Manosphere doofuses duped again by phony Canadian sexbot ban
NOTE: Don’t buy this model. She’s trouble.
So the Boobz are getting worked up – again – over some imaginary “proposed legislation” to ban sexbots. Vox Day, one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the right-wing of the manosphere, has resurrected an urban legend that first fooled his comrades about two years ago, reposting a “statement” of mysterious Canadian origin explaining that
provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.
The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?
The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.
You may wonder: Why didn’t I read anything in the papers about this Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act? Why haven’t I heard about this Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence?
Well, you guessed it. Because neither of them exist. I looked into this two years ago when the story first, er, broke in the manosphere. There’s no vast feminist conspiracy to deny Canadian men (or, for that matter, women) their still-imaginary sexbots. The “statement” was evidently written as part of a law school class project on law and robotics taught by Prof. Ian Kerr at the University of Ottawa Law School.
If you Google “Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act” or “Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence” you will find that literally the only people talking about this issue are MRAs and PUAs and conspiracy theorists. And some of the more gullible 4channers, though a few of them quickly figured out that the whole thing was fake. (As did the Real Doll enthusiasts.)
Vox Day, who has yet to come to this realization, draws some dire conclusions from this thing that isn’t real, declaring that the
This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services. Moreover, it is proof that their “pursuit for gender equality” is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom. …
One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit. But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.
Well, not so much. Though Vox proves yet again that there are few people on planet earth as gullible as the manosphere’s pompous philosophers.
NOTE: Vox isn’t the only manospherian up in arms about the evil imaginary sexbot ban; more on this tomorrow.
Like this:
Posted on January 14, 2013, in antifeminism, drama kings, facepalm, gullibility, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, playing the victim, PUA, sex, sexy robot ladies, shit that never happened, straw feminists and tagged antifeminism, pick-up artists, pickup artists, PUA, sexbots. Bookmark the permalink. 408 Comments.
“And not to answer for LBT, but it’s usually Rogan posting, and since Rogan *is* one person…”
That helps, especially as I’m quite likely to make the blunder you did, I don’t keep track of things well. And was trying to inquire if dealing with the “one person” as the “collective you” (if that makes sense, my brain is past its bedtime : P) would be acceptable, not discounting any of the individuals involved : )
Oh yeah, the Sybil case, yeash. When the book and movie came out, I was fascinated; but I read the wiki on the whole debacle a while back, and man, what an ethical mess.
The problem with Sybil is that, despite the evidence against it, it’s seen as the definitive case of multiples. Because the experiences of real people don’t
Count unless they’re written up in a journal.sigh.
RE: Argenti/lumi/PennyDreadful
Argenti’s right. Generally it’s just me posting here; my system members consider my liking of trollsnark to be a peculiar eccentricity to be indulged and otherwise ignored, so I won’t be bothered being treated as one person. As a system, though, it’s a definite no-go.
The rarity of multiplicity is something argued about; there was a veritable explosion of diagnoses in the 90s, which caused a bit of a furor. It became a bit of a fad diagnosis, causing some major whiplash and the renaming of MPD to DID later, in the attempt to try and undramatize it a bit.
And yes, Sibyl has had some people really side-eyeing it. and it kind of was a major stage-setter. So was ‘Three Faces of Eve,’ and that system later wrote some things of their own experiences, saying that some of the original was wrong. (For instance, the system was more like twenty people, not three.) Add that to the Minds of Billy Milligan, where you have a serial rapist on trial, and the traditional multi narrative was sort of set, with the dysfunctional multiple as a result of childhood trauma, the saintly therapist (who of course often was also the writer), and a lot of trauma voyeurism culminating in integration, with a healthy, happy singlet at the end.
(Never mind that Chris Coster-Sizemore, AKA Eve, felt exploited by the media and frickin’ SUED for the rights to her story and won. Never mind that Sibyll is a massive ethical WTF and now people argue over whether it was truly a case of multiplicity. Never mind that far as I know, Billy Milligan’s system has NEVER integrated. The narrative was set, and not challenged until the eighties with Truddi Chase and the Troops, who refused to integrate.)
“As a system, though, it’s a definite no-go.”
