[ 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)]

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.