[ SECRET POST #5187 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5187 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.
[Gnosia]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[I Care a Lot (on Netflix)]


__________________________________________________



06.
[X-Files]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.
[Lolita Fashion Youtuber Tyler Willis]


__________________________________________________
























09. [SPOILERS for The Story of Yanxi Palace]



__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for discussion of pedophilia/child molestation]

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #742.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

That's a totally specious arguments for three reasons

One, it's an analogy.

Two, the analogy does not equate sex to hygiene. It simply doesn't do that. It doesn't compare sex to hygiene, nor does it compare sex to disease.

In the structure of the analogy, sex is not the thing that's comparable to disease. Abuse is the thing that's comparable to disease. The thing that's comparable to sex is... IDK, having hands? And it would be completely and obviously preposterous to say that, if you wash your hands, it means you hate having hands, or that you're opposed to using your hands to touch things.

What I am comparing to hygiene is the basic idea of having social norms about sexual relationships that involve significant power imbalances. Sexual relationships that involve significant power imbalances are more likely to lead to abuse, and social norms are a general response to this broad risk, in the same way that washing your hands attempts to limit the transmission of germs.

I really think that your comparison is totally wrong-headed.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I'm sorry, but any way you slice it, you are saying that sex causes "illness and disease to spread across the board" if not done hygienically.

[(Anonymous)]

You know, I really feel like this is not the best possible argument for you to make.

But, for the record, yes, I do encourage everyone to have safe sex.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, and as the comment said that started this thread, "we were safe."

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, of course, that's not the point that I'm making. Anon's argument was that my analogy was bad because I'm basically saying that sex causes "illness and disease to spread across the board" if not done hygienically - well, it's literally true that sex causes illness and disease to spread if not done hygienically! It's a fact that you agree with! That's an uncontroversial fact that no one in this thread finds offensive or ridiculous. So I don't really see how that really represents the problem with what I'm saying.

But more than that, I think it actually makes a really strong argument for what I'm saying. Not wearing a condom doesn't mean that you're directly going to catch an STD. But it increases the risk significantly, so it's safer to wear a condom. And that doesn't mean, because you want people to have cleaner, safer sex that you're an anti-sex puritan who thinks sex is dirty. Rather, it's the more responsible thing to do - it's a way to limit the risk. Well, that's pretty much what I'm saying about relationships - albeit obviously on a more general level. A relationship with a significant power imbalance is more likely to lead to an abusive situation. So people should generally avoid relationships with significant power imbalances to reduce that risk. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't have sexual relationships. And it doesn't mean that if you have a relationship with a power imbalance, you're automatically a monster. But it is the best practice that we should, in general, adopt.

[esteefee]

Why are you arguing something that has nothing to do with the original comment of this thread? Honestly. You certainly aren't saying that a happy one-night stand between an 18 year old and a 22 year old that results in no trauma on either side will cause diseased hygiene. You also aren't really hitting the OPs post. You're arguing a straw man. Enjoy shouting into the void.

[(Anonymous)]

Because I don't agree that "I fully believe that antis are all the way they are because they can't get laid. It's all sex gone sour. They can't stand that people have and enjoy sex that they can't, so they have to poison and vilify it in order to pretend they're "above" it and feel better about themselves. It's tragic, honestly."

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree with that, either. But I do think they are a bunch of kids afraid of sex. And I think it has to do with the puritan movement in this country (fed by Fox and Friends) that's tied into the conservative movement. Slut-talking and misogyny is very useful to them, and the first step is to make young women fearful of sex.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Correction then, you are saying that *safe* sex causes "illness and disease to spread across the board." Weird thing to say.

[(Anonymous)]

No. Safe sex is a hygienic practice to guard against certain kinds of risk, IE, diseases. I think that social mores against relationships with significant power imbalances are a similar kind of hygienic practice to guard against different kinds of risk, IE, abusive relationships.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

ummm significant power imbalances...that's pretty vague. Covers a lot of ground. Certainly a lot more than the OPs post. Your argument is toothless. You certainly aren't saying that a happy one-night stand between an 18 year old and a 22 year old that results in no trauma on either side will cause diseased hygiene.

[(Anonymous)]

da

But what does that mean? Where are the lines? You could say "age gap", but what's the math on that? Is 24-18 okay? Yes/no? Why? Is 23-17 okay? Yes/no? Why?

You could say "teacher and student" as another example, but do you give passes for nontraditional students and their professors because their age is closer? Or no?

The lines are a lot blurrier than you're making them out to be.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem is, 1. You’re talking about lines drawn in the sand, here, and 2. Is there anything practicable in what you’re saying? What do you propose is the appropriate way for people to respond to a forty-year-old man dating an eighteen-year-old, for instance? What is a beneficial and constructive response to that situation? What level and type of societal opprobrium is constructive (if any)? And whose business is it in the first place? The parents of the younger party? The older party's social circle? work associates? Passing acquaintances who cotton on that the older party is a "cradle robber"?

