|
On August 08 2013 07:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:40 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:I'm making assumptions based upon your reply. I explained how the behaviour was predatory and you then replied I'll be doing what is conducive to my happiness, too. <3 The exact same "fuck them, I got mine, who cares if they didn't want it" mentality as the rest of the predators. So yes, I assume you're a predator because you have presented yourself as one. You don't get to then cry "you don't know me!", I know you from your posting, if a mistake was made then it was by you. Unfortunately there is no surgery to make people pass as a decent human being. Instead you need lessons like "don't fuck people who don't wanna fuck" drilled into you by experience. This is what I'm trying to do to you. Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being. I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels. My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now? The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment. I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination. Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Stop painting me as someone afraid of sex with a trans person. I am not. The numbers are a fact. It'd be easier for you if they weren't, but they are, and you know they are and it makes your behaviour inexcusable. There is a colossal imbalance in the information between the parties. Your partner knows that he shares criteria with, for the purpose of argument, 50% of people. You know you have a condition which affects roughly 0.01% of people. This means you are going into this with a 50% chance of violating someone if you do nothing whereas they are going into this with a 0.01% chance of being violated. If you know these numbers (hypothetical, just for the example) and you go "fuck it, that's their problem if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person", you're a predator. You know there is a reasonable chance that your partner does not want this but because you do want it you simply choose not to address that. This isn't a "I shouldn't have to" or a "it's not fair" or anything else. Whining about how you shouldn't have to doesn't chance shit, you're not trying to tick boxes, you're trying to protect the individuals involved from something they do not want. This is a moral obligation. Do you understand that sex with someone who doesn't want sex with you (but doesn't know) is a bad thing? Can you at least get that? You're taking this too personally. I've never said that you, personally, are afraid to have sex with a trans person. If this was personal, I know *I* wouldn't want to have sex with you even if you for some reason wanted to have it with me. I get it if they clarify first. If they already have their mouth on my genitals or their penis in me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they want it. This is the definition of slut shaming.....particularly sinc you keep referencing clubs and places where alcohol and drugs are common.
I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut.
|
United States43907 Posts
On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:
I'm making assumptions based upon your reply. I explained how the behaviour was predatory and you then replied
[quote]
The exact same "fuck them, I got mine, who cares if they didn't want it" mentality as the rest of the predators. So yes, I assume you're a predator because you have presented yourself as one. You don't get to then cry "you don't know me!", I know you from your posting, if a mistake was made then it was by you.
Unfortunately there is no surgery to make people pass as a decent human being. Instead you need lessons like "don't fuck people who don't wanna fuck" drilled into you by experience. This is what I'm trying to do to you. Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being. I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels. My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now? The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment. I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination. Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain.
To people who want sex with cis people a trans person is impersonating a cis person. And it doesn't matter that the trans person is just a person because you don't get to decide someone else's criteria for consent for them. If they don't want to have sex with a trans person and you're a trans person then feel free to explain to them that they're dumb for making the distinction but do not not disclose.
|
On August 08 2013 07:45 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:42 farvacola wrote:On August 08 2013 07:40 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:
I'm making assumptions based upon your reply. I explained how the behaviour was predatory and you then replied
[quote]
The exact same "fuck them, I got mine, who cares if they didn't want it" mentality as the rest of the predators. So yes, I assume you're a predator because you have presented yourself as one. You don't get to then cry "you don't know me!", I know you from your posting, if a mistake was made then it was by you.
Unfortunately there is no surgery to make people pass as a decent human being. Instead you need lessons like "don't fuck people who don't wanna fuck" drilled into you by experience. This is what I'm trying to do to you. Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being. I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels. My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now? The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment. I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination. Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Stop painting me as someone afraid of sex with a trans person. I am not. The numbers are a fact. It'd be easier for you if they weren't, but they are, and you know they are and it makes your behaviour inexcusable. There is a colossal imbalance in the information between the parties. Your partner knows that he shares criteria with, for the purpose of argument, 50% of people. You know you have a condition which affects roughly 0.01% of people. This means you are going into this with a 50% chance of violating someone if you do nothing whereas they are going into this with a 0.01% chance of being violated. If you know these numbers (hypothetical, just for the example) and you go "fuck it, that's their problem if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person", you're a predator. You know there is a reasonable chance that your partner does not want this but because you do want it you simply choose not to address that. This isn't a "I shouldn't have to" or a "it's not fair" or anything else. Whining about how you shouldn't have to doesn't chance shit, you're not trying to tick boxes, you're trying to protect the individuals involved from something they do not want. This is a moral obligation. Do you understand that sex with someone who doesn't want sex with you (but doesn't know) is a bad thing? Can you at least get that? You're taking this too personally. I've never said that you, personally, are afraid to have sex with a trans person. If this was personal, I know *I* wouldn't want to have sex with you even if you for some reason wanted to have it with me. I get it if they clarify first. If they already have their mouth on my genitals or their penis in me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they want it. This is the definition of slut shaming.....particularly sinc you keep referencing clubs and places where alcohol and drugs are common. I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut.
