People that make posts like this clearly don’t understand what “normalizing” means. It doesn’t mean being blindly accepting of everything that would be the exact opposite of “normalizing”. It rather means we as a society decide, what “is regarded as normal” and what “isn’t regarded as normal”. In that sense sex is already normalized. The overwhelming majority of all people are straight, who also mostly engage in recreational and procreational sex. And this is what is also considered the “norm”.
We don’t have to go out of our way to find excuses to make specific kinks and fetishes out as “normal”, because they will mostly never matter to the average persons life. And it’s also widely accepted as normal, that if you want to get “kinky”, you do it on your own time, not everybody else’s.
What? Humans talk about sex all the time even with all their puritanical taboos and restrictions. Do zoomers think they’re the first generation to have raunchy language? Sharp difference between obscenity and regarding oneself as a complete sexual being.
nah, there are very stuck up puritannical religious people out there.
in my country they segregate themselves a little bit and keep to their own churches but they are out there in big numbers still.
The very notion of puritanism requires a certain additude towards sex, therefore a discours about it. Puritans only act like non-sexual humans but constantly transgress their self imposed limits by adopting sexual abstinence, which in itself is a type of sexual behaviour. Not gonna get all freudian by talking how this makes them giant freaks with all that pent up energy but do you understand what I am trying to say?
Twitter user detected, opinion disregarded
That’s called the genetic fallacy.
Could be pre Xwitter
Still Twitter, opinion still disregarded
It’s important to have standards
account suspended?
My parents were pretty open talking about sex and positive and it. They wouldn’t let us watch too violent movies as kids, but movies with nudity were ok after we were like 12. I saw Blow-up before I saw Alien haha.
I think that’s a big part of why Americans treat sex as a weapon and shame it, they teach you young that it’s literally less socially acceptable than murder.
Guys…one important thing to know is that jacking off is super easy and free. Having sex with a partner is way much more energy intensive, gets you tired, it’s expensive if you want privacy and protection etc…hotel house, marriage, kids, clothes diapers etc. And there are huge risks like marrying the wrong person because all you can think of is sex or because you got pregnant or got her pregnant. There’s also the risk of STI including HIV AIDS. Its scary. So I agree let’s be lewd so we can talk about it.
This guy goons
me too thanks
It could become as normal as talking about dancing:
"I went to dance class last night, only my second week so I still get nervous but it’s good fun and great exercise!
They taught the newer students a new dance and we had to partner up with someone we hadn’t danced with before. I got a lovely older lady and OMG - she was so agile she almost broke MY hip! I’m soo sore but going back tomorrow!"
“Normal” my ass.
Go on, mention to your other male coworkers that your going to dance classes. See how that goes.
Any man worth his weight in salt knows how to dance.
It has been like this for centuries
That’s just basic science
And yet this self satisfied intellectual stance on sex happens to be a huge fucking turn off
it’s very clearly tongue in cheek
Sorry being a kill joy is my kink
idk I’m into it
More power to you
lots of fluid transfer involved. also humor. science helps. intellectuals can be hot too, it’s not just a slur.
I get my rocks off by mildly annoying internet denizens so no hard feelings
I support her journey.
Closely.
The goal of the anti-LGBT relious nuts is to force people into straight marriages because that’s all that matters to religious zealots.
They know that if kids practice safe sex they won’t get pregnant and ‘shot gun marriage’ rates will go down.
They know that if kids discover their gender or sexual identity is non-cis, non-het, or non-monogamous that they might not wind up having a traditional marriage.
The know that people who only have 1 partner in their lifetime are much, much less likely to successfully leave an abusive partner, meaning there’s a higher rate of divorce if people learn that having multiple partners in your life is normal and okay.
They know that kids who are educated about healthy sex and consent in relationships are less likely to go along with a child marriage or an assigned marriage.
They know that removing sex ed means more teen pregnancy, more intimate partner abuse, and more child-rape. For religious people whose only goal is to get young women into marriages, those are good things.
