PATREON EXCLUSIVE (Full Video): Why do women think that consent equals morality?
Added 2024-01-15 07:00:03 +0000 UTC
Comments
I agree with most all of what you say here. One thing, though, that I struggle to reconcile without religion is how this is actually morality rather than just guidelines for how to live a good life. We have gone wayyyy too far on all of this, from "it's immoral to do this thing" to "it's not immoral but it's a bad idea" (and the accompanying "it's immoral to think it's immoral") to "it's not a bad idea" (and "it's not your place to have an opinion on whether someone else's choices are a bad idea"), but while the 'not a bad idea' part is clearly wrong even in the absence of religion, the morality part I can't come up with a convincing argument for. I'm not religious anymore, but I still have a sense that being promiscuous is wrong in a way that, say, cutting yourself or being anorexic are not. Both are wrong in bad choices, but the former goes beyond that for me on an intuitive level, but aside from religion, I can't find a convincing explanation for why that is. Perhaps one does not have a moral right to hurt themselves, but I think most people would agree intuitively that there are things people can do to hurt themselves (or are likely to hurt themselves) that are bad ideas or unhealthy, physically or psychologically, but not immoral -- eg running with scissors. The best I can come up with is that promiscuity is harmful to those around you -- society, immediate connections, future partners -- hurting people, even if they consent to be hurt. However, boxing is pretty clearly not immoral (or, I've never heard anyone argue otherwise), and that is also people consenting to hurt each other, potentially quite severely. A possible difference is that in boxing, 'hurting' other people within certain bounds is kind of the point, so everyone is consenting specifically to the hurting, whereas with promiscuity, the pain isn't the point, the pleasure is -- so a person is 'consenting' to pleasure without full awareness of the pain that is being inflicted on them in the process. In other words, it's a predatory contract. I think this makes quite a bit of sense, but I still don't feel completely convinced of it. It's also possible that my conception of this as 'morality' is completely off and just a vestige of my religious upbringing. I realize this is a rather old video, but would be interested in others' thoughts.
voskresenie
2024-06-22 04:17:07 +0000 UTCI’m almost as libertarian as you. Having traditional, religious values doesn’t necessarily mean we believe the state should enforce those.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-01-21 10:44:27 +0000 UTCHaving the freedom to make bad decisions means good choices have all the more merit.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-01-21 10:37:42 +0000 UTCInteresting you recently, I had discussion with a woman…. that was what I wanted to say…. Just kidding, the discussion was about wearing a provocative outfit While everyone can agree that a provocative outfit is not an invitation for assault, by any means But the fact of reality is that if you are wearing a belt with nothing underneath it, and you decide to walk through the dark alleys on the bad side of town… things might happen…. That’s just a fact. It’s like leaving your front door open. In principle, that’s not an invitation to get robbed… but if you get robbed, you know you did kind of leave the front door open… In the face of a reality that you are unable to control, it is up to you to take responsibility for your own life and your actions to better your own situation. It is your responsibility to lock the door. To do the things you can do, to control the outcome. That is no way a justification for that outcome. If you keep getting mugged in that bad part of town, perhaps you should avoid that part of town. Or perhaps you shouldn’t walk around with your expensive watch flashing about Or one of so many other things, where you take responsibility for your life and the outcomes, there in. But lets say that was not recieved well… How dare I equate wearing a short dress to sexual assault in anyway!… thats victim blaming… that is sexist… And some other stuff, which I didn’t really hear, because I immediately regretted saying something… I wasn’t even specifically saying you shouldn’t wear a short dress, but do something in order to protect yourself to take responsibility for your life and the things that happen in it… is that such a crazy concept? I don’t think so Yet I can also understand the principle of the argument. On principle, the address is not an invitation for assault, nor is leaving your door open an invitation for theft. And in principle, it is rough to tell someone who has just been wrong by an external party that they themselves made the mistake. Which is not what I was trying to do. I don’t play the blame game… but I do play the I don’t want this shit to happen again game… I am not a helpless victim, I I’m not a dingy on the great ocean of life, being tossed which ever way the waves and the wind move me. I have paddles, and I can, sometimes with great effort move my boat in the direction I want to go… not always sometimes the forces of nature stronger, but I will try and I will do what I can to take control of my life and not just be a passive observer in my life.
Peter
2024-01-21 07:04:46 +0000 UTCMen as a collective have problems that need to be addressed. Anyone suggesting we address them by restricting women's voting rights sounds like a defeated man. There are constructive and intelligent ways of dealing with these problems. We can start with AWDTSG (Are We Dating The Same Guy). This is a group of women spreading malicious gossip about men. In this group, women are counseling other women on how to make false accusation for personal gain. May I suggest we start exploring solutions to this problem. (1)Is it a problem for licensed or regulated professionals such as doctors, lawyers, therapists, teachers, child protection workers, early childhood educators etc etc to participate in these activities by simply being a member of the group? If so, what should be done about it? (2)Are there any non professional occupations we should be concerned about with regards to women participating in AWDTSG such as news reporters? If so, what should be done about it? (3)If a woman commits a crime that is linked to AWDTSG ideology, what should be done about it? In Canada, crimes linked to Incel ideology are now being ruled as crimes that have amounted to an act of terrorism. Given this recent precedent, how do we start applying it to crimes based on AWDTSG ideology? (4)Many women appear to be relying on AWDSTG to vet men and carry out reprisals in response to men who don’t meet their dating expectations when women are receiving 400 likes a day on dating apps. As men, should we start viewing women’s participation in dating apps in way similar to how women view men’s consumption of pornography? C'mon lads!!! Let’s problem solve these problems in way that leverages the system!
Mark Bryski
2024-01-17 13:57:41 +0000 UTCWithout peace, order, and good (responsible) government, there is chaos and fear. Looters and parasites rely on chaos and fear to achieve personal value. Looters and parasites usually tremble with resentment for peace, order, and good government. Shame is a valuable feeling when a healthy person is exercising one’s own personal moral compass. At its best, it is a personal alarm signaling one is making a choice that is devaluing oneself. At its worst, it is a blind spot in one’s personal psychology making one vulnerable to manipulation by looters and parasites. Especially when one’s mental health is not in order. I see two benefits from public discussion and discourse on morals. First, one can make better choices on improving self-worth when better informed on which behaviours are harmful or beneficial. Second, as a collective, we can make better rules (laws and/or traditions) to achieve the purpose of the collective. When it comes to alcoholics and drug addicts, shaming them does not work. In fact, it is a co-dependent behaviour which devalues both parties. We are powerless over people’s addictions. As individuals with personal choice, detaching with love is usually the highest value choice available to make when dealing with these compulsions. What can be done as a collective? In Canada, as a collective, we do have so called “sin” taxes. Taxes on the purchase of alcohol and tobacco products. At the same time, simple drug possession has been decriminalized. In other words, removed from the criminal code. We also have universal services. Primarily health care. Within organized groups, there can be codes of conduct. Sometimes, codes of conduct include dress codes. As a collective, it is valuable to discuss indicators of success such as national debt, crime rate, life expectancy, birth rate, public health epidemics, etc etc. If birth rates are affected by sexual morality, then, it is only common sense that the collective initiates a discussion on sexual morality. It will be interesting to see how this dynamic evolves.
Mark Bryski
2024-01-15 10:40:38 +0000 UTC
