Discourse - Blog Posts

I think that a lot of parents prefer their teenagers having cell phones to them not having cell phones, because it makes it easier to coordinate lots of things (pick-up time from events, meeting location, “can you pick up [x] while you’re at the store, etc.). Especially given the number of teenagers who rely on their parents for transportation, teenagers not having cell phones is inconvenient for the parents, not just the teenagers.

I think some adults are bothered by teenagers using their cell phones for social media, and/or during in-person social events? Some of the people complaining about teenagers using cell phones are also older than the parents of current teenagers.

why dont phones have little tiny laser pointers built in

reproductive rights issues:

abortion

birth control

also reproductive rights issues:

doctors performing c sections during births without informed consent

eugenics via sterilization requirements for trans people to change documentation

eugenics via forced/nonconsenting sterilization of disabled people

eugenics via forced/nonconsenting sterilization of people of color

eugenics via selective abortion of disabled fetuses (fetuses with Down syndrome especially) (these are abortions sought by people who WANT to be pregnant–but only with non-disabled children, when there’s absolutely no guarantee that a non-disabled child won’t become disabled)

if your reproductive rights activism doesn’t incorporate ALL OF THE ABOVE, i want no part of it.

If you are a non-Jewish person attempting to be inclusive of Jewish holidays and traditions, but your method of doing so starts from the assumption that Judaism is exactly like Christianity but with less Jesus, and/or that Hanukkah is just like Christmas but eight days long and harder to spell, you are doing it wrong.

(Hanukkah traditions: not actually Christmas traditions with a different color scheme! Including Jewish traditions: not actually talking about Hanukkah exactly like Christmas but with the name of the holiday switched around! Judaism and Christianity are different and their holidays are different. If you actually want to include Jewish people, recognizing these differences is an important step.)

@slatestarscratchpad

My possibly-incorrect understanding of the tax bill is that it doesn’t implement all the deductions at once, which suggests that it wouldn’t add the same amount to the debt this year as it would in, say, 2024. This means that the “x dollars per year” formulation is problematic because it will vary radically depending on which year we look at.

(This seems like it could be solved by “x dollars per year starting in 20whenever, but there might be some reason why that doesn’t work.)

The news I read about the tax plan says it will add $1 trillion to the national debt. Occasionally it ends with “…over the next decade”.

Is there a reason this phrasing is preferable to “will add $100 billion per year to the national debt” or “will add $10 trillion to the national debt over the next century” or “will add $2.50 to the national debt over the next microsecond”?

If not, are headlines like “NEW TAX PLAN WILL ADD $1 TRILLION TO DEBT” completely arbitrary, since they could have made it any number by changing the (unspoken) time course?

@evolution-is-just-a-theorem

I don’t think (f) is necessarily about minds, especially given your interpretation of g. “Sherlock Holmes has a name that starts with S” seems to me to be the equivalent of “Justice has a name that starts with J.” Even though Justice is not a physical thing that exists in the world any more than Sherlock Holmes is, the second statement can still be evaluated as true or false, in the sense that the first letter of the string “Justice” can be determined.

(It is possible that you are using a more narrow definition of the word “name” than I am, which could affect this analysis.)

Bullet of the day: conversations about fictional objects are non-sensical*. One cannot reasonably ask whether or not Sherlock and Watson did the frick-frack.

@lambdaphagy , because you had good comments the last time I talked about a similar topic.

* They can be made sensical without changing the conversation *too* much, but in my experience people don’t even realize they’re doing something strange.

Statements about DACA (which was referenced in the original screenshot) generally are about immigration, yes.

I also found the tweet that contained the original screenshot of the email. It’s from a reporter at The Blaze, which is a right-wing organization and I believe the group that originally broke the story.

I can’t find the full email anywhere, nor proof that it actually exists that can’t eventually be traced back to that same tweet. I’m also not subscribed to the Planned Parenthood mailing list, so I can’t just check, but if anyone who follows me is subscribed and would like to verify this, the email would have been from around September 5.

(Also, I think it’s legitimate for an organization to briefly mention issues relating to groups that are not its primary focus as an expression of support when it’s relevant. This would be true even if it were a group that I am not particularly involved with. For instance, if Trump were to sign an executive order tomorrow barring Mormons from attending school, it would be reasonable for GLSEN to send out an email saying something like “We stand with our Mormon members” even though that has nothing to do with GLSEN’s mission (and Mormonism is not known for its acceptance of LGBT+ people.) Putting aside questions of immigration law, Planned Parenthood most likely has DACA beneficiaries on its mailing list; if it wants to reassure those people that it supports them, that is legitimate.)