Of course, without saying. I’ll do my best, so I hope you’ll pardon any accidental offense : )
Rogan (and everyone else in the system if you’re listening), I apologise if my old joke from Museum days was triggering at all. I didn’t know you’d been through that particular brand of shit and wouldn’t have said anything if I had. My take on IQ testing is that it’s so narrow and biased it’s largely a crock of shit anyway, and the old joke was a customer service reaction from the days before the phrase “teh stupid, it burns” existed. (You know what they say - if you’re not a misanthrope when you go into customer service, you will be by the time you come out.)
Again, my apologies.
“You know what they say – if you’re not a misanthrope when you go into customer service, you will be by the time you come out.”
This statement, it is true. And on that note, I’m going to bed, g’night guys!
Niters Argenti!
Cross thread confusion! (Chaos and confusion wherever I go ^.^ )
G’night!
@Kittehs’ Help, have you submitted that museum story to Not Always Right? It’d fit right in.
@Shiraz
You mean fallen angels aren’t all horny tsundere*? Anime lied to me again!
*I don’t speak Japanese, but the plural is usually the same as the singular, right?
1) Abnoy considers a story of successful demonic temptation to be an endorsement. That’s some quality stupid right there.
2) I’m not at all sure that succubi were fallen angels. Yes, they’re demons, but I think they’re actually daughters of Lilith. Like I said, if you want to bang a fallen angel, go for Leviathan.
Apropos of nothing, apparently there’s some study going around that has ridiculous claims about false rape reporting. Here’s a takedown from Alas!.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2009/04/15/eugene-kanins-study-of-false-rape-reports/
Hugs for LBT!
I think, and I’m neurotypical here*, that consent should trump efforts to make non-neurotypical people more neurotypical, unless the situation is such that the person(s) who do not fit the box are a danger to themselves or others. ‘Course, that’s a case of someone with privilege standing up and giving a prescription of how the world works, so feel free to tell me to fuck off (but I don’t think I’ve stepped on anyone’s toes).
*Or at least I’ve never been diagnosed with a “disorder.”
@Falconer
That’s pretty much my neuroatypical take - preserve the good stuff that comes from it and help in making the bad stuff manageable.
Most neuroatypicalities are integrated into personalities and to ‘cure’ it would be effectively killing the person and putting someone else in their body.
oh, I meant to paste that link in the most recent post. Sorry for the derail!
@Writingstudent:
I’m with Derek Parfit in that I don’t think you can draw a sharp line and say “this much psychological change means the old person died and a new person appeard in zir place, while a little less psychological change would have meant the old person remained in a change formed”. Even if you do, on some grounds, draw such a line, on what grounds do we argue that most cases of curing a psychiatric or neuropsychiatric difference would end up on the “killed the old person, put a new one in zir place” side of the line? I can’t see that the mere fact that it’s “integrated in the personality” would imply this.
(Btw, I’m a diagnosed mental case, if that’s even relevant.)
I’m sympathetic to the disability theory advocated by some philosophers according to which you’re disabled when you have certain chronic traits that stop you from or at least makes it way more difficult to fulfil some of your life-plans (which, roughly speaking, aren’t any plans, but plans that are vital to your happiness). Meaning something can be a disability to one person but not to another.
pennydreadful: I tend to suspect they *aren’t* hetero; except that the only people they may despise more than women are non-hetero men. And yes, very very confused.
This bothers me. 1: I don’t think it’s true. I suspect most of them are hetero, and don’t like that they aren’t able to just get some woman to do what they want/treat them like a king.
Resentment of being denied what you want often leads to hatred (see the fox and the grapes).
2: I sure you didn’t mean to have it, but there are overtones of, “gays hate women”, in the idea that rabidly misogynist men are (mostly) repressed bi/gay.
abnoy: So the definition of angels you use is from Catholic Christian Theology (as opposed to Catholic Jovian Theology)? but you use TV Tropes to define demons?
Wow… you are srmt.
Going back a topic, I think the idea that consent should trump “curing someone” except when they’re a danger to themselves or others is more or less the right idea. It’s the legal standard in the US, but has no leeway at all (which is why psychs are always amazed I’ve never been committed) — if you tell a psych, or (I think) other doctor/medical professional, that you attempted suicide, you’re getting a stay in the psych ward until they deem you no longer a danger.