Example: An actual elected official in the state of Missouri defending his stance that “Parents Rights” includes the ability to marry off their kids to adults at age 12, because “Do you know any kids that have been married at age 12, I do, and guess what, they’re still married”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H6UJ-uCrgc
These people legitimately believe that it’s morally correct to kidnap a 12 year old girl and force her to be entirely subserviant to, and dependent on, some pedophile husband who controls everything they do, because them being trapped in that awful situation means that there’s one more marriage in the world.
And then they have the nerve to lecture us about morals and drag queens!
Just engagement bait from xhitter, nothing lewd but more engagement bait in her profile
Perhaps she is lewd outside of the internet.
Normalise sex by having it with me
i just have a short nine-point questionnare
Yes and no.
Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development. That doesn’t mean you can’t start sex ed very early, it just means that what you teach is important.
For example, the first thing kids should be taught is the proper name of all their body parts. Call a penis a penis or a vagina a vagina. It’s also important to teach things like “Let mom and dad know if someone wants to see your penis/vagina”. It’s also important to start the concept of consent early “You don’t have to give a hug or let someone touch you if you don’t want to” and extended to “Ask first before giving a hug, it’s ok if someone doesn’t want a hug.”
As kids get older, you should absolutely be having frank conversations about what sex is. You should further have frank conversations about adults soliciting sex from kids “Jerry Seinfeld was a huge creep that raped a high school teen. That wasn’t ok”.
I don’t know why you thought about kids when the conversation about normalizing sex came about. Are you ok? No one wants to talk to 5 year olds about sex but 15 and 16 year olds should know about it…
Oh because I’m well informed enough to know that when talks about sexual normalization come up there’s always going to be at least a few people that think that means normalizing it for very young children. It may seem obvious to you and I, it’s not to everyone.
Take for example, this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Kentler
Normalizing sex is something that needs at least some nuanced discussion about what that means.
Ironically, you’re fighting against ideas that were not presented by the OP or in the comments;and, in doing so you brought up the topic that you complain about seeing.
I agree with your position, but the OP was talking about in general society.
Obviously there are edge cases (developmentally challenged people are another example) but, in general, treating sexuality as a taboo subject causes a lot of harms that are not necessary.
I’m getting ahead of the argument and laying out what I think is the reasonable position. I’m not really complaining, just want to make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes being sexually open.
Some well meaning people have damaged kids because they try and push sexuality too young from mistaken notions of what it means to remove the taboos of sexuality.
Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development.
Can you elaborate on negative aspects of early sex ed? You only provided the positive examples, and I’m curious now
Oh I think you’ve added an “ed” where I didn’t (and didn’t intend to). Early sex ed is a positive. Early exposure to sex is not. Sex ed isn’t just about sex and there are aspects of it that can (and should) be taught quite young (like I outline above).
IE, you shouldn’t be educating your 5 year old on the finer details of what a blowjob is. You should be working with them on the proper names of their genitals and the difference between good touch and bad touch. Both of those are sex ed that should eventually be taught to everyone before they become adults. However, age matters.
As to the negative consequences of exposure to sex acts. I’ll point you to a page talking about child sexual abuse. Exposure is sexual abuse (and often a precursor to rape).
What do you mean by exposure?
Showing a child porn or having sex while they are around. Those have the most definite negative effects. Stuff that borders that is trickier but, IMO, best avoided.
Do you think drag queen storytime counts as porn that children shouldn’t be exposed to?
No.
A trans woman wearing a dress is not porn.
Okay, because “we shouldn’t give children access to porn” is the exact argument they use against LGBT folks.
Does walking in accidentally count, or is there a minimum time limit?
I ask because some people act like a child accidentally walking in on their parents once ruins them for life.
I’m less sure on if anyone has studied that (for obvious reasons). It would be more of “We are having sex and don’t care if the child can see” sort of thing. The normalizing and exposure of sexual acts with kids is what’s known as “grooming” and it’s what child sexual predators use to coerce kids.
I’m not the original person, but I was interested and did some digging myself, so here’s what I found. I’m primarily citing this paper which seemed to cite a lot of other papers to back up its claims, compared to many others, that just utilized a single survey’s results
The paper specifically mentions education all the way down to the preschool level, whereas many other studies didn’t do anything below middle-high school.
