Politics and Porn

[MeekMe]

:sigh: This thread wasn't about MRAs and feminists. The thing with male nurses and secretaries is that those jobs have been looked upon as "women's work" and "women's work" is looked down upon. Men doing those jobs are viewed as "lowering" themselves to "women's work." Get what I'm saying here? Those are viewed as jobs held by mainly women because for a very long time the only work you could get as a woman was to be a school teacher or nurse or secretary or you could get a part time job up until you got married. Also, woman = automatic caregiver which is bullshit. I'm all for men being nurses and teachers and any other profession that is considered female dominated.

Funny thing happened recently. A woman complained that she felt women having equal rights ruined society. She seemed hung up on "it used to be men could be sole providers and there was balance for families." When I pointed out that women have always worked (just under bad conditions and for less money). She pointed out, "but now women work out of necessity! And men don't want to or can't be sole provider!"

I thought it was cute how she walked right into it. My response: That's great! Men have more choices, too! You mean men are not expected to be the sole provider and can even be stay at home dads if that works for them?!

Anyway, this isn't a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop complaining thread" (which is really easy for certain people to say) and is really about politics and porn/BDSM and how certain legislative moves can remove access to it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This is so not true.

Male nurses have a more difficult time finding/keeping work.

This is nonsense, as you could easily have discovered if you'd spent a couple of minutes looking up the facts.

There is a serious shortage of qualified nurses in much of the developed world; as the population ages, we need more nurses per capita, and supply isn't keeping up with demand. Hospitals and nursing schools all over the place have been trying to fix the gender imbalance in nursing. Partly that's just because the shortage of male nurses represents a potential untapped pool for recruiting, but there are also advantages in having a more even mix; some patients find it easier to talk to male nurses.

The US Census Bureau has published data on employment rates in nursing professions by sex. You can download the most recent estimates from this page: http://www.census.gov/people/io/publications/reports.html

Across all listed nursing categories there were 361,605 male nurses with 7,465 unemployed (2.1%). Meanwhile there were 83,130 unemployed female nurses out of 3,668,475 (2.3%). So estimated unemployment rates for male nurses were slightly LOWER than for female nurses.

If you exclude Not In Labor Force from the calculation, which technically you should do, the unemployment rates change to 2.2% for male nurses and 2.5% for female nurses. Either way, the difference between male and female unemployment rates is well within the margin of error in the counts.

Some coverage of this issue:

http://ameritech.edu/blog/why-male-nurse-career/

"If anything, the medical community has an enthusiastic stance about men joining the fold. So if you’re a man and are curious about how you might be received as a nurse, rest assured that you will fit right in with a growing number of others just like you. Many nursing programs aim to make up for the imbalance in male nurses by encouraging more men to enroll... Many hospitals desire a mix of genders among their staff... If you’re a man looking to enter the nursing field, you can enjoy a job market stacked in your favor in many ways... nurses have a mean annual wage of $71,000, but some evidence suggests male nurses can make much more. There are a few reasons for this, including that male nurses are disproportionately represented in many higher paying specialties, like Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-male-us-nurses-triple-since-1970/

"...male nurses on average make more money than their female counterparts. Full-time female nurses who work year-round earned 91 cents for every dollar male nurses earned... Men were found to be more likely to become nurse anesthetists, which is the highest paid nursing occupation, and were found least likely to become licensed practical or licensed vocational nurses, the lowest paid types of nursing... "Even among men and women in the same nursing occupations, men outearn women," wrote Landivar.

"Because of high demand, nursing has low unemployment rates compared to other fields, with the lowest rates -- of about 0.8 percent -- being reported among nurse practitioners and nurse anesthetists. For registered nurses and licensed practical and vocational nurses, unemployment rates were a bit higher -- 1.8 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively - which the authors still called "very low.""

http://www.aacn.nche.edu/aacn-publications/issue-bulletin/effective-strategies

"As the U.S. struggles to find solutions to the current nursing shortage, one strategy to address the emerging crisis continues to surface: Nursing schools need to strengthen their efforts to attract more men and minority students. "

Yes, men are significantly underrepresented in nursing, but that's because men are reluctant to enter a stereotypically female profession, NOT because it's hard for male nurses to find work.