Idk where the line on “replacing a person” would be, but I certainly understand the concept. Then again, I’m currently annoyed that the DEATH RASH drug has barely touched the depressive side of things, but seems to have killed the fun levels of hypomania (I *liked* wanting to be all artsy and going “fuck sleep, I’m creating things“). Loosing that really does feel a bit like loosing a part of myself.
And on that note, I have Beethoven to practice (or at least attempt not to fuck up horribly)
pecunium, you’re right, and I apologise for coming off the way I did. I’m coming from a slightly different perspective than you here. For one, I grew up as a young woman in a time when homosexuality was not at all integrated socially, and those who were out tended to be the more vocal and political about it. The friends and accquaintances I had who were out as gay women often got there from a life filled with horrible experiences with abusive men, and quite a few were frankly misandrist in their attitudes. And throughout my life I’ve had both lesbian and gay male accquaintances who (usually in the context of humor, but still…) expressed vocal disgust at each others’ genitalia and the idea of sex with the opposite sex. I’m well aware this only represents a small subset of LGBT experience, and that we’ve all moved on considerably in our awareness of human sexuality; but FWIW it does still tend to color the way I observe and analyze the way men and women perceive each other.
The other is that, as a (hetero) woman, everything I hear from MRAs directed at women is disgust at our sexuality (including our genitalia) unless it fits into some non-existent mythological idealized porn-style virginal perfection, hatred of our personalities except for the tiny sliver devoted to their selfish personal agenda, and dismissal of our intellect and individuality. What they describe as an acceptable female has no correlation in the actual world. Everything about me that makes me *me*, and that makes me a woman, is the target for their hatred, loathing and resentment. My mere existence is an affront to their being. All of this is not what I would ascribe to any man who calls himself a heterosexual. Obviously, this does not equate to being homosexual, and I’ll plead extreme tiredness last night for my wording implying that was my intent. But it does seem the only people MRAs respect is other male MRAs, so what their true sexual nature is is beyond me. I assure you I feel any sexual expression that makes all adult consenting parties happy is healthy; theirs is deeply damaged and diseased.
@Argenti et al, I know when I first was encouraged to get treatment for my depression, I did go through the fear that “I” would be cured into non-existence, so I can understand the concern some have with that. And my experience proved otherwise; at best, treatments have made me feel *more* like me than I do when I am simply not functioning, or driving everyone around me to irritated or concerned distraction.
Ideally, any treatment should be directed at the dysfunctionality itself, not the (supposed) disorder. I don’t want to be cured of my melancholy or introspection; I assume LBT don’t want to be “cured” of their identities. Doctors who treat their patients otherwise are not healing, they are “fixing”, which is dismissive of a patient’s actual need and autonomy.
The flip side of this I have dealt with are those people who truly are dysfunctional, and use their condition or difference as an excuse to not get treatment for the dysfunction. My ex-partner is neuro-atypical, and has steadfastly refused to turn to any professional who could help him have the kind of life he claims he wants (including having healthy relationships with others, which he does not, and adult independence, which he does not). In his mind, that responsabilty was on the world to conform to his needs and cater to his dysfunctions. His “condition” made him special in his eyes, and maybe it did. But he is incapable of separating the dysfunction from the atypicality, and refuses to see this as the source of his misery. Instead, he places that misery at the feet of everyone who doesn’t meet his needs, and then abuses them when they don’t comply.
PennyDreadful: pecunium, you’re right, and I apologise for coming off the way I did. I’m coming from a slightly different perspective than you here. For one, I grew up as a young woman in a time when homosexuality was not at all integrated socially, and those who were out tended to be the more vocal and political about it.
Way to make assumptions. Yeah, I’m male, but I’ve had vocally active gay/bi/queer friends since I was in my early teens, so call it ca. 1982. I had a health instructor giving very clear messages that homosexuality was bad for one’s physical health; and this was before AIDS was on the radar. No, it was just that men having sex with each other leads to anal fatigue, and an inability to “keep things in”.
I’ve got friends who were kicked out the Navy, and the Air Force, before DADT. My former housemate was a huge activist in the interest of making people aware of AIDS in SF in the late ’80s (she’s got a decidedly queer sexuality, and was non-involved with men for quite some time; and yes, she was sort of anti-men for awhile, for all the reasons you mention).
I spent years being thought to be bi (if not a closeted gay) because I had intimate relationships with out homosexuals.