Zero self-awareness

I’m studying Japanese, and this is way more complicated than just sticking three sets of characters together for comparison. (I am not studying Chinese. Take everything I say about Chinese with a heaping mound of salt.) Japanese is written with three different sets of syllables (Hiragana, Katakana, and Kanji), which each have a different use in the language.

Examples of hiragana: あいうえお

Examples of katakana: アイウエオ

Examples of kanji: 私漢字日機口

The kanji might look similar to the Chinese writing system, because that is where they were derived from. Confusing something written entirely in kanji with Chinese is completely understandable if you don’t know either language. (For instance, 中  from the original post could be either Chinese or Japanese.) However, most sentences in Japanese will have other characters, while most Chinese sentences will not.

Example of a Japanese sentence: 私の名前はロバートです。

Example of a Chinese sentence: 的名字是羅伯特 (I think; I pulled this from Google Translate so it could be wildly ungrammatical.)

Korean looks totally different, at least to me.

I don’t really understand getting mad at people for mixing up korean, chinese, and japanese

Like, look at them together

見る한국어中国死ね我要吃你マンコ형사我有大鸡巴

and tell me they don’t look similar lol

@johnhocksbur

This isn’t how statistical methodology works.

If you want to be able to generalize the results of your survey to the general population, you have to use some form of random sampling*, you can’t just ask random people on the internet. Twitter polls (etc.) have two main flaws:

1. Response is voluntary, which means that people who don’t care are less likely to answer, and (on questions where this is applicable) people with more middle-of-the-road or less-shocking answers are less likely to answer. 

2. They operate using “convenience sampling,” which is basically what it sounds like and tends to bias the results in favor of whatever opinion is held by the people in the group likely to notice the survey. A political survey on the Fox News website will tend to have more conservative responses than the general population; a sports survey on the Boston Globe website will tend to have more pro-Red Sox responses than the general population; a survey on a Twitter page will tend to have more whatever-the-twitter-users-followers think responses than the general population.

(I did a brief Google search to see if this has been surveyed reliably and didn’t find anything, although possibly I could find something in an academic database. If anyone can find a reliable survey, I would be interested in seeing what the results.)

*This is somewhat complicated by the fact that it is nearly impossible to do a perfectly random sample. Phone surveys in which callers are randomly chosen and the response rate is high are generally close enough in surveys of Americans, although they aren’t perfect.

This is so interesting to me. 65% of people would rather experience rape than be falsely accused of rape.

Well, actually, according to a 2015 survey by the Pew Research center, in America, 45% of Muslims say that “homosexuality should be accepted by society,” about the same as Protestants (48%) and more than specifically Evangelical Protestants (36%), Mormons (36%), and Jehovah’s Witnesses (16%).

Additionally, looking specifically at support for same-sex marriage being legalized, 42% of Muslims support this, roughly the same amount as Christians overall (44%) and more than Protestants (39%, with specifically Evangelical Protestants having a support rate of 28%), Mormons (26%), and Jehovah’s Witnesses (14%).

Now, obviously there were other religious groups in the survey, and some of them were more accepting of the LGBT+ community than Muslims, on average. But given the number of groups than which Muslims were more accepting, singling out Muslims specifically is ... factually dubious at best.

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/

@johnhocksbur

😁 🐸 lol

@johnhocksbur

PSA: The wage gap isn’t real

John 6:51-53 says, “ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” That’s fairly unambiguous: his followers are confused about why Jesus would give them flesh to eat, whereas they wouldn’t be confused about being giving bread to eat. They also would not refer to ordinary bread as flesh.

In addition, according to Luke 22:19 and Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus, when giving the disciples the bread/flesh at the Last Supper, said, “This is my body given for you.” He didn’t say, “This is a metaphor for my body.” He said, “This is my body.” Although Jesus frequently spoke in parables, we know from Mark 4:34 that he would explain the parables to his disciples: : “When he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.” If communion was metaphorical, Jesus would have explained it. There’s no indication that it was meant as a metaphor.

Seriously, one of the important tenets of Protestantism is “sola scriptura,” so why would you ignore the clear statements of Scripture on this topic?