What? That makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense. Please make sense.
|
On August 08 2013 07:45 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:41 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:38 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 07:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:24 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 07:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. thats a little far.... maybe if they asked if you were a trans person and you lied about it. The scenario implies that the trans person is aware that the person does not want to sleep with someone who is transgendered. That's the scenario? That's not where I'm working from. Its not like it matters to you. You don't care if they would have a problem with you being transgender or not. Your just like the guy who can't wait for another night for his date to be sober or doesn't inform the girl that he isn't a member of the band. I do care, but my assumption is that they don't. Stop asking me to assume that each of my partners actually hates me deep down and I'll take this conversation more seriously... maybe. But what if you got the impression they would be uncomfortable. What do you do then? Then I don't have sex with them. I don't ignore cues. I actually do listen to the things people say. And we're supposed to believe you, when you've claimed several times that you don't actually give a crap about their consent criteria and would have sex with them regardless?
I give a crap if they communicate it. I never said otherwise. Twisting and misrepresenting my posts isn't fun.
|
United States43907 Posts
On August 08 2013 07:45 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:42 farvacola wrote:On August 08 2013 07:40 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:
I'm making assumptions based upon your reply. I explained how the behaviour was predatory and you then replied
[quote]
The exact same "fuck them, I got mine, who cares if they didn't want it" mentality as the rest of the predators. So yes, I assume you're a predator because you have presented yourself as one. You don't get to then cry "you don't know me!", I know you from your posting, if a mistake was made then it was by you.
Unfortunately there is no surgery to make people pass as a decent human being. Instead you need lessons like "don't fuck people who don't wanna fuck" drilled into you by experience. This is what I'm trying to do to you. Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being. I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels. My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now? The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment. I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination. Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Stop painting me as someone afraid of sex with a trans person. I am not. The numbers are a fact. It'd be easier for you if they weren't, but they are, and you know they are and it makes your behaviour inexcusable. There is a colossal imbalance in the information between the parties. Your partner knows that he shares criteria with, for the purpose of argument, 50% of people. You know you have a condition which affects roughly 0.01% of people. This means you are going into this with a 50% chance of violating someone if you do nothing whereas they are going into this with a 0.01% chance of being violated. If you know these numbers (hypothetical, just for the example) and you go "fuck it, that's their problem if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person", you're a predator. You know there is a reasonable chance that your partner does not want this but because you do want it you simply choose not to address that. This isn't a "I shouldn't have to" or a "it's not fair" or anything else. Whining about how you shouldn't have to doesn't chance shit, you're not trying to tick boxes, you're trying to protect the individuals involved from something they do not want. This is a moral obligation. Do you understand that sex with someone who doesn't want sex with you (but doesn't know) is a bad thing? Can you at least get that? You're taking this too personally. I've never said that you, personally, are afraid to have sex with a trans person. If this was personal, I know *I* wouldn't want to have sex with you even if you for some reason wanted to have it with me. I get it if they clarify first. If they already have their mouth on my genitals or their penis in me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they want it. This is the definition of slut shaming.....particularly sinc you keep referencing clubs and places where alcohol and drugs are common. I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut.
I'm a very sex positive feminist and have absolutely no issue with sluts. I love sluts, sluttiness and all things positive and sexual. You, however, are a predator. Not because I think your behaviour is slutty but because of your cavalier attitude to whether or not they want to have sex with you.
|
On August 08 2013 07:45 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:42 farvacola wrote:On August 08 2013 07:40 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:
I'm making assumptions based upon your reply. I explained how the behaviour was predatory and you then replied
[quote]
The exact same "fuck them, I got mine, who cares if they didn't want it" mentality as the rest of the predators. So yes, I assume you're a predator because you have presented yourself as one. You don't get to then cry "you don't know me!", I know you from your posting, if a mistake was made then it was by you.