Parents, teachers, families, neighbors and the media all have important roles in the sexual education of children and give children sexual education from birth without even noticing that they are doing so. Studies have confirmed that sexual education is a lifelong process that starts at birth.
This is the key point: Sexual education is already effectively taught in many ways in non-educational settings, often with traditional heterosexual norms instilled. (e.g. general discussion of relationships and attraction, consent, mentions of people “trying to have a baby,” things like that) This is education that the respondents themselves did not consider to exist (the majority said they believed sex education of any form did not begin early in adolescence)
However, most of the general resources I can find around how official sex education curriculum are developed, how parents bring up these topics to their kids, and what kids are actually comfortable with discussing themselves, seems to point to an age-appropriate level of education, based on what they’re likely to encounter at their given age range. (e.g. a very young child may be taught to say no if someone asks to see their privates, whereas a young adult may then be taught how to properly use various forms of contraceptives, with the context of different sex positions, because that’s the age within which they’re most likely to engage in those different positions.)
It seems like the age-adjusted measures work best not because they necessarily bring harm if taught to younger individuals (although there’s significantly lacking data on this specific age range and being taught a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum) but rather that it’s more possible to teach it to students as they get older, because they form a larger body of existing knowledge around the topic from peers/media/family, that provides the context required to be more easily taught, and they become more comfortable discussing such topics as they grow older and have a larger existing understanding of them.
You could try teaching an extremely comprehensive sex ed curriculum to students who are much younger, but they would probably just be too uncomfortable to actually care/pay attention/truly learn, is what the evidence I can find seems to point to.
I hope they reply, but personally I don’t see any reason to keep children ignorant of biology besides our religions making us feel like sex is taboo and unnatural.
Obv we can’t teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren’t at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.
I’m not saying kids shouldn’t be educated on the biology, just that age matters and too young is associated in research with lifelong negative consequences.
Obv we can’t teach these kinds of concepts to children who aren’t at a level yet to handle regular biology classes.
Which I think we agree on. Teaching a 5 year old consent is proper, how sex works is improper. Teaching a 12 year old how sex works is proper, what various sex acts are is improper. Teaching a 16 year old the various sex acts is proper, especially if accompanied by a discussion of STDs, how to prevent them, and how to properly disclose to prior partners you have one.
Sex ed isn’t just one lesson and what can be taught when is a gradient based on age.
You know a sizable portion of teens have sex before the age of 16? Sex ed should basically be complete at age 14, which is approximately when most teens start/are consuming porn and some are starting to be sexually active.
Also, you should definitely start teaching what sex is to 10 year olds. For example, most girls have their first period between 11 and 12 years of age and they should know prior to having one what it means and how to deal with it.
I don’t really disagree. I wasn’t trying to put the ages out as being a hard absolute on what should be taught when. It was more just to layout the progress of how sex ed should be taught as kids grow up.
I wouldn’t say sex ed can be complete by 14. It’s one of those things that I think should be retaught a few times as kids get older. Mainly because 14yo are likely to forget the lessons they learned.
It’s seems pretty easy to understand some diseases can be transmitted, pregnancy exists, and consent is important at ages where you still wouldn’t necessarily be teaching about mitochondria. It’s embarrassing that even knowing basic names of anatomy and that different people have different anatomy is something that some kids still don’t know by like pre-K.
The hardest parts is just the awkwardness of those topics with today’s culture. I don’t remember how old I was, but I remember my mom trying to teach about STDs and pregnancy, and my response was like “just don’t have sex” and her reaction seemed to indicate to me that she disagreed but also didn’t feel comfortable actually saying anything positive about sex and just assumed I’d change my mind once I reached puberty (which was probably not long after). But not being willing to talk about the positive aspects means teaching that these topics are taboo and leads to children being unwilling to talk to parents when they should be (even if just to ask for things like condoms).
Exactly. Normalizing sex is about not making it a taboo, it is not about talking to everyone about it.