I had a longer response to the rest of your comment here but I've decided to delete it, because it's all in the same vein. I just don't see the point in trying to have a reasonable conversation with somebody who prefers their own feelpinions and dogma to evidence-based debate. And honestly I don't think anybody else here wants to watch us going further down that tangent.

 

[KimGordon67]

I didn't read page 2 of the posts ... bad me, but it sounds like it would have made my head explode anyway.

Back to the point - banning porn in the age of the interweb is pretty silly, as people will always find a way around it. Criminalising recreactional drugs, sex work, pornography, underage sex, and a huge range of sexual practice didn't seem to stop people doing/using any of those things. Legalisation means better protection of vulnerable and the opportunity for better legislation. We legalised sex work here a while back, and the sky still seems to be in the sky, and the sex workers have better conditions and don't get arrested all the time and are more inclined to report assaults to the police.
I think CutieMouse has hit the nail on the head - from a legislative point of view, it would make far more sense to put resources into ameliorating the effects of the crap porn that's out there - and as parents, we have that responsibility too. Current controls on effective sex ed and the apparently complete inability of many parents to talk to their kids effectively about sex means a lot of young people are using the porn that's so readily available to learn about sex ... and it's not rocket science to imagine how that's working out for everyone. Not that I'm against things like anal sex or facials, but I'm not sure they should be go-to activities for 15 year olds. (Actually, I hate facials, but that's just me.) And let's face it, the majority of readily available porn doesn't do a stellar job of realistically representing women's sexual pleasure ... so now 21 year old guys aren't that fussed if their girlfriends don't really cum, but really would like to see some squirting. (I'm not joking about this - it's based on actual research.) Personally, I think porn will continue being made, and it's not going to suddenly become inaccessible. The real issue with 'actual' porn is more that it is understood as 'fantasy', not a how-to manual ... and that's probably the responsibility of parents, because it's tricky to imagine it being part of the school curricula (much as I'd love that).

In response to the original post ... I'm of the opinion that, now GLBTQI et al rights are beginning to be taken seriously, we're seeing a shift towards other 'alternative' sexual preferences also being more accepted. But that's going to a be long road, and there'll be a few swings to the right before it really happens. I'm hoping that the 'two people per relationship' model might get some traction soon, although I'm not expecting it in my lifetime. The raging success of 50 Shades (yes, I said it - I'll probably be summarily ejected now) is sort of like the rash of gay-friendly-but-not-really-confrontational media images that have saturated our screens for the last decade or so ... indication of a small shift. (Albeit one that contains the most shocking gender politics I've seen in a long time.) It is a pity that personal recounts, like those we engage in here, could come under the ambit of the swing to the right ... but that's sort of the con of the amazing level of communication that's possible in the age of the interweb ... now everyone can see what everyone is saying. It was better when we all wrote letters. (As an aside - did you know that taking a rude photo and sending it someone for the purposes of arousal is technically the creation of pornography in the legal sense.)

Possibly the most rambling post I've ever written ... and I'm not even on pain meds. If this was an essay, I'd be writing at the bottom 'I'm not entirely sure what your argument was here'.

 

[MeekMe]

Bramblethorn

As for the point of sending pictures is technically making porn, you are correct KimGordon67. One law was used to arrest teenagers for making child pornography. It's agreed that it was misused, but it's one of those things that happens with cases like this. As for porn just disappearing, we know that won't happen. At least, it won't be something so blatant if it does happen.

Much like abortion in the US, it's legal but they'll find ways to make it more difficult to access. I also think we can all agree that sex education is really important and porn shouldn't be used in its place, but that is a completely different issue. Not to mention, restrictions to content can often have further reaching consequences like helpful resources and information pertaining to sex education being deemed inappropriate. Planned Parenthood has recently come under fire for offering young people (coming to them for help/info) resources and education on BDSM practices.

And super neat-o awesome I found a resource I like. A Naked Notion YouTube channel.

And a video I watched and liked.