Unfortunately there is no surgery to make people pass as a decent human being. Instead you need lessons like "don't fuck people who don't wanna fuck" drilled into you by experience. This is what I'm trying to do to you. Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being. I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels. My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now? The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment. I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination. Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Stop painting me as someone afraid of sex with a trans person. I am not. The numbers are a fact. It'd be easier for you if they weren't, but they are, and you know they are and it makes your behaviour inexcusable. There is a colossal imbalance in the information between the parties. Your partner knows that he shares criteria with, for the purpose of argument, 50% of people. You know you have a condition which affects roughly 0.01% of people. This means you are going into this with a 50% chance of violating someone if you do nothing whereas they are going into this with a 0.01% chance of being violated. If you know these numbers (hypothetical, just for the example) and you go "fuck it, that's their problem if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person", you're a predator. You know there is a reasonable chance that your partner does not want this but because you do want it you simply choose not to address that. This isn't a "I shouldn't have to" or a "it's not fair" or anything else. Whining about how you shouldn't have to doesn't chance shit, you're not trying to tick boxes, you're trying to protect the individuals involved from something they do not want. This is a moral obligation. Do you understand that sex with someone who doesn't want sex with you (but doesn't know) is a bad thing? Can you at least get that? You're taking this too personally. I've never said that you, personally, are afraid to have sex with a trans person. If this was personal, I know *I* wouldn't want to have sex with you even if you for some reason wanted to have it with me. I get it if they clarify first. If they already have their mouth on my genitals or their penis in me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they want it. This is the definition of slut shaming.....particularly sinc you keep referencing clubs and places where alcohol and drugs are common. I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut.
Well we aren't really shaming you. We just think your a bad person who doesn't care if they hurt someone as long as you get what you want. And you have stated it several times too.
|
On August 08 2013 07:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being.
I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels.
My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now?
The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment.
I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination.
Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain. To people who want sex with cis people a trans person is impersonating a cis person. And it doesn't matter that the trans person is just a person because you don't get to decide someone else's criteria for consent for them. If they don't want to have sex with a trans person and you're a trans person then feel free to explain to them that they're dumb for making the distinction but do not not disclose.
How are they impersonating a cis person?
|
On August 08 2013 07:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:45 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:42 farvacola wrote:On August 08 2013 07:40 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being.
I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels.
My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now?
The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment.
I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination.
Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Stop painting me as someone afraid of sex with a trans person. I am not. The numbers are a fact. It'd be easier for you if they weren't, but they are, and you know they are and it makes your behaviour inexcusable. There is a colossal imbalance in the information between the parties. Your partner knows that he shares criteria with, for the purpose of argument, 50% of people. You know you have a condition which affects roughly 0.01% of people. This means you are going into this with a 50% chance of violating someone if you do nothing whereas they are going into this with a 0.01% chance of being violated. If you know these numbers (hypothetical, just for the example) and you go "fuck it, that's their problem if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person", you're a predator. You know there is a reasonable chance that your partner does not want this but because you do want it you simply choose not to address that. This isn't a "I shouldn't have to" or a "it's not fair" or anything else. Whining about how you shouldn't have to doesn't chance shit, you're not trying to tick boxes, you're trying to protect the individuals involved from something they do not want. This is a moral obligation. Do you understand that sex with someone who doesn't want sex with you (but doesn't know) is a bad thing? Can you at least get that? You're taking this too personally. I've never said that you, personally, are afraid to have sex with a trans person. If this was personal, I know *I* wouldn't want to have sex with you even if you for some reason wanted to have it with me. I get it if they clarify first. If they already have their mouth on my genitals or their penis in me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they want it. This is the definition of slut shaming.....particularly sinc you keep referencing clubs and places where alcohol and drugs are common. I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut. What? That makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense. Please make sense.