Okay, new rule: if you regularly consume the blood and flesh of a demigod in a room full of chanting elders you’re not allowed to call other religions primitive and evil

I really do think that if trans people on the internet spent as much time meeting each other and kissing on the lips as they do policing others' identities, the world would be a better place

people who don't like kissing should come over and give me a big hug

Children are like dogs, they need to be socialized and put into situations in order to learn how to behave in them. Yes, children require adaptability for their parents, but they also require adaptability within their society. The children of today are the leaders of tomorrow, and while they should be expected to behave in developmentally appropriate ways, treating them with scorn is an exercise in foolishness, and often deeply rooted in misogyny.

the demonisation of babies and children in public is a feminist issue when mothers are the primary caretakers of their children and constantly making them feel unwelcome existing in public is not okay. ur demands for children and babies to be kept at home all the time is not only detrimental to those babies and children but what. do u just want mothers to be kept chained inside their houses?

This sudden ‘nazi’ drama is really stupid. I don’t even believe @decayplush​ is even a real nazi. They just actually want the abuse you guys are sending them because they are mentally unwell and thrive off that. That is literally so obvious. Look at the way their whole blog flow changed when they realized the more they could offend the more negative abuse they get. If you even look at their archive they only posted like one photo, and that got attention and they realized they could use that to feed whatever abusive crave they have and are using it to get their fix. They probably don’t even have a boyfriend, and if they do I’m pretty sure they aren’t even a Nazi anyway. Everyone needs to chill because it’s really fucking stupid and all you are doing is putting fuel on a fire. Yes, actual real Nazis are fucking horrible and are literally scum but you guys need to open your eyes and see shit for what it is instead of seeing one thing that triggers you and trying to be keyboard warriors like “U sHaReD tHiS?? U NaZi?? DiE!” without taking a moment to look at the bigger picture. People are just so quick to hop on the discourse trains dick because internet drama is fun. Just admit it. Like @pxiince shared a piece of art, big whoop. The swastika wasn't even originally the symbol of the Nazi and was STOLEN and tainted. It needs to be taken back as the sacred religious symbol that it was for 5,000 years and actual Nazis, ignorant quick-tempered people, and edgy fuckheads can just die mad about it. 

https://www.tumblr.com/squaloropera/749207242108256256/hey-ask-me-about-the-inherent-heteronormativity-of?source=share

Okay explain because I'm interested

Oh thank god. You will regret this.

Now, the first thing to do here is to explain exactly what I mean by ‘top/bottom’ discourse. What I’m referring to, specifically, is people arguing over fictional characters (usually) and their preferred positions in penetrative sex. These characters being gay, almost exclusively. Pretty fucked up, but now that we have that point of reference, I can explain better. Now, there is no inherent heteronormativity in thinking a character prefers to bottom or top, but the discourse here is usually where the problem lies. First of all, roles of ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ aren’t exclusive. A top can bottom, a bottom can top, there is no set rule. Thinking anything otherwise dangerously borders on ‘____ is the girl of the relationship cause he only ever takes’ territory. This is the heart of this heteronormativity claim. In general, this discourse will be in the comments of any fanart or fanfiction of a gay fictional pairing that happens to be sexual. Usually, you’ll find at least a few comments of ‘Nooooooooo, ____ totally tops!’ and with the expectation that said character should always be the more sexually dominant one, even if there’s no penetrative sex being displayed and the word ‘top’ is being used to refer to sexual dominance. The core of this discourse is never actually about the actual meaning of ‘top’ and ‘bottom’, but in fact the words are being used in place of ‘the girl’ and ‘the guy’. If you replace ‘____ is the bottom!’ with ‘____ Is the girl in the relationship!’ it suddenly makes the comment make sense, and also reveals the sinister nature of top/bottom discourse.

I hope this was coherent, lol.

Hey ask me about the inherent heteronormativity of top/bottom discourse in fandom

I keep seeing posts about how fandoms are weird and bad and cringe and im like. I sure hope so? do you guys know what a subculture is? especially one made mostly of teens and eccentric adults who dont care what you think

POLIO SHOULD NOT BE A GOOD THING.

POLIO SHOULD NOT BE A NORMAL THING.

POLIO SHOULD BE A PROBLEM. POLIO IS A HORRIBLE THING AND IT IS A LOT WORSE THAN THE OTHER STUFF.

Vague Discourse Post (please avoid if you’re not interested, take care of yourself)

Does it ever piss you off when people will go “you’re terrible for liking this character, this character is awful and has done awful things. You’re just lying to yourself if you say that they are out of character in these moments”

And then they turn around and go “this story was awful they completely mischaracterized my favorite character. They would never do this thing. How dare you hate my favorite.”

I’ve just noticed this a lot in a lot of the fandoms I’m a part of. I feel silly getting upset about this but I just needed to get it off my chest.