So I had a good idea from whence came the sentiment.
I agree that MRAs sense of sex, and women, and how mena and women interact is six kind of fucked up, but I don’t think it make them not what they claim to be.
So long as they claim to be heterosexual, I am going to take them at their word.
Whoa. I’m not down with any MRA philosophy, but I’m not going to call their sexuality-whatever it may or may not be-damaged and diseased. Where exactly do you get off doing that?
You’re new, so protip: internet diagnoses, no matter how reasonable they may seem, are generally frowned upon. Unless you like showing you ass, in which case, rock the fuck on.
Noooooo!
I don’t think you can draw a line between the two all the time. Sometimes not even a blurry line.
At the end of the day, I think this should be up to the patient. I think it’s great that there’s so much discussion now about whether supposed disorders or disabilities really have to be seen as such, and how people are coming out more and more and argue that they’re fine the way they are. HOWEVER, it’s important not to forget that there are ALSO people who really want to be “cured”, as in getting rid of whatever they have, not just learning how to deal with it. And just going “oh, you don’t really mean that, you’ve just internalised society’s prejudices” is disrespectful to THEM.
And whether certain traits are essential to oneself or not, as in “I literally wouldn’t be me without this trait”, must also be up to the person zirself to decide.
It’s the same in Sweden. It’s probably the standard all over the world.
Sorry, posted too fast - I mean the democratic world, the part of the world that has at least some respect for human rights. You know what I mean.
Yeah, I do, and I sympathize with the posted too fast problem; having just tortured my fingers on violin strings, I’m not sure they feel like cooperating themselves.
I has thought psychosis was grounds in Britain, but I may well be wrong on that. It makes sense, from a certain patronizing view — if psychotic, then aren’t competent to refuse treatment.
And I really don’t know in that case, I’m inclined to side with personal liberty, but can sympathize with people wishing they could force a relative to seek treatment…but there’s way too much room for abuse there. Of course, Deinstitutionalization did leave many psychotic people (or otherwise severely mentally ill people) homeless…and now we’re into “dear gods could we fix the mental health system somehow!”
“Way to make assumptions.”
@pecunium, my only assumptions were that you were male (which you’ve repeatedly stated and here reconfirmed) and that you were younger than me (which you also seem to have here reconfirmed), apparently by a decade. I really am sorry you’re taking offense at my stating we’ve had different experiences, or that mine have left me with a somewhat different perspective. And I haven’t described any of my sexual life as other than as hetero (as I ID myself), so frankly you’ve made some assumptions about me and *my* sexuality.
“I spent years being thought to be bi (if not a closeted gay) because I had intimate relationships with out homosexuals.
So I had a good idea from whence came the sentiment.”
I’ve spent of my life being thought by many to be lesbian because I was affectionate and emotionally intimate with my female friends, because I presented as very androgynous, because my behavior and intellect did not fit into what was considered feminine, and because for a very long time I was attracted to mostly androgynous men (including gay and bi men). So I won’t even try to assume what your idea was : (
We seem to be at cross purposes here, and that saddens me, because I’ve read your posts here for some weeks with great admiration, and because I clearly am expressing my thoughts in a way that contradicts what I believe to be my actual values.
“So long as they claim to be heterosexual, I am going to take them at their word.”
So long as they claim to base their sexuality on its relationship to *my* gender while they utterly misrepresent my gender and its nature, I am going to claim gender prerogative and call BS. And you can call me what you will on that one.
Argenti: I think forced treatment of psychotic people could often make it worse as well. I mean, if you’re catatonic and stop eating, drinking etc you could be taken in on grounds that you’re dangerous for yourself. If you’re “actively” psychotic, thinking and talking and doing stuff, paranoia is very very often part of that. I know that when I’ve had psychotic spells I’ve always had some version of the idea that enemies were out to get me… SO bringing someone in by force could so easily make things worse as well.
Problems arise when personal liberty is merely used as an excuse for not giving a shit. There are SO many levels in between “letting psychotics fend for themselves” and “forcing them into asylums”: For instance, one could provide good asylums and good information about them, lessening people’s fear of being taken in, so that more people voluntarily seek help and allow themselves to be treated at facilities. And you could have all kinds of support for people who still live at home despite being mentally ill. Like fifteen years ago I would often get spells when I suddenly thought I was completely mentally healthy although I wasn’t, and then I would just stop seeing my shrink and stop taking my pills, until I eventually (usually after being in a pretty bad state for quite a long time, being prodded by stubborn friends and so on) realised I ought to get in touch with psychiatry again. Instead, psychiatrics could routinely seek out patients who suddenly stop appearing.