 

[Blue]

Planned Parenthood has recently come under fire for offering young people (coming to them for help/info) resources and education on BDSM practices.

Totally off topic buuuuut...
So I googled that and I wouldn't call it 'recent' since the latest article I can find is from Nov 6 2015, most being from 2014. But some of the content I found was amusing. All the articles I read are mainly mischaracterizations of a Planned Parenthood counselor's statements to a 15 plant claiming they had an interest in BDSM and a guide they published called '50 Shades of Safe', referring to BDSM as things like "violent sexual activity", implying it's morally wrong, etc. But no site, not even Brietbart, gave any good explanation on just why it's supposedly such a terrible thing which I found odd. I was hoping for wacky and asinine statements about Demonic possession or Illuminati conspiracies.

Thank Vishnu that comment sections exist!
Commentators, replies.

>"How long before the S/M crowd becomes the new group of persecuted rite seekers?"
>>"They will have to get in line with the polygamy seekers, the NAMBLA (man-boy love) and beastiality cult."

>"No surprise here, either. completely evil and literally sociopathic women running the murder organization. It's almost like they're the ancient "witches" exercising their demonic powers, which is pretty much true!"
>>"[Name], this is because THEY ARE VAMPIRES. These women are the direct indoctrinated descendants of the 60's hippie-witch culture that promoted "FREE LOVE" and had group sex with everyone. Those women, although THEY will tell you they worship the "goddess" or the "earth mother" like the druids did, are really doing the work of the devil. He is where all magic(k) comes from."

>So this is what Planned parenthood wants more funding for: "killing babies AND teens!" Well I guess this is what Obama's America's coming too.
>>And then people wonder why pedophilia is on the rise.

 

[MeekMe]

2014/2015 is recent for me and I pulled the example from memory. ;; And yeah, the majority of outrage comes from religious groups. It's seems reasonable to me to put safety information out there on popular topics, especially since you know young people have access to such books. Not to mention the wave of 30-40 somethings wanting to find their own Mr. Grey. I'd prefer someone get their info from a reliable source than learn abuse through something like 50SoG.

 

[KimGordon67]

Bramblethorn

As for the point of sending pictures is technically making porn, you are correct KimGordon67. One law was used to arrest teenagers for making child pornography. It's agreed that it was misused, but it's one of those things that happens with cases like this. As for porn just disappearing, we know that won't happen. At least, it won't be something so blatant if it does happen.

Much like abortion in the US, it's legal but they'll find ways to make it more difficult to access. I also think we can all agree that sex education is really important and porn shouldn't be used in its place, but that is a completely different issue. Not to mention, restrictions to content can often have further reaching consequences like helpful resources and information pertaining to sex education being deemed inappropriate. Planned Parenthood has recently come under fire for offering young people (coming to them for help/info) resources and education on BDSM practices.

And super neat-o awesome I found a resource I like. A Naked Notion YouTube channel.

And a video I watched and liked.

I'm not entirely sure the sex ed/porn discussion and the censorship issue are completely different debates. If we want the right to access/create sexually explicit material, then don't we also have the responsibility to educate people about that material? In all its forms, not just the stuff we personally think is OK. (I think that's the point I was trying to make last night in a much more rambly way.)

 

[MeekMe]

I'm not entirely sure the sex ed/porn discussion and the censorship issue are completely different debates. If we want the right to access/create sexually explicit material, then don't we also have the responsibility to educate people about that material? In all its forms, not just the stuff we personally think is OK. (I think that's the point I was trying to make last night in a much more rambly way.)

Sorry, I am a bit all over the place because I post from a phone. Typing with one finger tends to shorten my responses. It's also why I don't quote a lot of people, it's very difficult to format sometimes.

I didn't mean that porn and sexy ed and censorship are completely different. I was trying to say that porn shouldn't be a replacement for sex ed and that porn being a replacement for sex ed was a different debate (now I have no idea if I'm running in circles. ). I agree that these topics go together in that censoring porn also has the backlash of censoring education. And somehow it seems it can go the other way around. With so much fear and shame being placed on sex and sex ed getting the shaft with abstinence only education we get a fear of porn and an even bigger fear-boner for anything considered outside the "norm" for sexual activity.

