It’s one thing to argue that non-consensual celibacy is painful; that’s a fact that’s often neglected when talking about sexual dynamics. It’s another to frame the issue as a situation entirely perpetuated by women who are resisting for trivial reasons. That casts women as malicious, when that’s not a universal or common case.
Like NancyLebowitz said, why is it acceptable to leave out the costs that women face in this dynamic?
If your point is that some sexual assaults are the product of desperation and tragedy, I agree. That doesn’t make them acceptable, and you seem like you’re implying that.
I’m not really sure what you’re hoping to accomplish here. The fable isn’t framed in a way that accurately represents reality. The sympathetic arguments you’re making could be made without euphemism. The story falsely equivocates refusing sex as maliciously refusing to save someone’s life.
If you’re hurting, I’m sorry. I have sympathy for people who are unable to be sexually active and have few or no solutions. This, however, is bad framing at best, and harmful at worst.
I’m not really sure what you’re hoping to accomplish here. The fable isn’t framed in a way that accurately represents reality. The sympathetic arguments you’re making could be made without euphemism. The story falsely equivocates refusing sex as maliciously refusing to save someone’s life.
Given that the author has, in other comments, mentioned suicidal tendencies… I’d suggest the equivalence might be real to them.
Shrug I dunno. I find this poorly written, and poorly thought out, and fails to touch much at all in me; granted, my moments of compassion are few and far between.
But the hostile response is disproportionate to what was actually written, to the point where I must conclude that this piece has successfully made its readers feel deeply uncomfortable, and the hostility is a rationalization to cover that discomfort.
That’s fair, I suppose. I do feel accused of callously ignoring a population of people for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. I think my criticisms stand, but I guess I could have been kinder.
I want to engage and think about this more, but I’m not sure I can have this conversation without feeling hostile.
Which is why the anti-politics rule exists, I think. Because most people can’t disengage enough. The downvotes are perfectly fair, otherwise any authentic-enough political crying fit would be a heckler’s veto on the anti-politics rule, which would just become politics by another name as people tried to decide what qualified as authentic.
But people should view stuff like this as… exercises in recognizing and overcoming their biases. Not excuses to attack wrongthought.
It’s another to frame the issue as a situation entirely perpetuated by women who are resisting for trivial reasons. That casts women as malicious, when that’s not a universal or common case.
I agree that refusing sex is not malicious. However, these things could be interpreted as malicious—slut shaming, anti prostitution, anti pornography. A lot of that comes from women.
If a woman refuses to have a sex with a “sexually starved man”, that’s perfectly okay. It’s just not okay if she also goes on a political crusade trying to prevent him from getting sex or some sex-substitute by other means. For example if she writes an article about the danger of sexbots—that I would classify as malicious. It’s no longer “I don’t want to be involved in solving this person’s problem”, but it’s “I prefer that person to suffer”. Yet this hostile behavior is often accepted in our society, and often encouraged.
If there are means by which a sex-starved person can get sex, that don’t infringe on anyone’s agency...and that means is still maligned? I think there’s a strong case for its critics being malicious (or at best, severely misguided).
It’s one thing to argue that non-consensual celibacy is painful; that’s a fact that’s often neglected when talking about sexual dynamics. It’s another to frame the issue as a situation entirely perpetuated by women who are resisting for trivial reasons. That casts women as malicious, when that’s not a universal or common case.
Like NancyLebowitz said, why is it acceptable to leave out the costs that women face in this dynamic?
If your point is that some sexual assaults are the product of desperation and tragedy, I agree. That doesn’t make them acceptable, and you seem like you’re implying that.
I’m not really sure what you’re hoping to accomplish here. The fable isn’t framed in a way that accurately represents reality. The sympathetic arguments you’re making could be made without euphemism. The story falsely equivocates refusing sex as maliciously refusing to save someone’s life.
If you’re hurting, I’m sorry. I have sympathy for people who are unable to be sexually active and have few or no solutions. This, however, is bad framing at best, and harmful at worst.
Given that the author has, in other comments, mentioned suicidal tendencies… I’d suggest the equivalence might be real to them.
Shrug I dunno. I find this poorly written, and poorly thought out, and fails to touch much at all in me; granted, my moments of compassion are few and far between.
But the hostile response is disproportionate to what was actually written, to the point where I must conclude that this piece has successfully made its readers feel deeply uncomfortable, and the hostility is a rationalization to cover that discomfort.
That’s fair, I suppose. I do feel accused of callously ignoring a population of people for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. I think my criticisms stand, but I guess I could have been kinder.
I want to engage and think about this more, but I’m not sure I can have this conversation without feeling hostile.
Which is why the anti-politics rule exists, I think. Because most people can’t disengage enough. The downvotes are perfectly fair, otherwise any authentic-enough political crying fit would be a heckler’s veto on the anti-politics rule, which would just become politics by another name as people tried to decide what qualified as authentic.
But people should view stuff like this as… exercises in recognizing and overcoming their biases. Not excuses to attack wrongthought.
You make good points. I’m not going to redact, because I don’t think I’m incorrect, but I’m tapping out of this thread.
I agree that refusing sex is not malicious. However, these things could be interpreted as malicious—slut shaming, anti prostitution, anti pornography. A lot of that comes from women.
If a woman refuses to have a sex with a “sexually starved man”, that’s perfectly okay. It’s just not okay if she also goes on a political crusade trying to prevent him from getting sex or some sex-substitute by other means. For example if she writes an article about the danger of sexbots—that I would classify as malicious. It’s no longer “I don’t want to be involved in solving this person’s problem”, but it’s “I prefer that person to suffer”. Yet this hostile behavior is often accepted in our society, and often encouraged.
Yes, thank you. I agree with all of that.
If there are means by which a sex-starved person can get sex, that don’t infringe on anyone’s agency...and that means is still maligned? I think there’s a strong case for its critics being malicious (or at best, severely misguided).