It makes sense because all I do is enjoy my sexuality by the same standards and practices reasonably assumable as everyone else, but I'm in the wrong for doing so.
|
United States43907 Posts
On August 08 2013 07:46 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:45 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:41 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:38 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 07:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:24 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 07:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. thats a little far.... maybe if they asked if you were a trans person and you lied about it. The scenario implies that the trans person is aware that the person does not want to sleep with someone who is transgendered. That's the scenario? That's not where I'm working from. Its not like it matters to you. You don't care if they would have a problem with you being transgender or not. Your just like the guy who can't wait for another night for his date to be sober or doesn't inform the girl that he isn't a member of the band. I do care, but my assumption is that they don't. Stop asking me to assume that each of my partners actually hates me deep down and I'll take this conversation more seriously... maybe. But what if you got the impression they would be uncomfortable. What do you do then? Then I don't have sex with them. I don't ignore cues. I actually do listen to the things people say. And we're supposed to believe you, when you've claimed several times that you don't actually give a crap about their consent criteria and would have sex with them regardless? I give a crap if they communicate it. I never said otherwise. Twisting and misrepresenting my posts isn't fun.
A large number of people do care about it. Saying "well statistically there was a good chance he did but he didn't actually explicitly state it" is exactly the kind of ticking the boxes and giving no fucks about actual consent attitude that makes you a predator. It's not about getting away with it, it's about making sure the person you're fucking wants to fuck.
|
On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:
I'm making assumptions based upon your reply. I explained how the behaviour was predatory and you then replied
[quote]
The exact same "fuck them, I got mine, who cares if they didn't want it" mentality as the rest of the predators. So yes, I assume you're a predator because you have presented yourself as one. You don't get to then cry "you don't know me!", I know you from your posting, if a mistake was made then it was by you.
Unfortunately there is no surgery to make people pass as a decent human being. Instead you need lessons like "don't fuck people who don't wanna fuck" drilled into you by experience. This is what I'm trying to do to you. Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being. I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels. My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now? The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment. I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination. Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain.
You may as well read the last 20 or so pages where all of this was discussed. Several good analogies were made, too.
If you take advantage of the fact that someone thinks you're a cis woman and would not have sex with a trans woman, then, in principle, it's not far from rape by impersonation.
|
On August 08 2013 07:48 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:46 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:45 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:42 farvacola wrote:On August 08 2013 07:40 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care.
It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Stop painting me as someone afraid of sex with a trans person. I am not. The numbers are a fact. It'd be easier for you if they weren't, but they are, and you know they are and it makes your behaviour inexcusable. There is a colossal imbalance in the information between the parties. Your partner knows that he shares criteria with, for the purpose of argument, 50% of people. You know you have a condition which affects roughly 0.01% of people. This means you are going into this with a 50% chance of violating someone if you do nothing whereas they are going into this with a 0.01% chance of being violated. If you know these numbers (hypothetical, just for the example) and you go "fuck it, that's their problem if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person", you're a predator. You know there is a reasonable chance that your partner does not want this but because you do want it you simply choose not to address that. This isn't a "I shouldn't have to" or a "it's not fair" or anything else. Whining about how you shouldn't have to doesn't chance shit, you're not trying to tick boxes, you're trying to protect the individuals involved from something they do not want. This is a moral obligation. Do you understand that sex with someone who doesn't want sex with you (but doesn't know) is a bad thing? Can you at least get that? You're taking this too personally. I've never said that you, personally, are afraid to have sex with a trans person. If this was personal, I know *I* wouldn't want to have sex with you even if you for some reason wanted to have it with me. I get it if they clarify first. If they already have their mouth on my genitals or their penis in me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they want it. This is the definition of slut shaming.....particularly sinc you keep referencing clubs and places where alcohol and drugs are common. I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut. What? That makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense. Please make sense. It makes sense because all I do is enjoy my sexuality by the same standards and practices reasonably assumable as everyone else, but I'm in the wrong for doing so.
They're calling you a predator. Not a slut. The distinction is so wide that I don't even know how they could be confused with each other.
|
United States43907 Posts
On August 08 2013 07:47 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care.
It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain. To people who want sex with cis people a trans person is impersonating a cis person. And it doesn't matter that the trans person is just a person because you don't get to decide someone else's criteria for consent for them. If they don't want to have sex with a trans person and you're a trans person then feel free to explain to them that they're dumb for making the distinction but do not not disclose. How are they impersonating a cis person?
Because 99.99% of people are cis. People are not seen as possibly trans, probably cis. They're just seen as cis.
|
United States43907 Posts
On August 08 2013 07:48 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:46 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:45 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:42 farvacola wrote:On August 08 2013 07:40 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care.