 

[KimGordon67]

Sorry, I am a bit all over the place because I post from a phone. Typing with one finger tends to shorten my responses. It's also why I don't quote a lot of people, it's very difficult to format sometimes.

I didn't mean that porn and sexy ed and censorship are completely different. I was trying to say that porn shouldn't be a replacement for sex ed and that porn being a replacement for sex ed was a different debate (now I have no idea if I'm running in circles. ). I agree that these topics go together in that censoring porn also has the backlash of censoring education. And somehow it seems it can go the other way around. With so much fear and shame being placed on sex and sex ed getting the shaft with abstinence only education we get a fear of porn and an even bigger fear-boner for anything considered outside the "norm" for sexual activity.

Totally ... I think maybe I'm coming more from a 'OK, if we agree with not censoring porn (or at least, not the consensually produced stuff that doesn't represent things that are pretty universally agreed to be damaging), what do we need to do to address the issues that might arise there'. And I think accepting responsibility for ensuring that porn is used/produced in an informed way is a big thing. Personally, I really think parents have the lion's share of the responsibility here - we can't really expect schools to have a lot of morality-based stuff in their curriculum, and they maybe should mostly stick to the mechanics of sex. Maybe ...

The really irritating thing here is that 'norm' always does end up in inverted commas. I'm 100% many of the while male legislators do some pretty kinky stuff themselves, but the fact that we NEVER talk about sex in public means they have to look like they're conforming to the 'norms' as well. Having said that, gathering relevant data is it's own can of worms. I've tried to work with people writing surveys about sexual behaviour, and it's incredibly difficult. After two months, we looked at each and said 'We can't ask people these questions' and gave up.

 

[MeekMe]

Teaching the mechanics kind of works. Leaving out the religious guilt would have been nice. I'm thinking of the two times there was actually "sex ed" and I remember it being lots of diagrams but no clear explaination of how things worked. I definitely remember slut shaming and the "you'll get diseases and die if you have sex before marriage" talk. Unfortunately, that left me to figure it out on my own. Oh, the lessons I've learned (). The last video I linked to was about age appropriate sex education and I really liked how the topics were staged in a manner that could be most beneficial.

Speaking of collecting data on sexuality, that is really difficult. Surveyors pop up here about twice a year to ask questions, usually they turn out to not be legit, the ones that are legit typically get their questions dissected and picked apart. Tough crowd.

 

[KimGordon67]

Teaching the mechanics kind of works. Leaving out the religious guilt would have been nice. I'm thinking of the two times there was actually "sex ed" and I remember it being lots of diagrams but no clear explaination of how things worked. I definitely remember slut shaming and the "you'll get diseases and die if you have sex before marriage" talk. Unfortunately, that left me to figure it out on my own. Oh, the lessons I've learned (). The last video I linked to was about age appropriate sex education and I really liked how the topics were staged in a manner that could be most beneficial.

Speaking of collecting data on sexuality, that is really difficult. Surveyors pop up here about twice a year to ask questions, usually they turn out to not be legit, the ones that are legit typically get their questions dissected and picked apart. Tough crowd.

Luckily we're not allowed to include religion in the education curriculum, so the religious guilt is sucked out automatically. People's lack of basic information continues to astound me though - my husband and I met when he was something like 30, and I had to explain to him why periods happened.

Lit users aren't really a representative sample of anything other than Lit users ... with the general population, the issues are quite different, e.g. how to explain to my 67 year old mother what 'rimming' is. She thinks basic oral sex is disgusting enough.

 

[LucyBee01]

Just read an interesting piece by Myles Jackman, the UK's only specialist lawyer in obscenity laws and sexual freedoms:

http://mylesjackman.com/index.php/m...-is-the-canary-in-the-coalmine-of-free-speech

 

[Blue]

Just read an interesting piece by Myles Jackman, the UK's only specialist lawyer in obscenity laws and sexual freedoms:

http://mylesjackman.com/index.php/m...-is-the-canary-in-the-coalmine-of-free-speech

Oh my god, read this guy's case studies on the front page. I knew our government was stuck in the 50's but really...