I used to be a member of an internet board for people with schizophrenia and related diagnosis. Occasionally some member would get a psychotic spell, stop taking zir pills and get all kinds of crazy ideas. Then the rest of the members would, over and over again, reason with zir and argue that zie ought to go see a psychiatrist. Usually zie would eventually listen, and sometimes zie would end up voluntarily going into asylum for a while until zie was better again. Which goes to show how much can be accomplished without actual force.
All this would cost money of course, which is why it’s easier to pretend that “not giving a shit” is actually an expression of “respecting personal liberty”…
“HOWEVER, it’s important not to forget that there are ALSO people who really want to be “cured”, as in getting rid of whatever they have, not just learning how to deal with it.
And whether certain traits are essential to oneself or not, as in “I literally wouldn’t be me without this trait”, must also be up to the person zirself to decide.”
I would never do the former (you can apply the similar arguments to the deaf community, some of whom will go to great lengths to function within the hearing world, and some who embrace their non-hearing and the rich community and culture that goes with it) That should be a personal choice, and not up to a doctor to dictate.
And I completely agree with the latter; my issue is with those who flail about and complain about their life, and make everyone around them their wheelchair so to speak, and manipulate and abuse them on the grounds that the needs of their trait are not being met, and insist that none of this is dysfunctional, regardless of how chaotically this disrupts the lives of everyone else, and how much everyone else has attempted to acomodate them.
PennyDreadful: It’s that you assumed there was no parallelism at all, and no way for me to understand where your statement came from.
But this is the part that’s giving me pause:
So long as they claim to base their sexuality on its relationship to *my* gender while they utterly misrepresent my gender and its nature, I am going to claim gender prerogative and call BS. And you can call me what you will on that one.
Who gets to decide what someone’s sexuality is?
The person who has it.
@Penny, I never meant to contradict what you said about some people using a diagnosis as an excuse to be a douchebag or just plain lazy. Yeah, there are such people, and that’s bad.
ABNOY ends the previous page with the picking of some lovely cherries.
Note that this means that regardless of the reality, or lack thereof, in regards to succubi, people have been executed because of the belief that they were associating with succubi.
Which isn’t touching the likes of Lilith and Lamashtu.
“Whoa. I’m not down with any MRA philosophy, but I’m not going to call their sexuality–whatever it may or may not be–damaged and diseased. Where exactly do you get off doing that?
You’re new, so protip: internet diagnoses, no matter how reasonable they may seem, are generally frowned upon. Unless you like showing you ass, in which case, rock the fuck on.”
I didn’t call their sexuality diseased, I called their sexual expression towards women so. If hatred and disgust at healthy women is healthy, I have no response to that. And if calling something unhealthy is an internet diagnosis, if someone is saying rape doesn’t exist, women are all abusive and manipulative and whores, unshaved pussies are filthy, slutshaming of minors is free speech, then go ahead and call me Dr Dreadful, because to me that attitude is pretty damned diseased : P
Dvärghundspossen — agreed, completely, and I’m sorry that I didn’t make myself clearly. You have functional ideas for solutions, whereas I had a grumbling “fix the damned system already”
“It’s that you assumed there was no parallelism at all, and no way for me to understand where your statement came from.”
I didn’t assume that, I am expressing myself poorly. Obviously neither of us can know anything about each other here other than from our posts or other internet information. You know very little about me, and if I’m writing badly, then that’s on me.
“Who gets to decide what someone’s sexuality is?
The person who has it.”
I can’t argue against that other than to say if someone is basing their sexuality on their perception of who I am within a group, and their judgment of that group is not only based on a complete fiction but a distorted and destructive one, it’s gonna be more than a day’s work to convince me to take them at their word.
“@Penny, I never meant to contradict what you said about some people using a diagnosis as an excuse to be a douchebag or just plain lazy. Yeah, there are such people, and that’s bad.”
