Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[Meadmaker]

...snip...

This was a fascinating post. I think a lot of people would benefit by considering it.

As a legal standard I think some of the statements about rape would be severely flawed, but as psychological insight I think they are valuable.

I suspect some people are having a difficult time relating this to the primary thread topic, but I think there is a definite connection.

 

[Belz...]

Why do some men peep?

With all the completely free or relatively low cost and low risk nudity available without breaking laws or violating anyone's privacy, why peep at unwilling targets?

Maybe it's not about the nudity.

Well you tell me: how many fully clothed women do men peep at?

I'm amazed at how much heavy lifting some people do to normalize some of the most heinous behaviors.

Now that's pretty despicable. I give you an example of things that arouses some people, and plenty of youngsters. I didn't make a moral judgment about it, but here you use it to attack me without reason.

You should apologise. It was entirely uncalled for, but it's an increasingly common behaviour on this forum to use someone's statements of fact as some sort of moral endorsement of those facts.

 

[cullennz]

I like the impression that is coming across that only men look at porn.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Well you tell me: how many fully clothed women do men peep at?

Your assertion, your burden.

Now that's pretty despicable. I give you an example of things that arouses some people, and plenty of youngsters. I didn't make a moral judgment about it, but here you use it to attack me without reason.

"I'm the real victim here!"

You should apologise. It was entirely uncalled for, but it's an increasingly common behaviour on this forum to use someone's statements of fact as some sort of moral endorsement of those facts.

You calling your statements facts doesn't make them so.

 

[Belz...]

Your assertion, your burden.

What assertion? That some men peep at women? I asked you a question: are you aware of any men peeping at fully clothed women with no expectation of even partial nudity?

Stop dodging the issue. You know exactly what we're talking about.

"I'm the real victim here!"

Do you have any ounce of honesty? You made an accusation towards me that was uncalled for and unrelated to my post. Statements of fact, true or not, are not moral endorsements. I'd be willing to bet that you know that very well, and that you just threw that in there because you have no other ammunition.

Reasonable people apologise for their slights and change their behaviour accordingly. Stop acting like a kid.

You calling your statements facts doesn't make them so.

Are you now denying that men peep at naked women? Gee, talk about sunk cost. for ****'s sake, you can admit to being wrong, you know? I get it. You chose a "side" of the discussion and you now have to say the exact opposite of those you consider to be on the other "side". It's not very mature, but there you have it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What assertion? That some men peep at women? I asked you a question: are you aware of any men peeping at fully clothed women with no expectation of even partial nudity?



Stop dodging the issue. You know exactly what we're talking about.

I never made any statement about men peeping at clothed women.

If I'm dodging anything, it's your attempt to smear me.

Do you have any ounce of honesty? You made an accusation towards me that was uncalled for and unrelated to my post. Statements of fact, true or not, are not moral endorsements. I'd be willing to bet that you know that very well, and that you just threw that in there because you have no other ammunition.

"True or not" statements of fact?

How does that work?

Reasonable people apologise for their slights and change their behaviour accordingly. Stop acting like a kid.

People demanding "reasonable" behavior while hurling insults themselves...

Are you now denying that men peep at naked women? Gee, talk about sunk cost. for ****'s sake, you can admit to being wrong, you know? I get it. You chose a "side" of the discussion and you now have to say the exact opposite of those you consider to be on the other "side". It's not very mature, but there you have it.

I never at all denied it happens.

 

[Belz...]

I never made any statement about men peeping at clothed women.

You said it wasn't about the nudity. The best way to demonstrate this would be to find examples or statistics about men being aroused by peeping at fully clothed women.

Unless, of course, you realise that it IS about nudity, misspoke earlier, and are unwilling to admit to that mistake.

If I'm dodging anything, it's your attempt to smear me.

Smear? Are you using the tested-and-true tactic of "no you!"? What's a 'smear' about saying you're avoiding answering my questions? It's a description of your actual, observable behaviour, not of your moral calibre or some other purported acts.

"True or not" statements of fact?

How does that work?

