Apparently I have a plethora of psychic powers that I've just been too lazy to develop my whole life. Funny world, isn't it?
I apparently have the power to molest children with my thoughts through a photograph. It's strange, but apparently all pedophiles have this power. It's why the government thinks it's so important that pictures of children should never be in the hands of pedophiles. At first, I thought this was only supposed to work if the kid was being molested in the photo, but apparently it works just fine whether the kid has ever been molested or not, and the effect isn't blocked by clothing. Pity it only works on pictures of children, but at least it works long after those children have grown up.
I've also apparently got laser vision. If I look at someone long enough, I'll bore a hole right in their bodies like Superman. Only good explanation I have for the fact that folks work so hard to control which direction I point my eyes. Weirdly, this one apparently has nothing to do with the powers I get from being a pedophile. Apparently all men have this ability.
I hear women get mind reading powers. I think I'd have more use for that in my everyday life than the heat vision.
I do at least get the power to unconsciously and undetectably mind control women and children. It's apparently impossible for either group to refuse to do anything I ask of them. In fact, apparently I don't need to say a word for it to be me controlling their actions.
So, any suggestions on a costume for my new career as a Superhero?
Showing posts with label gender policing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender policing. Show all posts
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Monday, February 18, 2013
Lying About Sexual History
As I mentioned in one of my earliest posts on this blog, I have strong feelings on the importance of informed consent.
It's a fact that people lie to one another about their sexual history. Men stereotypically inflate their numbers, while women stereotypically deflate theirs. This is, of course, a response to the shaming responses both genders get as a part of gender policing, and most of the time the worst harm it does is in the form of failing to challenge that gender policing. I'm in no position to condemn anyone for the choice to avoid confrontations and difficult arguments in their day to day lives given everything I hold back, after all.
That said, a part of being in a relationship is establishing mutual trust, and within any relationship founded on a lie, informed consent is not a possibility. Those convenient lies that make our day to day lives easier need to be put aside, little by little or all at once if the resulting relationship can be said to be legitimate.
This is doubly the case when discussing a marriage. The "I do"s of a wedding vow can be rightly thought of as conditional on everything the couple has told one another up to that point being the truth.
Ah, but what of the situation where you know the other party will judge you for your past? When you're in love and absolutely sure that you were meant to be together? When you're sure that the truth will ruin everything and cause you both to miss out on a wonderful relationship and life together?
In that case, I ask: Why do you want to be in a relationship with someone who's only there because you lied?
First off, that certainty that your partner will judge you, that's you being unfair to the partner by not giving him/her the chance to show what the real reaction will be. You are so afraid of the worst case scenario that you've already assigned that reaction to your partner in your head, and you'll be blaming and resenting him/her for that reaction. That's poison to the relationship.
Second, if your partner rejects you because of your sexual history, that's his/her choice and you have to just accept that. Your partner is a human being with his/her own standards and expectations from the relationship, and just as much right to say "no" as you have. Whatever happily ever after you think you can build on a foundation of lies, that inkling that "what he/she knows can't hurt him/her" is you denying your partner's agency, violating his/her trust, and by far the more abhorrent act than his/her deciding that you shouldn't be together.
When spouses discover things about one another's sexual history years or even decades after the fact that had been deliberately concealed, it doesn't just mean that the long delayed confrontation is now at hand. It means that, but it also means that they have to deal with the fact that their partners lied to them every day of those years or decades they've been together.
This is exactly the same sort of betrayal that one experiences when their spouse has an affair. Trust going forward becomes impossible in light of the extended deception. The vows are every bit as broken as they would be in the case of the affair, because the person they said "I do" about didn't have that incident in their past.
The fact of the matter is that you aren't entitled to either sexual partners nor life partners. You have to have the fully informed consent of another human being for that, and if you can't get it without deception, you go without. Anything else is just another kind of rape.
It's a fact that people lie to one another about their sexual history. Men stereotypically inflate their numbers, while women stereotypically deflate theirs. This is, of course, a response to the shaming responses both genders get as a part of gender policing, and most of the time the worst harm it does is in the form of failing to challenge that gender policing. I'm in no position to condemn anyone for the choice to avoid confrontations and difficult arguments in their day to day lives given everything I hold back, after all.
That said, a part of being in a relationship is establishing mutual trust, and within any relationship founded on a lie, informed consent is not a possibility. Those convenient lies that make our day to day lives easier need to be put aside, little by little or all at once if the resulting relationship can be said to be legitimate.
This is doubly the case when discussing a marriage. The "I do"s of a wedding vow can be rightly thought of as conditional on everything the couple has told one another up to that point being the truth.
Ah, but what of the situation where you know the other party will judge you for your past? When you're in love and absolutely sure that you were meant to be together? When you're sure that the truth will ruin everything and cause you both to miss out on a wonderful relationship and life together?
In that case, I ask: Why do you want to be in a relationship with someone who's only there because you lied?
First off, that certainty that your partner will judge you, that's you being unfair to the partner by not giving him/her the chance to show what the real reaction will be. You are so afraid of the worst case scenario that you've already assigned that reaction to your partner in your head, and you'll be blaming and resenting him/her for that reaction. That's poison to the relationship.
Second, if your partner rejects you because of your sexual history, that's his/her choice and you have to just accept that. Your partner is a human being with his/her own standards and expectations from the relationship, and just as much right to say "no" as you have. Whatever happily ever after you think you can build on a foundation of lies, that inkling that "what he/she knows can't hurt him/her" is you denying your partner's agency, violating his/her trust, and by far the more abhorrent act than his/her deciding that you shouldn't be together.