@Dvärghundspossen, sorry, I’m feeling rather defensive here at the moment : / And among “such people” would be my recently-exed partner, so I’m a bit wound up on the subject *sigh*
Sorry for pissing everyone off this morning, I seem to be doing it here at home the last day or two as well…..
So Penny, one of your points is that you don’t use the word “disease” as in making a medical diagnose, but as a synonym for “evil” or “bad”? I get what you’re saying, but it’s still a problematic way to express oneself. There’s this VERY common belief according to which mentally ill=evil and/or an idiot, and not mentally ill=good and/or rational and/or has mostly true beliefs about the world. And it’s very common to honestly attempt to diagnose people over the internet because of this belief. That’s why it’s problematic to use words like “disease” to mean evil or bad or moron, it feeds into this prejudice. I think it’s better to use straight-forward normative words rather than going to medical ones.
Your point about heterosexuality I honestly don’t get. Surely a man can notice that he has an attraction to women, even if he has tons of fucked-up beliefs about them? All it takes to know that you’re attracted to X is to be fairly good at knowing when an X is around, and also recognise what attraction feels like. You don’t have to know shit about X to know that you’re attracted to X.
That sucks. Sorry.
PennyDreadful:
Help me out here. What do you mean when you say you think they aren’t heterosexual?
“There’s this VERY common belief according to which mentally ill=evil and/or an idiot, and not mentally ill=good and/or rational and/or has mostly true beliefs about the world.”
Considering I had a headache inducing conversation last night that came down to “[person] is more rational, and not subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect because [person] really is more rational”…yeah, defaulting to not rational because mentally ill isn’t going over well with me either.
(Pecunium — yes that’s the conversation I emailed you about, it’s still bugging me)
RE: PennyDreadful
I assume LBT don’t want to be “cured” of their identities.
Please, let’s not mince words. It’s not my identity that’s seen as the problem, it’s my existence. They want to “cure” me of my existence.
I’m well aware this only represents a small subset of LGBT experience,
Good. Remember it next time.
RE: Kittehs
No, it’s okay, I’ve done customer service before, so I know how it goes. I know what you intended. Just no more IQ jokes, eh?
@Pecunium (and then I’ll leave it alone if you’d prefer) I brought this over from the other thread rather than drag our disagreement there:
“MRAs, no matter how fucked up, are people. If they find partners who are willing to put up with them (or who happen to sincerely love/care for them) that’s their right.
Full stop.”
I am in complete agreement that everyone deserves love, and I am never for dehumanizing even the worst person by dismissing them as “evil” or a “monster” (I also think that puts off of us the responsibility of our own potential for such behavior); but when that behavior is abusive, I have a hard time saying “that’s their right” just because their partners love them and are devoted to them. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you here, but everything I’ve heard from the MRA philosophy is abusive to women. Misogyny is abusive to women. It’s not a lifestyle choice, it’s shittiness.
Ok, I’m rereading what you wrote, and I may have indeed misinterpreted you. You’re saying that their partners have the right to make the choice to be with them? Yes; but I also think abusers victimize their partners, so taking advantage of that right of their partners to make that choice is, to me, just another form of abuse.
“Please, let’s not mince words. It’s not my identity that’s seen as the problem, it’s my existence. They want to “cure” me of my existence.”
I kind of figured that was going to irk you, but what just occurred to me was that they want to “cure” you of Mac, which strikes me as an extra special kind of fucked up. (Not that curing you of Sneak, Gigi, etc wouldn’t be royally fucked up…)
Am I making any sense? In any case, you’re welcome to arm Gigi with a fish and send her at me if I make another IQ joke (idk why, but the idea of a child doing the fish slapping dance seems slightly fitting, though maybe a grown up doing it is more the right sort of absurdism? Whatever, some one can slap me with a fish of I do it again)
“Help me out here. What do you mean when you say you think they aren’t heterosexual?”
Heterosexuals are attracted to women. The people we are talking about are not attracted to women, they are attracted to a fake, non-existent construct that resembles the surface details of a stereotype of women that’s designed to serve their own needs and doesn’t take into account that their partners are actual autonomous people with legitimate needs. They’re hetero-fantasy-sexuals, I dunno what you’d call them! Maybe we don’t have the same definition of heterosexual??