What do you mean, "how does that work?"? A statement of fact is a statement about a factual thing. "The sky is green" is a statement of fact. It is, however, usually false. This is really basic stuff.

People demanding "reasonable" behavior while hurling insults themselves...

Which insult? Again, you are projecting.

Now, are you going to retract your accusation or not? Otherwise I expect you to show evidence that I'm 'normalising' peeping.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You said it wasn't about the nudity. The best way to demonstrate this would be to find examples or statistics about men being aroused by peeping at fully clothed women.



Unless, of course, you realise that it IS about nudity, misspoke earlier, and are unwilling to admit to that mistake.

Or my point went over your head.

If no cost, no risk ways of seeing someone nude exist, why peep?

Smear? Are you using the tested-and-true tactic of "no you!"? What's a 'smear' about saying you're avoiding answering my questions? It's a description of your actual, observable behaviour, not of your moral calibre or some other purported acts.

You not getting my point doesn't mean I'm avoiding anything.

What do you mean, "how does that work?"? A statement of fact is a statement about a factual thing. "The sky is green" is a statement of fact. It is, however, usually false. This is really basic stuff.

I appreciate you think you've made a really clever point here.

Which insult? Again, you are projecting.

This is boring the living **** out of me, FYI.

Now, are you going to retract your accusation or not? Otherwise I expect you to show evidence that I'm 'normalising' peeping.

You've got that covered all on your own.

 

[Meadmaker]

There is something I find amusing about this peeping discussion. On forums, when someone on "the other side" says something, people feel compelled to disagree, whether or not it actually supports their position.

Consider, if you will, that laws which support transgender access to opposite sex locker rooms and bathroomswill mean that biological males will be allowed to enter the exact spaces that voyeurs would find most exciting.

So, is nudity all by itself arousing? Then it's understandable that women wouldn't want to be naked around unknown men. Or is it the case that it's really only arousing to creepy perverts when they can view women in places the perverts aren't supposed to be able see? Then women sure as hell wouldn't want anything to do with a guy in her bathroom or locker room.

But if the guy is wearing women's underwear it's all good?

I know, I know, she's not a guy. And.... we're back to definitions.

 

[Ziggurat]

If no cost, no risk ways of seeing someone nude exist, why peep?

Because seeing nudity in person is more exciting than seeing it on a computer screen. That's also why people pay to see strip shows, even though there's nothing there that they can't see for free on the internet. None of this even suggests nudity isn't important to peeping.

 

[Belz...]

If no cost, no risk ways of seeing someone nude exist, why peep?

Because as Ziggurat has explained, and I hinted, nudity might not be the ONLY factor in play. That doesn't argue against the statement that it IS one of the factors in play.

Can you or can you not find an example that demonstrated your own position?

You not getting my point doesn't mean I'm avoiding anything.

No, the fact that you didn't answer my question means you're avoiding something.

I appreciate you think you've made a really clever point here.

What in the actual ****? You asked a question and I straight-up answered it. You seemed confused that statements of fact that are false could still be statements of fact. I explained it to you. What's 'clever' about that?

You seriously seem to consider this conversation a fight with some sort of prize at the end.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Because as Ziggurat has explained, and I hinted, nudity might not be the ONLY factor in play. That doesn't argue against the statement that it IS one of the factors in play.

Like I said: your assertion, your burden.

Can you or can you not find an example that demonstrated your own position?

Asked and answered.

No, the fact that you didn't answer my question means you're avoiding something.

Because it's non-sequitur to my point as well as absurdly phrased.

What in the actual ****? You asked a question and I straight-up answered it. You seemed confused that statements of fact that are false could still be statements of fact. I explained it to you. What's 'clever' about that?

Yawn

You seriously seem to consider this conversation a fight with some sort of prize at the end.

No, I do not.

Are you a mind reader?

Moving on.

 

[Ziggurat]

Like I said: your assertion, your burden.

A question is not an assertion.