When spouses discover things about one another's sexual history years or even decades after the fact that had been deliberately concealed, it doesn't just mean that the long delayed confrontation is now at hand. It means that, but it also means that they have to deal with the fact that their partners lied to them every day of those years or decades they've been together.
This is exactly the same sort of betrayal that one experiences when their spouse has an affair. Trust going forward becomes impossible in light of the extended deception. The vows are every bit as broken as they would be in the case of the affair, because the person they said "I do" about didn't have that incident in their past.
The fact of the matter is that you aren't entitled to either sexual partners nor life partners. You have to have the fully informed consent of another human being for that, and if you can't get it without deception, you go without. Anything else is just another kind of rape.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Virgin Shaming
For those of you who missed the introduction, I'm a pedophile. I try to be clear about that fact in my online dealings. I want that fact to be doubly clear in this post, because that context should help make clear the absurdity of what I'm about to discuss.
Women and girls get judged for having sex. The word slut being used as a tool of social pressure is something we're all aware of, but it goes deeper than that. In a thousand different ways, women and girls are told that they become something lesser based on the number of sex partners they've had. This is the classical model of slut shaming and anyone who claims not to have heard of it is lying.
Men and boys get the opposite message. While females are shamed for having sex, males are shamed for not having sex. Every time an implication is made about a male's meager sex life as a way of insulting him, that's reinforcing in him, and in all the males in earshot, the idea that a male only has value proportional to how much sex he's able to have.
I get shamed for not having sex. Read the first sentence of this post again then think about what it means when people who know that I'm a pedophile still use shaming language to insult me for not having sex. That's how extreme this trend is.
And it's not just in the expected "you're only going after little girls because you can't find a woman who'll touch you" idiocy. People have literally called me less of a man for choosing celibacy instead of molesting a child.
More frequently, however, are those who have been informed of my orientation, then forget in the heat of the moment and just reach for their go-to insult. Those types will tend to act appropriately ashamed of themselves when the implications are pointed out to them, but it's telling that this type of insult is such a default that people can make that mistake in the first place.
People who judge others based on how much sex they are having are assholes. Christian conservatives who lambast people who are having too much sex in their opinion are assholes. The "liberated" types who judge people for having too little sex are not only also assholes, but they are the exact same kind of assholes.
I find I'm particularly annoyed when the discussion turns to marriage, since it brings out both kinds of assholes. The conservative asshole who declares everyone who's having premarital sex to be lesser is one I expect in such discussions. But I foolishly expected more from the liberated types.
Instead, they'll always be there responding to the conservative's shaming with shaming of their own. When the conservative issues judgement about matrimonial sex being less special because you haven't been saving yourself, the liberal issues judgement about the sex being awful because you haven't been trying each other out sexually before the commitment.
I think the conservative sex police are getting plenty of blowback for their hateful behavior. I don't think the liberal sex police are getting enough blowback for their hateful behavior. The real mark of maturity in dealing with these issues is not whether you favor more sex or less sex. The mark of maturity is that you're willing to let people make the decisions that are right for them, without judging them when those decisions are different from yours.
Women and girls get judged for having sex. The word slut being used as a tool of social pressure is something we're all aware of, but it goes deeper than that. In a thousand different ways, women and girls are told that they become something lesser based on the number of sex partners they've had. This is the classical model of slut shaming and anyone who claims not to have heard of it is lying.
Men and boys get the opposite message. While females are shamed for having sex, males are shamed for not having sex. Every time an implication is made about a male's meager sex life as a way of insulting him, that's reinforcing in him, and in all the males in earshot, the idea that a male only has value proportional to how much sex he's able to have.
I get shamed for not having sex. Read the first sentence of this post again then think about what it means when people who know that I'm a pedophile still use shaming language to insult me for not having sex. That's how extreme this trend is.
And it's not just in the expected "you're only going after little girls because you can't find a woman who'll touch you" idiocy. People have literally called me less of a man for choosing celibacy instead of molesting a child.
More frequently, however, are those who have been informed of my orientation, then forget in the heat of the moment and just reach for their go-to insult. Those types will tend to act appropriately ashamed of themselves when the implications are pointed out to them, but it's telling that this type of insult is such a default that people can make that mistake in the first place.
People who judge others based on how much sex they are having are assholes. Christian conservatives who lambast people who are having too much sex in their opinion are assholes. The "liberated" types who judge people for having too little sex are not only also assholes, but they are the exact same kind of assholes.
I find I'm particularly annoyed when the discussion turns to marriage, since it brings out both kinds of assholes. The conservative asshole who declares everyone who's having premarital sex to be lesser is one I expect in such discussions. But I foolishly expected more from the liberated types.
Instead, they'll always be there responding to the conservative's shaming with shaming of their own. When the conservative issues judgement about matrimonial sex being less special because you haven't been saving yourself, the liberal issues judgement about the sex being awful because you haven't been trying each other out sexually before the commitment.
I think the conservative sex police are getting plenty of blowback for their hateful behavior. I don't think the liberal sex police are getting enough blowback for their hateful behavior. The real mark of maturity in dealing with these issues is not whether you favor more sex or less sex. The mark of maturity is that you're willing to let people make the decisions that are right for them, without judging them when those decisions are different from yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)