I've been reading a bit about this subject recently as well, I think the Americans might be shocked to learn that you can still be prosecuted here for owning porn that would, and I quote: "Degrade and corrupt a person who is to read, see or listen to it.".

 

[Duncan113]

My position is today what it has always been: if someone finds something upsetting or offensive, they shouldn't participate in it, now should they? The point being, the burden is on the person who finds something objectionable, not on the person who creates the thing being accused of being objectionable. Golly heck, a few years ago this would've been called common sense. If there's a movie you find offensive, don't watch it. If there's a web site you find offensive, don't go to it. If there's a book, a magazine, a porn video or a stuffed animal that upsets you, then don't partake of it! We are coming very close, especially lately, to actual full-scale madness. I mean the genuinely crazy idiot children in our midst (you know, the ones currently rioting in our streets) taking over and turning the whole place into a zoo for demented animals.

 

[Blue]

My position is today what it has always been: if someone finds something upsetting or offensive, they shouldn't participate in it, now should they? The point being, the burden is on the person who finds something objectionable, not on the person who creates the thing being accused of being objectionable. Golly heck, a few years ago this would've been called common sense. If there's a movie you find offensive, don't watch it. If there's a web site you find offensive, don't go to it. If there's a book, a magazine, a porn video or a stuffed animal that upsets you, then don't partake of it! We are coming very close, especially lately, to actual full-scale madness. I mean the genuinely crazy idiot children in our midst (you know, the ones currently rioting in our streets) taking over and turning the whole place into a zoo for demented animals.

You're 11 days late to the party.

 

[MeekMe]

My position is today what it has always been: if someone finds something upsetting or offensive, they shouldn't participate in it, now should they? The point being, the burden is on the person who finds something objectionable, not on the person who creates the thing being accused of being objectionable. Golly heck, a few years ago this would've been called common sense. If there's a movie you find offensive, don't watch it. If there's a web site you find offensive, don't go to it. If there's a book, a magazine, a porn video or a stuffed animal that upsets you, then don't partake of it! We are coming very close, especially lately, to actual full-scale madness. I mean the genuinely crazy idiot children in our midst (you know, the ones currently rioting in our streets) taking over and turning the whole place into a zoo for demented animals.

I think you've got it backwards. The people protesting (the wonderful freedom loving people that they are) are out protesting against the people that seem bent on limiting things like porn. You know that orange guy that signed a pledge to crackdown on porn? Meanwhile, your rant added a whole lot of nothing to this discussion.

 

[BertrandRussell]

My position is today what it has always been: if someone finds something upsetting or offensive, they shouldn't participate in it, now should they? The point being, the burden is on the person who finds something objectionable, not on the person who creates the thing being accused of being objectionable. Golly heck, a few years ago this would've been called common sense. If there's a movie you find offensive, don't watch it. If there's a web site you find offensive, don't go to it. If there's a book, a magazine, a porn video or a stuffed animal that upsets you, then don't partake of it! We are coming very close, especially lately, to actual full-scale madness. I mean the genuinely crazy idiot children in our midst (you know, the ones currently rioting in our streets) taking over and turning the whole place into a zoo for demented animals.

... your rant added a whole lot of nothing to this discussion.

It seemed relevant to me.

Two days ago, in Berkeley, the birthplace of the 60's free speech movement, rioters attacked police and vandalized property in an attempt to limit someone's free speech. They succeeded. The university's response was to fold. Nobody was arrested.

I'm no fan of the intended speaker, but I'm appalled that a government agency would let such a thing happen.

We seem to be caught between a government that wants to censor using the law, and rioters who want to censor using violence with the cowardly consent of the government. I don't like either. But I consider the latter to be more dangerous.

"First they came for the racist editor, and I did nothing because he was a fucking racist..."

 

[Bramblethorn]

It seemed relevant to me.

Two days ago, in Berkeley, the birthplace of the 60's free speech movement, rioters attacked police and vandalized property in an attempt to limit someone's free speech. They succeeded. The university's response was to fold. Nobody was arrested.