I don't feel that we, as a society, should be cavalier about middle-aged people getting involved with people who are newly adults. They are relationships that come with red flags pre-attached, so to speak. I simply disagree with this notion that such relationships can and should be summarily condemned as abusive. It may look like a duck, but if it doesn't also act like a duck, then declaring it a duck is premature.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Then shouldn't the focus be on recognizing abusive behavior rather than saying "this kind of sex is bad/wrong"? Because I see where you're coming from now, but I also still think it's wrong, because if you really wanted to distill it down to its core components, you could argue "women shouldn't sleep with men" is a perfectly adequate take to that analogy because 1 in 4 women will be abused by a man in her lifetime.

[(Anonymous)]

Then shouldn't the focus be on recognizing abusive behavior rather than saying "this kind of sex is bad/wrong"?

Well, for one thing, I don't know if I would necessarily go as far as to say that this kind of sex is bad/wrong across the board.

But setting that aside - no, I don't agree at all. I think they're two different and complementary approaches. The point of a hygienic approach is to reduce the number of these kinds of situations arising in the first place by reducing the risk across the board. And that's important for a couple of different reasons - but one of the biggest ones is, if you only identify problems after the fact, then the people involved have to go through the harm and the suffering caused by that problem.

if you really wanted to distill it down to its core components, you could argue "women shouldn't sleep with men" is a perfectly adequate take to that analogy because 1 in 4 women will be abused by a man in her lifetime.

Sure, you can take anything to an extreme. And some people do think that. I don't really agree with them, but I can see the logic.

But think about the example of hygiene: there are people who do take hygienic practice and being absolutely way, way too far to the point where it becomes pathological. But that doesn't make us say that washing our hands is a bad thing to do. So, for me, there is a point where you have to balance the costs of what you're doing against the possible risks - and I don't think there's any easy or pat answer to where to draw that line. But that's human existence for ya.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, for one thing, I don't know if I would necessarily go as far as to say that this kind of sex is bad/wrong across the board.

But that is what you're saying. Wash your hands (have sex that could not possibly be construed as having a power imbalance) in order to stay healthy (free of sexual trauma), because disease and illness (sexual practices that could be construed as "unhealthy") can be prevented with a little hygiene (not doing those things).

It's a very puritanical view of sex and frankly, the phrasing of "hygienic approach" is making me incredibly uncomfortable.

[(Anonymous)]

safe sex = straight hygiene sounds like something straight out of moralizing pamphlets of olden days. it's a weird analogy, you should reconsider.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

"but one of the biggest ones is, if you only identify problems after the fact, then the people involved have to go through the harm and the suffering caused by that problem."

There is a reason why Dear Abby ran her list of SIGNS OF ABUSE repeatedly over the years. (I think Anne Landers did too, but Annie's Mailbox is kind of shitty in comparison.) So people could learn what abuse looked/sounded like and thus see the signs ahead of time and not end up in situations where they can be abused by friends/romantic partners. (Families are much much harder, especially if you are a minor and trapped. However, knowing you are being abused can go a long way with dispelling the F.O.G. {Fear, Overwhelm, Guilt} and let you find a way to deal with it, see the manipulation, and get OUT.) It's very common for victims of abuse to end up in other abusive relationships b/c they don't know the signs and gravitate to what is familiar.

All kids should be learning about how their body works and the body of the opposite sex (like the amount of boys who think girls can hold in period blood is horrendously high) and about sex and safe sex, respecting our own bodies and other people's bodies, consent, AND the signs of abuse. All of this works together to help healthy relationships. You can't pull out the signs of abuse and just teach "Safe sex" that's not going to make things any better. You can have "Safe Sex" and follow these age of consent rules set down by your state and STILL be in an abusive relationship.

I'm going to add on that I agree this whole hygiene analogy is a bad one. Being raised in an abstinence only, emotionally abusive, ostensibly christian household with TWO family members who had children out of wedlock ANYWAYS and being subjected to the whole purity culture thing down to having to learn about sex from fanfic b/c no one would talk about it. It's skeevy. It is REALLY skeevy. For someone from that culture, using a hygiene analogy is only going to confuse someone and CONFIRM the inner bias that sex is dirty. Words matter. Please, before you hurt someone, find a new analogy. Or rather, abandon it. Your argument isn't really holding a great deal of water. Since Age Year +/- 8 is considered pretty normal for romantic partners, especially the more mature you get. (Yes, side eye a 12 and a 20 year old b/c that's pretty much hebephilia/ephebophilia and not normal. A 20 year old and a 28 year old is probably closer to normal than you realize.)

[(Anonymous)]

NA - I love this comment and wholeheartedly agree. <3