Look, my views here are not policy-making; they are based on my own perceptions and experiences. As a woman I’m offended at being defined by someone who hates me for existing at the same time as insisting I exist only for their use. If they or you or anyone is offended by my defining that as *not* heterosexual, I can understand, but I also stand by my right to my own offense.
This was really enlightening regarding you’re heterosexuality comments.
I think everyone assumed that when you first said “they’re not really hetero” you meant that they’re secretely attracted to other men, or secretely asexual. The reason being that these theories have been proposed before on Manboobz, and that’s pretty offensive to gays and aces.
PennyDreadful: whomever ********* happens to be, they said it needs to be mandated that a group be forced to use sexbots; to protect another group.
That’s wrong. Are some (perhaps a large subset, maybe even a majority) abusive? Yep. But that’s no excuse for othering, and punishing, all of them.
And it’s a terrible precedent. It’s denying them an aspect of their humanity. What other atavisms will be declared to need massive interventions?
That I agree with the desired goal (keeping the abusers from preying on people) doesn’t change that the means are reprehensible.
They’re heterosexual assholes, yeah, we knew that…
Most people are, at least initially, attracted to what they think their partner is — whether that’s a stereotype, or a simple misunderstanding, or “OMGS we both love the same things!” Yeah, these guys are attracted to a fantasy view of women, and it’s a hurtful stereotype, but it takes time for any relationship to be about who the people really are. Even if that’s just the little things.
You certainly have a right to be offended by their views of women, but that doesn’t change the fact that they identify as heterosexual and that playing “I define what sexual orientations mean for other people” is royally fucked up.
Do I cease being poly and bi if I’m dating one person? Suddenly monogamous and straight/gay? How’s this work if we’re both genderqueer? (Damn you distance, ze’s all kiss of awesome! …and also poly and bi and thus I really am truly curious how this works in “define other people’s orientation” land)
Re: Argenti
what just occurred to me was that they want to “cure” you of Mac, which strikes me as an extra special kind of fucked up. (Not that curing you of Sneak, Gigi, etc wouldn’t be royally fucked up…)
Exactly. Also, the mythical ‘core’ person left town years ago, so we’d all have to go. But yes, I have no interest of being “cured” of my husband, my siblings, and myself. (I mean, besides all the ethical shit… you’ve worked in customer service. Tell me, what happens when suddenly everyone goes on vacation and you’re short-staffed? EVERYTHING GOES TO HELL!)
RE: Penny
As a woman I’m offended at being defined by someone who hates me for existing at the same time as insisting I exist only for their use. If they or you or anyone is offended by my defining that as *not* heterosexual, I can understand, but I also stand by my right to my own offense.
Ain’t nobody saying it’s not horrible and that you can’t be offended by that. But their perception of their orientation says absolutely nothing about you. It only defines THEM. Their assholery doesn’t define you, only them.
I mean, there are plenty of creepy trans chasers around, but I’m not about to tell them that they aren’t into trans people, even if they ARE waaaaay more interested in the fantasy in their head than me as a person. Their creepiness doesn’t define me at all.
Also, oh hey, guysguysguys, totally off-topic, but I accidentally am making a webcomic!
Educational mental health via autobio, with the occassional douchey unicorn or Green Lantern joke and golem trivia! I’m so excited!
“All kiss of awesome”
Freud was right >.< That should say all kinds, and I’m going to go sit in the corner of shame.
“Exactly. Also, the mythical ‘core’ person left town years ago, so we’d all have to go. But yes, I have no interest of being “cured” of my husband, my siblings, and myself. (I mean, besides all the ethical shit… you’ve worked in customer service. Tell me, what happens when suddenly everyone goes on vacation and you’re short-staffed? EVERYTHING GOES TO HELL!)”
FTR, after much debating, my clinical psych TA decided that the “core person” (host) was the one presenting for treatment. So I guess you’d get to stay? Not that it matters other than as a pedantic note. And fuck, as much as he annoys me sometimes, being “cured” of my brother would suck, he does make a useful set of extra hands XD
Everything goes to hell is an understatement! When I was in tech/software licensing, as a student employee, I’d get calls asking if we had X software, and where it was. Like um, guys? It’s behind you, why do I know that but you don’t?
“Also, oh hey, guysguysguys, totally off-topic, but I accidentally am making a webcomic! Educational mental health via autobio, with the occassional douchey unicorn or Green Lantern joke and golem trivia! I’m so excited!”