I'm no fan of the intended speaker, but I'm appalled that a government agency would let such a thing happen.

I find it weird that the riots at Berkeley get more coverage, and more tut-tutting, than the fact that one of Milo's fanboys shot a demonstrator at another university appearance just two weeks ago.

Between that and Milo's long history of using any available platform to harass and victimise people, it's not hard to see why people might have felt that he had no place speaking at Berkeley. We're talking about the guy who used fabricated screenshots to get Leslie Jones bullied off Twitter because... uh... something about not wanting a black woman to be in a movie, I guess.

If the university had been doing their job better, they wouldn't have allowed him on campus in the first place. The right to free speech is not the right to a podium at UC Berkeley.

 

[Bramblethorn]

My position is today what it has always been: if someone finds something upsetting or offensive, they shouldn't participate in it, now should they? The point being, the burden is on the person who finds something objectionable, not on the person who creates the thing being accused of being objectionable. Golly heck, a few years ago this would've been called common sense. If there's a movie you find offensive, don't watch it. If there's a web site you find offensive, don't go to it.

What you're missing is that "don't watch it" and "don't be affected by it" aren't the same thing.

Example:

There are literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of films (and books, and 'comedy' routines) that recycle the same old gag: guy kisses hot woman, guy finds out she has a penis, guy is humiliated, maybe physically sick, and all his friends laugh at him.

Those films encourage men to believe that trans women are disgusting creatures who try to "trap" men into sex, and that being intimate with a trans woman is pretty much the most humiliating thing that could ever happen to you. The sort of thing that should inspire murderous rage... if you see where I'm going with this.

Trans women don't watch those films by choice, but they have to share a world with people who do, and that can be lethal.

 

[Nezhul]

Those films encourage men to believe that trans women are disgusting creatures who try to "trap" men into sex, and that being intimate with a trans woman is pretty much the most humiliating thing that could ever happen to you.

I would be quite disturbed and upset if I found out that the girl I kissed was a transgender man.

And not because of the trope. And not even so much because I dislike transgenders. It's just that I was planning to kiss a girl, and then have sex with a girl, and now I have been cheated and basically spent a lot of my time for nothing, for some useless fucker who couldn't even be honest with me.

Tell me you wouldn't be upset if in a restaurant you ordered an expensive steak, and got a plate of cabbage. Then the waiter politely explains to you that "Steak" is the name of this cabbage meal in this restaurant, and yes, it costs a lot just because reasons.
Are you telling me you would smile, laugh at you being silly and eat your cabbage?

The same way. The dude just tricked me. Made me do something that I wouldn't do normally, for his own sexual gratification. And now the lie comes to light - and what do YOU suggest I do?
Fuck a transvestite? Or just laugh and spend a nice evening together? What?
You bet I'm going to be upset. And not because of some stupid thing like movies. I get the feeling that you just spout nonsense everywhere you go.

 

[HisArpy]

I get the feeling that you just spout nonsense everywhere you go.

It doesn't feel like nonsense to them. In fact, it's probably perfectly logical to them that I shouldn't be able to express myself or listen to someone else do same because someone did something ILLEGAL miles away during an event I wasn't present at and wasn't connected with.

It makes perfect sense. It does. If you believe in fanaticism.

To the demonstrators and protesters, it's perfectly justifiable to use anything as an excuse to take away MY freedoms today in the name of activism. Yet, if I try to do the same, I'm evil and that justifies even MORE radical behavior.

 

[Blue]

We're talking about the guy who used fabricated screenshots to get Leslie Jones bullied off Twitter because... uh... something about not wanting a black woman to be in a movie, I guess.

So just for the record; I'm not a fan of Milo either. But he was in a twitter feud with her because she implied he and his fans were racists and/or misogynists for criticizing the producers of the Ghostbusters remake using a female cast as a cheap gimmick. Which was the main talking point of the cast, studio and director in response to the overwhelming criticism of the trailer (which is now something like the 6th most disliked video on youtube).

So at least in that instance the critique of Milo is not valid. Especially so since he's very vocal about his attraction to black men.