There is a huge amount is topics that aren’t taboo & yet we don’t really talk about them much/with just anyone.
Ask first before giving a hug
Yes, please do. I volunteer in a 1st grade class and I’ve had 3 kids just randomly hug me from behind.
Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development.
Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably (qualified because I know of no actual research on the matter; nor do I know of any way such research could be conducted so we will probably have to settle with ‘yes, probably’ as the closest answer to accurate).
If you mean allowing them to be aware of it as something that adults do, and occasionally seeing adults engaged in sexual activity, then no. The behavior of shielding children from both even having knowledge of sex, and witnessing it performed by adults, is relatively new, largely taking hold after the Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy. The modern view of the past is bizarrely anachronistic in that we project prudishness and avoidance of sexuality to a time period centuries before it actually became that way.
Thus, it becomes clear that the avoidance of children being aware of sex existing and happening is a very specific cultural phenomenon that does not paint an accurate picture of actual harm to children, and is based primarily in christian moralizing.
This is a disgusting comment
If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably
There is NO “probably” about it. We have brain scans and decades of research proving it is EXTREMELY HARMFUL to children. There are children who’ve been in sex cults, including in the 70s, who have been interviewed as adults regarding this (to say it profoundly negatively affected them). The most common environmental factor for DID is childhood sexual abuse, and the severity of the DID is usually correlated with the severity of the abuse. Suicide is also extremely common in children with a sexual abuse past, as is heavy substance use in children.
Sexual abuse results in automatic behaviors like bedwetting recurrence after being potty trained, defecating in odd places or playing with feces, masturbating in front of others, dissociation, depersonalization, UTIs and other urinogenital issues… So much so that mandated reporters look for these signs in non-communicating (disabled) kids as signs they’ve been sexually abused to trigger investigations. No one has ever told these kids how to respond to sexual abuse - their bodies automatically do it. It is automatically harmful at a human instinctual level.
It’s 100% absolutely harmful and that has been proved by DECADES of research. I’m disgusted by that sentence, and the fact that you haven’t bothered to research that but researched THIS:
Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy.
Why the FUCK did 14 people up vote this shit, Lemmy?
Go do some fucking reading, you absolute pieces of shit
And OBVIOUSLY we should teach kids age-appropriate sex ed.
For real. Children cannot consent. Period
It’s sad this got downvoted.
Who tf is downvoting this? Why do we have these people here?!
They are pretty common on Lemmy tbh. I think like 4 months ago some guy on here was telling me it was “natural” to be attracted to 14 year olds. He got a bunch of upvotes, like at least 30 iirc. Lemmy is pretty disturbing tbh.
Holy shit I hadn’t even focused on the votes because I have that deactivated but Damm
I knew people in Lemmy had to have some kind of mental issue given the constant calls for murder and violence since losing the election, but Jesus fuck this is a whole nother level
I could be wrong and I apologize if so but it sounds like you are confusing children being aware or witnessing the existence of sex with them being forced or coerced into taking part. Normally when people talk about or so research about child sexual abuse they are talking about the latter and not the former, so just looking up child sexual abuse research wouldn’t be sufficiently specific.
No, I’m not. I quoted the exact part where they said “getting involved,” which was separate from the section about observing. Read it again. They mean children doing sex acts is “probably” harmful. It isn’t PROBABLY harmful, IT IS HARMFUL.
Reread his comment. He says that getting them involved is probably harmful, but that it’s difficult to conduct conclusive studies without doing harm to children.
No, that’s not what he said. And there’s tons of studies.
Ok riddle me this. How can we normalize sex, if women have to walk on egg shells because any sign of platonic affection or romantical availability (in their eyes) will be met with unwanted approaches from certain parties.
What if we only normalise gay sex?
Nice try Italy, we’re not doing ancient Rome again.
well in theory if sex is normalized people won’t be so weird about it.
How about we also normalize men being okay with being told no?
Look, I was trying to come up with some good hearted explanation for men’s behavior (something about not being able to put themselves into womens shoes) because I didn’t want to get downvoted to shit again, but frankly I don’t care anymore.