 

[Hevneren]

This thread is becoming more and more bizarre. Of course straight men get sexually stimulated by seeing naked women.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This thread is becoming more and more bizarre. Of course straight men get sexually stimulated by seeing naked women.

Do you get sexually stimulated by seeing your grandmother naked?

Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day?

Then it's probably more complicated than that.

I've actually never denied that it happens. I do thoroughly question why and the poor attempts at anthropological explanations don't cut it. The implications of such an explanation go right to the idea that men can be excused for lack of self-discipline and women have to make conscious efforts not to be targeted. This is how MRA logic works, this is why women have to wear modest clothing in oppressive religious communities, etc.

Of course the overriding point I originally made was that this cultural perspective makes it near impossible to have a discussion on any topic of sexual or gender identity without having to "make room" for all the ways men are expected/allowed to behave.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've actually never denied that it happens. I do thoroughly question why

The why isn’t relevant to my argument. It suffices that it happens.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The why isn’t relevant to my argument. It suffices that it happens.

If, in the instances where "it happens" is sufficient grounds for basically everyone else in society to have to adjust around it, then it never changes.

Which is basically saying "we can't be bothered to do anything about it except keep making room for it."

I'm not impressed by digging into an issue just far enough to find an excuse not to dig any further.

 

[Ziggurat]

If, in the instances where "it happens" is sufficient grounds for basically everyone else in society to have to adjust around it, then it never changes.

If you think you know how to change society then go ahead and try to change it. I’d love to know how you think that can be done. But putting women at risk of sexual assault isn’t going to cause the change you seem to want.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If you think you know how to change society then go ahead and try to change it. I’d love to know how you think that can be done. But putting women at risk of sexual assault isn’t going to cause the change you seem to want.

Ah yes, if I don't have the codex this instant, then its a pipe-dream. Really advanced insight, there. Step 1 would probably be: stop perpetuating bad excuses for bad behavior! That's also, of course, why it won't work, I suppose. The people who need to do that are all potential beneficiaries of the lax standards and constantly expected to demonstrate strict adherence to the idea that men are "this way."

I'm not sure why me advocating for higher standards of behavior from men means I want women to be at risk of sexual assault. That's really just off the wall, kinda seems like you're just hurling it at me in an emotional tantrum. Because I'm breaking the code.

None of these responses really shock me, by the way. Discussing this stuff in meatspace is usually met with derision of my own manhood, angry outbursts that often start with "oh like you've never..." and surprisingly quick to rise towards violence.

Masculinity (in American culture) is deeply ingrained with persecution complex and demands constant delineation of what is and (much more importantly) what is not "manly."

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah yes, if I don't have the codex this instant, then its a pipe-dream.

No. You don't get it.

The problem isn't that you don't have a solution at hand. The problem is that you apparently don't want people to deal with the problem as it exists because you don't want the problem to exist. But that isn't the way the world works.

A dysfunction exists: some men sexually assault and rape women. That's a bad thing, everyone here would prefer it didn't happen. But rather than using sensible measures to try to limit how much it happens, you seem to want women to expose themselves to increase risk because... why? Is the theory here that if they expose themselves to increased risk and sexual assault and rape happens more often, then that will cause enough outrage that society will be forced to change? A sexual assault version of heightening the contradictions? That won't end well.

Really advanced insight, there. Step 1 would probably be: stop perpetuating bad excuses for bad behavior!

You seem to have confused excuses with explanations. That's not how it works. Nothing I've said constitutes an excuse for any bad behavior.

I'm not sure why me advocating for higher standards of behavior from men means I want women to be at risk of sexual assault.

Because you aren't advocating for higher standards for men. You're attacking me for explaining why it makes sense to sex segregate spaces where women get naked. Telling people not to lock their cars isn't advocating for less car theft. That's not how anything works.

Masculinity (in American culture) is deeply ingrained with persecution complex and demands constant delineation of what is and (much more importantly) what is not "manly."

Nothing I've been saying here has anything to do with what is or is not manly. And it's beyond bizarre that you're talking about "persecution complex" in "masculinity" when what I'm advocating here is protecting women from bad men.