't doing the regulation is question should be willing to take on the organized crimes elements involved, or give them avenues to "go legit", as the old mafiosos in the movies used to say.

I have to wonder, will the quality of food at Applebee's improve or deteriorate, if they have brothels next door, and how do we keep Sargon of Applebee's from being involved with any such dual-franchise operation?

 

[Horus]

I don't disagree, which is why I think there should be some form of regulation, and the gov't doing the regulation is question should be willing to take on the organized crimes elements involved, or give them avenues to "go legit", as the old mafiosos in the movies used to say.

I have to wonder, will the quality of food at Applebee's improve or deteriorate, if they have brothels next door, and how do we keep Sargon of Applebee's from being involved with any such dual-franchise operation?

We keep the dress code casual, no suits allowed.