Because it mostly comes down to women being fucking horrible communicators and having chronic indecisiveness.
Figure your shit out.
women being fucking horrible communicators
That goes for society in general & we can’t pin that on women. Look at autists try to navigate social situations to observe how complicated neurotypicals make something that could be straightforward. Simple, clear directness often takes boldness & isn’t typically rewarded. Learning not to give a fuck takes effort.
Women & people in general don’t know who they’re dealing with & don’t owe them much of anything.
? I’m a Dominatrix, my experience of women and as a woman is that they are excellent communicators (women are actually famously good communicators) and not indecisive (unless you’re trying to be pushy and force them into something they dislike?). Both men and women who are new to exploring their sexuality will not know what they like, but that’s just part of being new to something.
I’ve gone to sex clubs, try it some time. They usually have strict consent rules and staff to help deal with conflicts. Saying No is not usually an issue there, because there’s rules in place for how to approach women and what you must do when they say no.
If a woman isn’t interested in discussing sex with men she doesn’t like, she doesn’t have to. It’s important to have and express boundaries - that’s a key part of healthy sex. That includes a boundary of not talking about sex with men she doesn’t want to.
Don’t you think that a little biased? We can all pick some fring cases from bith sides of the bell curve but thats not in good faith. Businesses like sex clubs kind of depend on clear communication, don’t they? So people who can’t adhere to that naturaly get filtered out.
But if the stakes are lowered, most men’s experience is that women are barely comprehensible.
“What restaurant do you want to go to?”
“Do you know what you’re going to wear tonight?”
“Should we get those curtains, or the other ones?”
“Do you also want fries with your Burger, too?”
“What soap do you think smells better?”
As a side note, recently got a new room mate and on the first evening we randomly chatted about our music taste for 2 hours straight.
I’ll be damned if I even get a favorite genre out of a woman, yet alone a song. It’s insanity. Women don’t even know what they like themselves.It think the main difference is that women like having options just as much as having the actual thing. When pressed to make a decision on the spot they tend to divert. Women tend to make better informed decisions but can’t fully communicate their decision making process, while men like to get the decision out if the way quickly. Men usually don’t like to keep things open because they don’t know when another opportunity is going to arise or if there’s even going to be another one at all.
I know it’s hard to believe but men tend to not get a lot of options when it comes to most things, despite this being a “man’s world”. Businesses love men more because we are so easily replaceable, not because we “know what’s up”. Everywhere in the world men get swallowed, chewed out and spit out, the more so, the more men try to cling to every bit of power they can get. Usually if a man complains about his comfort it’s not because something simply bothers him but because conditions have gotten borderline hell-like. Men aren’t just opportunistic, we make decisions faster because when we are finally presented with one we are in the verge of collapse, so the quickest most simple solution is usually the best in our eyes. I feel like women don’t see that about men. They see the options that men get (that they maybe don’t get themselves) without understanding why this option is there in the first place. Men don"t get opportunities out of the kindess of others hearts, men get get them to keep them mildly contempt.
Do women think that men aren’t scared if other men, and what they might do? Why is fear monopolized by women? Men try to keep themselves happy because who else is going to do all the dirty work that need to be done to keep this rock spinning?
No true scotsman fallacy for women’s sexuality? Lol.
Yes, sex clubs enforce rules regarding consent as best as they can, so someone like you who isn’t used to clear communication could benefit from going and speaking with someone and understanding what that’s like. It could tell you more about yourself.
I will say that most of the same people who play DND, go to Comic Con, Renn Faires, are at sex clubs. They even have DND nights at some sex clubs. DND also gives people an ability to understand consent including with what we discuss, and to be able to have meta discussions and step outside of our egos.
most men’s experience is that women are barely comprehensible
No, that’s just you and some younger and inexperienced men. Women are just people. People are people.
recently got a new room mate and on the first evening we randomly chatted about our music taste for 2 hours straight.
You’re gay. That’s not the fault of women.
Women don’t even know what they like themselves.