On a side note; I would speculate that labelling their potential audience as racists and sexists at every opportunity because they made a bad promo would be a primary factor for why the movie was a commercial flop.

 

[CutieMouse]

If the university had been doing their job better, they wouldn't have allowed him on campus in the first place. The right to free speech is not the right to a podium at UC Berkeley.

Actually, the university WAS doing their job - allowing someone with a strongly dissenting opinion from the norm, the same platform to express his opinion as someone who's opinion better aligned with the "norm".

The guy might be a dick, but he still has a right to publicly state his views. And people who agree with him (or not) have a right to pay for tickets to listen to him. The same way Westboro Baptist has a right to stand on public property and spout hatred. Or the National Right to Life organization has a right to run a website and put forth their agenda.

If we as a society remove the right of someone to say something just because we disagree or we find it offensive, who's to say the same thing won't happen to the current majority opinion when political tides turn? Denying speech simply because it is offensive, is a slippery slope.

Having said that - the right to peaceful protest is constitutionally protected; protesting through destruction of property, is not. From the research I've done re: the Berkley situation, outside agitators showed up intending to cause damage. And I'm absolutely disgusted that no one was arrested. The people who showed up intending to cause harm were not "protesting"; they were breaking the law.

My greatest concern (sitting back watching things unfold since the election), is that there is a group of people so determined to hate what has happened (Trump's Presidency) that the left's cause will be damaged beyond repair by the time they realize their approach isn't working... I fear coming back from that will be more damaging than anything Trump can possibly do.

 

[KimGordon67]

I would be quite disturbed and upset if I found out that the girl I kissed was a transgender man.

And not because of the trope. And not even so much because I dislike transgenders. It's just that I was planning to kiss a girl, and then have sex with a girl, and now I have been cheated and basically spent a lot of my time for nothing, for some useless fucker who couldn't even be honest with me.

Tell me you wouldn't be upset if in a restaurant you ordered an expensive steak, and got a plate of cabbage. Then the waiter politely explains to you that "Steak" is the name of this cabbage meal in this restaurant, and yes, it costs a lot just because reasons.
Are you telling me you would smile, laugh at you being silly and eat your cabbage?

The same way. The dude just tricked me. Made me do something that I wouldn't do normally, for his own sexual gratification. And now the lie comes to light - and what do YOU suggest I do?
Fuck a transvestite? Or just laugh and spend a nice evening together? What?
You bet I'm going to be upset. And not because of some stupid thing like movies. I get the feeling that you just spout nonsense everywhere you go.

I think BT's point is that most trans WOMEN (not men - they're NOT men) don't engage in this sort of 'deception' (I could argue whether it's really a deception or not), but the constant depiction of this extremely rare scenario means that people feel justified in violence against trans people because they supposedly engage in deception'. I don't know many trans people who wouldn't tell someone they were trans prior to getting to the kissing point PRECISELY BECAUSE of the risk of violence, so I think you're safe from being 'tricked' by some 'dude'.
BT's point was that these depictions, which trans people don't consume, still affect their lives.
I also think you're pretty safe because no trans person in their right mind would go near someone who's so obviously transphobic.

 

[KimGordon67]

What you're missing is that "don't watch it" and "don't be affected by it" aren't the same thing.

Example:

There are literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of films (and books, and 'comedy' routines) that recycle the same old gag: guy kisses hot woman, guy finds out she has a penis, guy is humiliated, maybe physically sick, and all his friends laugh at him.

Those films encourage men to believe that trans women are disgusting creatures who try to "trap" men into sex, and that being intimate with a trans woman is pretty much the most humiliating thing that could ever happen to you. The sort of thing that should inspire murderous rage... if you see where I'm going with this.

Trans women don't watch those films by choice, but they have to share a world with people who do, and that can be lethal.

Awesome point ... and fits in with something I think I said further up that the prevalence of readily available porn is having an affect on what young men think sex with women 'should' look like, so even though the women aren't (by and large) consuming the porn themselves, it's having an affect on them too. I don't think this means porn should be banned, but we should be cognisant of it's effects - simply saying 'if you don't like it, don't watch it' isn't a very helpful attitude.