It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Stop painting me as someone afraid of sex with a trans person. I am not. The numbers are a fact. It'd be easier for you if they weren't, but they are, and you know they are and it makes your behaviour inexcusable. There is a colossal imbalance in the information between the parties. Your partner knows that he shares criteria with, for the purpose of argument, 50% of people. You know you have a condition which affects roughly 0.01% of people. This means you are going into this with a 50% chance of violating someone if you do nothing whereas they are going into this with a 0.01% chance of being violated. If you know these numbers (hypothetical, just for the example) and you go "fuck it, that's their problem if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person", you're a predator. You know there is a reasonable chance that your partner does not want this but because you do want it you simply choose not to address that. This isn't a "I shouldn't have to" or a "it's not fair" or anything else. Whining about how you shouldn't have to doesn't chance shit, you're not trying to tick boxes, you're trying to protect the individuals involved from something they do not want. This is a moral obligation. Do you understand that sex with someone who doesn't want sex with you (but doesn't know) is a bad thing? Can you at least get that? You're taking this too personally. I've never said that you, personally, are afraid to have sex with a trans person. If this was personal, I know *I* wouldn't want to have sex with you even if you for some reason wanted to have it with me. I get it if they clarify first. If they already have their mouth on my genitals or their penis in me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they want it. This is the definition of slut shaming.....particularly sinc you keep referencing clubs and places where alcohol and drugs are common. I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut. What? That makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense. Please make sense. It makes sense because all I do is enjoy my sexuality by the same standards and practices reasonably assumable as everyone else, but I'm in the wrong for doing so.
No. The standard I hold you to is universal. It's a standard I have built from fetish scenes in which predators are pretty common and do an awful lot of very rapey stuff. If you suspect the other person doesn't want you to do X then you check. If they're really headspaced and you have reason to doubt their answer then you ignore their yes and stop the scene anyway. You protect your partner.
You are in the wrong for doing it because you are acting like being trans isn't a big deal when to a lot of people it is. Those people still have rights. You can want to be cis all you want but you are not and never will be and for those people, that is an issue. You are in the wrong for having a predatory approach to those people. You lost the birth lottery, you were born trans and that sucks for you but that does not give you the right to go "if I wasn't trans this behaviour would be fine therefore it's fine". Those people have rights and you need to understand that and respect them.
|
On August 08 2013 07:37 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:36 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:I'm making assumptions based upon your reply. I explained how the behaviour was predatory and you then replied I'll be doing what is conducive to my happiness, too. <3 The exact same "fuck them, I got mine, who cares if they didn't want it" mentality as the rest of the predators. So yes, I assume you're a predator because you have presented yourself as one. You don't get to then cry "you don't know me!", I know you from your posting, if a mistake was made then it was by you. Unfortunately there is no surgery to make people pass as a decent human being. Instead you need lessons like "don't fuck people who don't wanna fuck" drilled into you by experience. This is what I'm trying to do to you. Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being. I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels. My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now? The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment. I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination. Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... well no. in that situation they are strangers Or, in other words, not disclosing information upon which the consent hinges...
i dont think you can just equate rape by impersonation with not disclosing information upon which the consent may or may not hinge (even if it is reasonable to assume that it does) because one of them has intentional misleading.
also i wasn't saying that they were right i was just saying that you were wrong.
|
On August 08 2013 07:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain. To people who want sex with cis people a trans person is impersonating a cis person. And it doesn't matter that the trans person is just a person because you don't get to decide someone else's criteria for consent for them. If they don't want to have sex with a trans person and you're a trans person then feel free to explain to them that they're dumb for making the distinction but do not not disclose. How are they impersonating a cis person? Because 99.99% of people are cis. People are not seen as possibly trans, probably cis. They're just seen as cis.
But they aren't impersonating someone different than themselves. It's obviously not the same thing.
|
United States43907 Posts
On August 08 2013 07:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:49 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain. To people who want sex with cis people a trans person is impersonating a cis person. And it doesn't matter that the trans person is just a person because you don't get to decide someone else's criteria for consent for them. If they don't want to have sex with a trans person and you're a trans person then feel free to explain to them that they're dumb for making the distinction but do not not disclose. How are they impersonating a cis person? Because 99.99% of people are cis. People are not seen as possibly trans, probably cis. They're just seen as cis. But they aren't impersonating someone different than themselves. It's obviously not the same thing.
