Kulturkampf

[HaughtyFrank]

I’m normally all in on this whole line of argument, but it sort of elides that this girl was 19 year old homeless goofball dumdum, and not like…a sane adult with a normal job. Plus the other story of detail is him humping on his indentured servant lol.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

also die gaiman die!

I'd absolutely say that he took advantage of her, but there is something weird about "when I gave consent I didn't actually give consent" that feels like a bad road to go down. Like can't quite put my finger on it because I do think she was a victim here.

[Nintex]

Today I leaned that you can say "It was consensual (and wonderful)!” and still accuse the person of not having consent.

The new minefield is revoking consent days, weeks or months after giving consent.

At the time I gave consent but now I don't anymore so you are retroactively at fault.

[benji]

The new minefield is revoking consent days, weeks or months after giving consent.

At the time I gave consent but now I don't anymore so you are retroactively at fault.

Yet I try to revoke "implied" consent (aka they threaten to kill me) from the state and they're all "you can't! Social contract you never agreed to in the first place!"

[benji]

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

The parents biggest crime? Not smothering him with a pillow.

[DavidCroquet]

I’m normally all in on this whole line of argument, but it sort of elides that this girl was 19 year old homeless goofball dumdum, and not like…a sane adult with a normal job. Plus the other story of detail is him humping on his indentured servant lol.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

also die gaiman die!

I'd absolutely say that he took advantage of her, but there is something weird about "when I gave consent I didn't actually give consent" that feels like a bad road to go down. Like can't quite put my finger on it because I do think she was a victim here.

The new minefield is revoking consent days, weeks or months after giving consent.

At the time I gave consent but now I don't anymore so you are retroactively at fault.

To carepost: I read the article less as Scarletttt “revoking” consent, and more like she granted it post-facto.

The quote about consensual and wonderful that’s being hammered on isn’t contemporaneous, so IMO it kinda means nothing either way. Like, imagine a non-sexual context: a goon is gonna sell out the godfather cuz he just wants to live a straight life with his old lady. Then the don calls em up and says “vinny, a little birdie tells me you are gonna inform on me.” “nah boss, yous heard wrong. All these crimes was consensual (and wonderful!)”

Obviously Gaiman wasn’t gonna make cement slippers for this girl, but he is still a rich AF and very weird guy who surprised her with knowledge of conversations she was having that didn’t involve him. I just think it’s as likely as anything that a refugee from Tilda Swinton’s Academie du Pixie Manique would respond the way she did in this scenario.

[benji]

I want to say that my like for Nintex's post was the general idea, not any specific situation and I didn't read any of this Gaiman stuff. This would tie into if we also get into the standard "they shouldn't have to relive their trauma or produce evidence." Due process is important and too many people are willing to immediately eliminate it for no good reason.

In my opinion if Gaiman was an abuser it must have started after The Sandman to parallel the continued decline in his work from there. The advantage of this opinion is its airtight perfection of evidence and not because it happenstance fits with my opinion of his work. Sandman Mystery Theatre and Lucifer are better than the original anyway, and the best part of Miracleman is Moore's. Again, not that Neil Gaiman was abusing anyone while writing The Sandman just that it seems more likely he was abusing people while Matt Wagner and Mike Carey were writing Mystery Theatre and Lucifer.

[Nintex]

Yep my post wasn't related to gaiman.

Only one way to protect yourself legally, start a paki groomer gang.

[Eric Cartman]

I’m normally all in on this whole line of argument, but it sort of elides that this girl was 19 year old homeless goofball dumdum, and not like…a sane adult with a normal job. Plus the other story of detail is him humping on his indentured servant lol.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

also die gaiman die!

I'd absolutely say that he took advantage of her, but there is something weird about "when I gave consent I didn't actually give consent" that feels like a bad road to go down. Like can't quite put my finger on it because I do think she was a victim here.

Its an interesting article (I read the whole thing, not just the excerpts) and I think the two most salient points raised are:

1. Why is it there is an all or nothing divide between "Bad relationship, oh well" and "Basically rape"?
   
2. If women can't take accountability for their own actions or complicity in being in a bad situation because "Basically rape" is always the mans fault, doesn't that fundamentally infantilise women to the point that they shouldn't make any decisions at all?
   

Relationships can be messy, and it is not uncommon for someone to sacrifice their own happiness in order to please a partner.
To what extent that is complicity and to what extent that is coersion isn't going to be clear to anyone outside that relationship, and lets be honest, isn't always clear to the people in that relationship.

[benji]

[Nintex]

Vance looking at her like  

[benji]

[DavidCroquet]

I’m normally all in on this whole line of argument, but it sort of elides that this girl was 19 year old homeless goofball dumdum, and not like…a sane adult with a normal job. Plus the other story of detail is him humping on his indentured servant lol.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

also die gaiman die!

I'd absolutely say that he took advantage of her, but there is something weird about "when I gave consent I didn't actually give consent" that feels like a bad road to go down. Like can't quite put my finger on it because I do think she was a victim here.

Its an interesting article (I read the whole thing, not just the excerpts) and I think the two most salient points raised are:

1. Why is it there is an all or nothing divide between "Bad relationship, oh well" and "Basically rape"?
   
2. If women can't take accountability for their own actions or complicity in being in a bad situation because "Basically rape" is always the mans fault, doesn't that fundamentally infantilise women to the point that they shouldn't make any decisions at all?
   