Yes, they do. They just don’t tell you because you give off unsafe vibes. They literally don’t trust you so they pretend to not have opinions en masse. Reflect on that.
Some inexperienced sex partners may not know what physical acts they like, but they can generally describe porn or other fantasies they like as a starting point if they trust you.
When pressed to make a decision on the spot they tend to divert.
Yes, if being pressed by another person arbitrarily to make a decision, many people retain their power by refusing to give you an answer. This annoys you so you try to triangulate them with men’s behavior. It’s not that they can’t make a decision, it’s that they are checking your sense of entitlement in demanding one from them in the first place. Why do you get to police women’s decisions? It’s simply that you extend patience to men and don’t rush them, or otherwise you’d be getting these power struggles with them too. You like men. Be honest about it.
The more you say men are victims compared to women, the harder I beat my male subs while laughing maniacally and they thank me. Your opinions on women are wrong. Abortion laws alone, the laws that will make it so married women can’t vote because they had a name change, the laws affecting transwomen, all show we don’t have it easier.
https://weta.org/watch/shows/independent-lens/half-sky-turning-oppression-opportunity-ep-1
Usually if a man complains about his comfort it’s not because something simply bothers him but because conditions have gotten borderline hell-like.
This is an example of being a bad communicator and also being unaware of your boundaries (emotionally or physically unaware and uneducated).
You spend a lot of time assuming you know what women think for someone claiming he’s a man. Are you sure you consider yourself a man? This is all heavy pickme energy, a self hating woman, and it’s just wrong. Like watch Sex and the City or like Sarah Silverman or Sex Lives of College Girls or whatever. There’s a million examples counteracting what you’re saying. So why rabidly stick to this weird, rigid narrative?
Do women think that men aren’t scared if other men, and what they might do?
No. They don’t think that.
Why is fear monopolized by women?
It isn’t
Men try to keep themselves happy because who else is going to do all the dirty work that need to be done to keep this rock spinning?
Women disproportionately are in fields with child rearing, nursing, veterinary work, cleaning, and cooking - very dirty jobs that are necessary. That you dismiss women’s labor as nothing is misogyny.
Also, we ALL are keeping ourselves happy because anything else is codependency and we are mature adults who take care of our own feelings. You’re not entitled to the emotional labor of women. Get a fucking hobby like DND, go to a nerd shop, make friends in your community.
Jesus, talking about proving my point. You just put hundreds of words in my mouth that I never said.
The more you say men are victims compared to women, the harder I beat my male subs while laughing maniacally and they thank me.
That is a fucked up think to say. Imagine being so vurnable to someone only to find out they just use you to exercise their personal misandristic vendaetta with physical violence.
Yes, sex clubs enforce rules regarding consent as best as they can, so someone like you who isn’t used to clear communication could benefit from going and speaking with someone and understanding what that’s like.
Honestly, after your last statement I’m kind of afraid of what kind of explotation masked as “progressiveness” and “self expression” might go on there.
You’re gay. That’s not the fault of women.
The hell kinda statement is that? I’m a tenant in a shared house, I don’t get to pick my room mates. I just try to get along with people and make good conversation. How is it gay if I happen to easily vibe with someone?
Apparently, Its even worse than I thought. Most other men would never judge you on such a statment and simply be happy for you, but there are apperently women that will gladly securitize and mislabel you right of the bat. Is that the inclusiveness you’re trying to sell?
No, that’s just you and some younger and inexperienced men. Women are just people. People are people.
The general conccessus is that younger unexperienced men try harder to understand women because they are under the impression that it will put them in their favor. Older men usually don’t bother anymore. They understand what they have to do to keep the yapping in check and this will mostly be enough till death will do them appart.
child (b)earing, nursing, veterinary work, cleaning, and cooking - very dirty jobs that are necessary
I meant dirty work in the most literal sense. Sewage, trash collection, sanitation, oil rigs, mining quarries, etc. Every Monday morning I catch the trash collector guys in my neighborhood, never in my life have I seen a woman in a neon orange jumper hanging off of a garbage truck. But I’ve seen a whole lot of male nurses, cleaning crews or cooks before. Don’t act like women will gladly pick up all men’s actual dirty jobs if they would be fed up with them.