Yes, and yet the other person assumes they are cis because 99.99% of people are cis. The other person got it wrong, they made an incorrect assumption and they don't know it. The trans person knows though, they know that the other person is assuming they're something they're not, and they choose to not disclose. It's impersonation.
|
On August 08 2013 07:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:55 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:49 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me.
I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing.
I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups.
The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups.
"Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense."
My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain. To people who want sex with cis people a trans person is impersonating a cis person. And it doesn't matter that the trans person is just a person because you don't get to decide someone else's criteria for consent for them. If they don't want to have sex with a trans person and you're a trans person then feel free to explain to them that they're dumb for making the distinction but do not not disclose. How are they impersonating a cis person? Because 99.99% of people are cis. People are not seen as possibly trans, probably cis. They're just seen as cis. But they aren't impersonating someone different than themselves. It's obviously not the same thing. Yes, and yet the other person assumes they are cis because 99.99% of people are cis. The other person got it wrong, they made an incorrect assumption and they don't know it. The trans person knows though, they know that the other person is assuming they're something they're not, and they choose to not disclose. It's impersonation.
But it's not like the person is different before and after you tell them. It's still the same person.
It's not like "Hi I'm George, let's have sex. *ugly bump* I'm actually FRED! Bwahaha!" That's impersonation. You're pretending to be another person.
It's more like "Hi I'm George, let's have sex. *ugly bump* I used to be GEORGIA! Still George, though."
|
On August 08 2013 07:54 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:37 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:11 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:
I'm making assumptions based upon your reply. I explained how the behaviour was predatory and you then replied
[quote]
The exact same "fuck them, I got mine, who cares if they didn't want it" mentality as the rest of the predators. So yes, I assume you're a predator because you have presented yourself as one. You don't get to then cry "you don't know me!", I know you from your posting, if a mistake was made then it was by you.
Unfortunately there is no surgery to make people pass as a decent human being. Instead you need lessons like "don't fuck people who don't wanna fuck" drilled into you by experience. This is what I'm trying to do to you. Now you're suggesting an even more general concept of me not being a decent human being. I'm sorry that your interpretation of reality isn't quite secure enough that you need to shore it up with ever-more grandiose negative labels. My stance is that I refuse to be responsible for someone else's unrealities. Prejudice and bigotry are learned behaviors. Oddly enough, the common consensus is that prejudiced and bigoted person's feelings "should" (that magic word) be respected. Are prejudiced and bigoted people more qualifying as "decent human beings" than I am now? The reality in the discussed topic is that someone enjoys a very real experience with someone else. However, the unreality of their learned prejudices and fears has so much more importance placed upon it that it can override and negate that enjoyment. I am a predator because I prefer reality over imagination. Cool. I can live with that. See, this is it. This is why you're a predator. It's not that you don't know other people can have preferences which impact their consent with you, you simply think you know better, you just don't care. It doesn't matter whether they're afraid that you're a man any more than it would matter if they were afraid you were a bear, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you then you don't get to make their decision for them. It's that fucking simple. You're a predator. Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... well no. in that situation they are strangers Or, in other words, not disclosing information upon which the consent hinges... i dont think you can just equate rape by impersonation with not disclosing information upon which the consent may or may not hinge (even if it is reasonable to assume that it does) because one of them has intentional misleading. also i wasn't saying that they were right i was just saying that you were wrong.
I am not equating them. That's why I said the same line of defense can be used for both. I did not say they are the same. But they are similar. One could argue that transsexual women doing everything to make themselves as indistinguishable from cis women is misleading. If the transsexual person is aware of the fact that many/most people would not want to have sex with them and does not disclose that piece of information, then that could be considered intentional misleading.
Anyway, the rape by impersonation also relies of assumptions. It's not clear whether they wouldn't have had sex with you, had they known. It's only assumed to be true. Maybe they were just attracted to you? After all, they consented, right?