All the w00ts!
“Your point about heterosexuality I honestly don’t get. Surely a man can notice that he has an attraction to women, even if he has tons of fucked-up beliefs about them? All it takes to know that you’re attracted to X is to be fairly good at knowing when an X is around, and also recognise what attraction feels like. You don’t have to know shit about X to know that you’re attracted to X.”
Fair enough, I guess.
But again, what is the definition of “heterosexual”? Is it someone who is attracted to the opposite sex? Then what is the definition of that sex? The person who presents as that sex? Then what about non-cis heteros? Is it someone with the correct chromosomes? What about transgendered folks? This is actually a big issue for me, personally; I spent a large chunk of my youth physically attracted only to men I found out after the fact were gay, so what’s the correct term for who I was then? I’m really being rhetorical here. But again, if folks are taking offense at what I’m saying, I hope they’ll understand that I don’t find any of this so cut and dried.
And take the example of stalkers, or those with celebrity obsessions: who exactly is that person claiming to love? They don’t really know that actual person, the object of their affections is a complete fiction. So is their attraction valid? What validates attraction? Who gets to define who we are? If my definition is based on my definition of who I’m attracted to, and that definition is contrary to that person’s self-identity, who is at fault here?
“I think everyone assumed that when you first said “they’re not really hetero” you meant that they’re secretely attracted to other men, or secretely asexual. The reason being that these theories have been proposed before on Manboobz, and that’s pretty offensive to gays and aces.”
If you knew how slow my computer is loading, you’d forgive me for not going back to see exactly what I said. I *think* it was something like “it makes me wonder if they’re not really hetero” and I can see (especially based on how several people here have responded) how that sounded really insensitive. And I really am not an insensitive person, I just have strong opinions, tend to jump to conclusions (especially when exhausted), and a my brain is overdue for a brake-job : )
Again, my apologies.
I’m mostly lurking today because really busy but Rogan made me laugh with this:
And I am excited to hear about the webcomic, and hope you will share when it’s ready!
I’d have thought that heterosexual was the sort cut and dried of sexual orientations, but hey, it isn’t mine, so what do I know!
“I’m really being rhetorical here.” — yeah, that’s never stopped me, also, welcome to Spot That Fallacy!!
“But again, what is the definition of “heterosexual”? Is it someone who is attracted to the opposite sex?”
Yes, for cis people anyhow.
“Then what is the definition of that sex? The person who presents as that sex?”
Yes.
“Then what about non-cis heteros?”
Speaking from the genderqueer box over here, I don’t have an “opposite” sex. At a guess, for trans* people, ID’ing as heterosexual would indeed imply the opposite sex (from their post-transition gender // from the gender they identify as).
As for cis/non-cis relations, again, differs based on whether you mean binary trans* people, in which case there are trans* chasers as LBT said, and transphobic people, and people who’s sexual interest is focused on anatomy, but what they’d ID their relationship as is up to them. Doubly so for non-binaries (I’ve never met a non-bi/pan non-binary btw, though it seems entirely possible that one of us could be interested in only certain gender presentations)
“Is it someone with the correct chromosomes?”
Thanks for failing Transphobia Avoidance 101, please play again.
“What about transgendered folks?”
See above, if binary, then why the fuck couldn’t gay/straight apply based on the gender they ID as?
“This is actually a big issue for me, personally; I spent a large chunk of my youth physically attracted only to men I found out after the fact were gay, so what’s the correct term for who I was then?”
*refrains from snarking* um, attracted to some stereotype of gay men? Yeah, not touching any part of this one. Nor am I touch the celebrity question, as it’s both irrelevant, and in psych textbooks.
“If my definition is based on my definition of who I’m attracted to, and that definition is contrary to that person’s self-identity, who is at fault here?”
You, but that still doesn’t mean that other people get to apply a different label to you.
“Ain’t nobody saying it’s not horrible and that you can’t be offended by that. But their perception of their orientation says absolutely nothing about you. It only defines THEM. Their assholery doesn’t define you, only them.”
You know what? I’m very in a raw place right now from two relationships over the past several years where I was being defined by their assholery. And maybe explains the way I’m coming across to people here who barely know me.
And what you just said really really helps.