Relationships can be messy, and it is not uncommon for someone to sacrifice their own happiness in order to please a partner.
To what extent that is complicity and to what extent that is coersion isn't going to be clear to anyone outside that relationship, and lets be honest, isn't always clear to the people in that relationship.

For me I think the tricky part is the initial consent. I'm not a internet dumb dumb who thinks you have to pause the hot makeout session to say "WAIT: do you consent to vaginal penetration before we go any further" to get consent...but also I don't assume just because a girl is eagerly taking her clothes of in front of me ( ) that I can, say, fuck her in the ass without lube and without asking. And with my son on the ipad 3 feet away or whatever the fuck was happening there.

So yeah, I think in this case the phrase "when I gave consent I didn't actually give consent" can sort of be...strangely coherent. Scarlett is asking a lot for the reader to believe she never consented full stop to anything that happened, but I think the general contours of what was described are true, some of it crosses the line into rape (or what the kids call NCNC...non-consensual non-consent). 

I think HaughtyFrank's link to the kat rosenfield article is a great read. Less so in terms of whether what happened was or was not rape, and more in terms of how the normalization of "BDSM" as normal, common, and healthy sexual behavior makes it almost impossible for people to understand or establish their own sexual boundaries. 

I mean, I still meet women in their mid-20s who have never had an orgasm from their partners and are totally blasé about it. That's clearly not rape, of course, but it is--IMO--selfish and inconsiderate. Still, if vanilla and boring people lack the inner tools to understand that they are with selfish, inconsiderate partners in the moment, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility for someone to look back at some past experience and realize that it might've been more serious than "shitty sex" also. 

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

I'm actually using The Bire as a testbed for a complex and fully-realized theory of ethics that I can eventually achieve worldwide recognition for, entirely with the goal of rhetorically boxing in Neil Gaiman.

[Potato]

The following situations exhibit lack of consent:

• Answering "no" when asked if you want to have sex.
  
• Asking someone to stop during sex or clearly otherwise indicating the other person should stop.
  

The following situation does not exhibit lack of consent:

• Participating enthusiastically in sex and then some time later looking back and realising that it wasn't so good and the guy was kind of shitty in his behaviour, but otherwise never indicating that the act should stop, then responding that it was consensual (and wonderful) when asked about it later.
  

[benji]

[Alpacx]

Who are Jo and Tristan? There's only one Jo I care about:  

Not Jo (but somebody she follows and talks to on X):
https://unherd.com/newsroom/is-trump-really-declaring-war-on-trans-people/

If the activist — and Biden administration — line that “transwomen are women” means anything, the word “woman” doesn’t. 

Any government that defines conflates sex and gender identity dissolves its ability to protect female rights in settings where sex matters.

That Trump of all people is the one to insist on clear definitions and the existence of a consensus reality wherein human beings, like all mammals, are either male or female shows just how far out of bounds progressives have travelled.

[killamajig]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dei-focused-coast-guard-commandant-linda-lee-fagan-fired-over-erosion-of-trust/ar-AA1xBHmU?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5c6c3d2176064c02b22ce84de44cc9f6&ei=28
The commandant of the US Coast Guard — who once called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) an “operational imperative” — was terminated Tuesday over lagging recruitment and an “erosion of trust” in the service branch.

A senior official at the Department of Homeland Security told Fox News that Fagan, 61Fagan, (the first woman to lead any US service branch), had failed to meet benchmarks for new enlistees or reservists and mishandled an internal probe of sex assault cases at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn.

Confirmed in June 2021, Fagan presided over multiple years when the service came up short on its recruitment goals by as much as 20%, before barely exceeding the threshold for active-duty and reserve coasties in fiscal year 2024.

“We have heard from service members concerned with trainings and events they believe to be extraneous to mission-critical tasks, specifically Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) inclusivity training programs, including … examples of official USCG announcements encouraging service member participation in Transgender Shipmates Inclusion Training,” they added.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) also highlighted how so-called “woke” Coast Guard policies affected other service branches.

“Our service academies are critical institutions for the security of our nation, not laboratories for the far-left’s social experiments,” the now-senator told The Post in October 2023. “Forcing radical gender ideology on the young men and women who want to serve their country is dangerous and wrong.”

Banks especially excoriated officials for implementing a policy at the Merchant Marine Academy on Long Island that let midshipmen undergoing gender transitions seek exemptions from their military service requirement.

RIP one more DEI Bozo.

WTF with the bolded

[benji]

Who are Jo and Tristan? 

Two of the worst resistance tweeter grifters that are paid by PACs:
https://x.com/JoJoFromJerz
https://x.com/tristansnell

[benji]

[Uncle]

[benji]

[Nintex]

[Nintex]

[Polident]

Comparing visiting New York earlier this month vs about a year ago, there’s already a considerable reduction of gay flags. It was shocking.

In and around Tokyo, you occasionally see the old gay flag. Can’t say I’ve seen the one with inexplicable black and brown lines or the triangle.

[Nintex]

The best part about the new flag is that like the O hand signal 4chan created it. They added the brown

[Uncle]

The best part about the new flag is that like the O hand signal 4chan created it. They added the brown

is this history preserved anywhere

[Nintex]

The best part about the new flag is that like the O hand signal 4chan created it. They added the brown

is this history preserved anywhere

[Uncle]

[benji]

[HaughtyFrank]

Wait, she's getting cancelled for saying that Indians DON'T stink? And people are like "check your privilege white lady"
Man, anytime you think shit can't get crazier...