On August 08 2013 08:01 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:57 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:55 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:49 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain. To people who want sex with cis people a trans person is impersonating a cis person. And it doesn't matter that the trans person is just a person because you don't get to decide someone else's criteria for consent for them. If they don't want to have sex with a trans person and you're a trans person then feel free to explain to them that they're dumb for making the distinction but do not not disclose. How are they impersonating a cis person? Because 99.99% of people are cis. People are not seen as possibly trans, probably cis. They're just seen as cis. But they aren't impersonating someone different than themselves. It's obviously not the same thing. Yes, and yet the other person assumes they are cis because 99.99% of people are cis. The other person got it wrong, they made an incorrect assumption and they don't know it. The trans person knows though, they know that the other person is assuming they're something they're not, and they choose to not disclose. It's impersonation. But it's not like the person is different before and after you tell them. It's still the same person. It's not like "Hi I'm George, let's have sex. *ugly bump* I'm actually FRED! Bwahaha!" That's impersonation. You're pretending to be another person. It's more like "Hi I'm George, let's have sex. *ugly bump* I used to be GEORGIA!"
Hence "analogy". They are not exactly the same. The principle is very similar, however, if not the same.
|
United States43907 Posts
On August 08 2013 08:01 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:57 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:55 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:49 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
Same reasoning can be applied to defend rape by impersonation... I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain. To people who want sex with cis people a trans person is impersonating a cis person. And it doesn't matter that the trans person is just a person because you don't get to decide someone else's criteria for consent for them. If they don't want to have sex with a trans person and you're a trans person then feel free to explain to them that they're dumb for making the distinction but do not not disclose. How are they impersonating a cis person? Because 99.99% of people are cis. People are not seen as possibly trans, probably cis. They're just seen as cis. But they aren't impersonating someone different than themselves. It's obviously not the same thing. Yes, and yet the other person assumes they are cis because 99.99% of people are cis. The other person got it wrong, they made an incorrect assumption and they don't know it. The trans person knows though, they know that the other person is assuming they're something they're not, and they choose to not disclose. It's impersonation. But it's not like the person is different before and after you tell them. It's still the same person. It's not like "Hi I'm George, let's have sex. *ugly bump* I'm actually FRED! Bwahaha!" That's impersonation. You're pretending to be another person. It's more like "Hi I'm George, let's have sex. *ugly bump* I used to be Georgia, by the way."
Again, the person assuming George was always George is getting it wrong, they are making a false assumption which is in no way the fault of the trans person.
However the trans person is aware this is happening (assuming they didn't meet in a trans bar) and then actively chooses not to correct them. At this point it's impersonation. The same way that if the twin was walking down the street and his brother's wife approached him he might not explicitly claim to be his brother but he knows that she's assuming he is.
|
On August 08 2013 08:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 08:01 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:57 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:55 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:49 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:On August 08 2013 07:37 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I fail to see the relation. "I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups" does not apply to rape by impersonation... It's pretty simple. How could you potentially know that they would not consent to have sex with you, had they known that you were not the person you seemed to be? It's only a reasonable assumption, right? Uhh... what? That's not what rape by impersonation is. What exactly do you mean "not the person you seemed to be"? How is the trans-person not the person they seemed to be? I don't understand. Please explain. To people who want sex with cis people a trans person is impersonating a cis person. And it doesn't matter that the trans person is just a person because you don't get to decide someone else's criteria for consent for them. If they don't want to have sex with a trans person and you're a trans person then feel free to explain to them that they're dumb for making the distinction but do not not disclose. How are they impersonating a cis person? Because 99.99% of people are cis. People are not seen as possibly trans, probably cis. They're just seen as cis. But they aren't impersonating someone different than themselves. It's obviously not the same thing. Yes, and yet the other person assumes they are cis because 99.99% of people are cis. The other person got it wrong, they made an incorrect assumption and they don't know it. The trans person knows though, they know that the other person is assuming they're something they're not, and they choose to not disclose. It's impersonation. But it's not like the person is different before and after you tell them. It's still the same person. It's not like "Hi I'm George, let's have sex. *ugly bump* I'm actually FRED! Bwahaha!" That's impersonation. You're pretending to be another person. It's more like "Hi I'm George, let's have sex. *ugly bump* I used to be Georgia, by the way." Again, the person assuming George was always George is getting it wrong, they are making a false assumption which is in no way the fault of the trans person. However the trans person is aware this is happening (assuming they didn't meet in a trans bar) and then actively chooses not to correct them. At this point it's impersonation. The same way that if the twin was walking down the street and his brother's wife approached him he might not explicitly claim to be his brother but he knows that she's assuming he is.
Fred and George are twins from Harry Potter. That's exactly the distinction I was making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