Like watch Sex and the City or like Sarah Silverman or Sex Lives of College Girls or whatever.
I’ve grown up in the 2000’s of course I’ve seen all the Sex and the Cities and Sarah Silverman (in my opinion) is an one of the all time greats. But maybe we shouldn’t base our view of reality on fictionalized work? What’s next you gonna cite some of your AO3 bookmarks as your sources of knowledge? Come on getthefuckoutahere with that shit.
Also, we ALL are keeping ourselves happy because anything else is codependency and we are mature adults who take care of our own feelings.
No, even fully grown men can find a cool stick on the ground and it will make their whole day. Women need 5 pillars of globalized industry, same day delivery with a free return policy and idealy sombody else to foot the bill to make them be a little bit less annoyed. That’s why men start digging holes at the beach with their bare hands and women use a 10 MP front facing camera in a $1000 phone with a stabilized selfie stick and a 20000mAh powerbank to take vacation pictures.
She literally gets off suffering. Consider her points, and stop talking to her.
Imagine being so vurnable to someone only to find out they just use you to exercise their personal misandristic vendaetta with physical violence.
I’m a Dominatrix. It’s what they seek me out for and pay me to do. It’s what they want. Their boundaries are different than yours.
Honestly, after your last statement I’m kind of afraid of what kind of explotation masked as “progressiveness” and “self expression” might go on there.
Consensual BDSM scares you? I thought we were getting rid of the taboo around sex, no? There are some clubs that are vanilla only.
The only people you find romantic companionship with, per your comments, are men. That makes you homoromantic at minimum. If your sexuality issues weren’t literally causing you to be a misogynist and hurt women, I wouldn’t say anything. But yeah, you like men more because you LIKE men more. Download Grindr and leave women alone.
They understand what they have to do to keep the yapping in check and this will mostly be enough till death will do them appart.
No but here is another paragraph where you edge yourself to how much more amazing men are than women. That’s not a straight man thing to do. Straight men typically compete with other men for women’s approval. YOU, however, are competing with other WOMEN for MEN’S approval.
I meant dirty work in the most literal sense. Sewage, trash collection, sanitation, oil rigs, mining quarries, etc
Sewage - like changing dirty diapers? Cleaning up vomit and blood? Pus from abscesses? Bloody diarrhea, c diff infections? Trash collection, sanitation- like cleaning, yet again? Housekeeping? And I’ve mined, welded, and worked on farms with other women so try again there. The reason women can’t stay in those fields is that they get isolated with men and it endangers them, plus men haze women out of blue collar jobs. Ask any woman in those fields, there’s enough of them online.
Don’t act like women will gladly pick up all men’s actual dirty jobs if they would be fed up with them
Yet again jacking off to men, you can’t stop yourself. Recommend reading the book Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine - yes women can and already do any job men do. Is this like 1805 or something? How is this news to you?
Sarah Silverman (in my opinion) is an one of the all time greats.
She is literally the opposite of everything you claim women must be.
No, even fully grown men can find a cool stick on the ground and it will make their whole day. Women need 5 pillars of globalized industry,
More made up jacking off to men good women bad.
My take? You want to be a submissive woman, and you want a daddy to come in and take care of you and beat you for being a woman because you hate yourself. Everything you type fits that archetype.
Ironically if you were nice to women, they’d show you how to dress up and put on makeup and wigs and include you so you can attract the man of your dreams and stop being shitty to us.
idealy sombody else to foot the bill to make them be a little bit less annoyed.
If you don’t understand why women deserve capital from men, just say that. I already understand you have a slave woman kink to men. You’ve made that abundantly clear.
That’s why men start digging holes at the beach with their bare hands
Lol how are you able to type while sucking off a guys cock and stroking two others? Amazing work
honestly “normalising sex” does sound silly, but i’m for shunning the shitheads.
Some of these comments are way too straight for my gay ass to understand