As a plural [questioning origin] who is new to the plural and system community in general, I wanna point out that from what we've seen being a system/plural is not really the whole thing with DID and other dissociative disorder like that, it's the trauma and being a system is more of an "add-on" (sorry for phrasing it like that).

So people saying they are PLURAL or a SYSTEM or whatever other word they prefer to use without trauma is not misdiagnosing themselves cause they aren't claiming to have DID or OSDD or other trauma based dissociative disorders without trauma. They are just saying that they have a similar thing to people with those disorders (I hope we are explaining this correctly).

So why are anti endos so obsessed with trying to call them fake or saying that they are doing that? If you just listen to them, you would learn more, and isn't that better? Don't traumagenic systems/plurals want to be listened to instead of being thought of badly from misinformation and bad representation and shit? So why aren't they doing that for endos?

I wouldn't usually jump into "discourse" or anything, but we felt like this needed to be said and understood. If you don't like this post, leave my account, go ahead, and block me. It will save everyone a ton of time.

- Lakey (They/it + blu/blue/blues/blues/blueself) & Shay (They/it) | almost always here as the host, lol

I think a big part of the reason that I went from anti-endo to endo-safe was absolutely due to how starkly different the communities felt.

Anti-endo communities were hard to engage with. Sure, some of them would focus on their support for each other more than their hatred of endogenic systems. And that's great! However, when you are brought together by your dislike of a certain group, you can't help but feel the hate permiate into so much of it. It always happened eventually. Anti-endo communities had such a focus on systems who were "fake" that I couldn't help but worry I was one of them, no matter how much they told me it was "just endos" they were concerned about.

The endo community (at least the parts I've engaged with and were easy to find) were so kind and respected me as a system, no matter how I felt or my plurality presented. Simply knowing we could find joy in our plurality allowed us to strive for so much more than we had thought possible before.

As a traumagenic system, we've improved so much with our symptoms and communication as a result of the positivity and acceptance we recieved. When we joined communities where we could be authenticallly ourselves (no matter what), we came together and faced so much less conflict between each other. And the conficts we did have, we realized that we could solve them together rather than alone.

When you are constantly doubting if you are "actually a system", you start to push the others away, and that made our dissociation and amnesia so much worse. I understand being careful of self-misdiangnosis, it can put you on the wrong path for how you learn to manage your symptoms. At the same time, the sentiment I often heard from endogenic systems when I was struggling with doubt and denial was very simple: "So what if you're not a system?" In short, it was okay to be wrong.

And that was huge for me. I realized that, no matter if I was a system or not, the techniques I used to improve ourselves and communicate with one another beneficial to me. At the end of the day, even if I wasn't a system after all, the skills I had found we invaluble to my health and well-being. So when I fall into denial spirals, no matter what I think about myself, I now know that I don't need to deprive myself of what has helped me, even if it is a "system thing." I don't feel scared to use these skills anymore (even in denial spirals), beacuse the line between what systems and non-systems or singlets can/can't do suddenly wasn't a big deal or a battle of "who can do what."

Our plurality is no longer a burden or a scar to us. It is simply who we are. We've learned so much about each other and ourselves since we've been accepted in full, and since we've learned to accept others. Endogenic communities have helped us (a traumagenic system) probably more than they'll ever know, and we're forever grateful for that.

So thank you, endogenic systems.

Being aromantic, asexual, or aspec in any amount does not make you inhuman, sick, or in need of treatment. You are wonderful as you are

Context: [Link 1, Link 2]

this is something that’s been lost as common knowledge both since the drop off of anti-ace discourse and directly Because of it ever having been a thing in the first place, but in light of recent published bigotry pointed at aspecs (aces And aros) gaining attention I think this is something that bares emphasizing:

this reaction isn’t new, it’s something we’ve seen from conservatives for decades now.

a commonly accepted talking point is that conservative christians Must love aspec people, because they represent the theoretical ideal of abstinence. it’s something that I see even from spaces that Aren’t using it as a weapon against aspecs, and in a vacuum it makes sense as an Assumption.

but the thing it misses is that conservative christians do not think asexual and aromantic people Are Real. when they idolize abstinence it’s as a great sacrifice that one makes to defeat the Universal Demon Of Lust. and, more importantly, It’s Something That’s Supposed To End. you’re Supposed to get into a nice heterosexual christian marriage and have lots of little babies that you take to your nice heterosexual christian church, repeated ad infinitum.

and moreover, both christians and popular society In General see our ability for romantic love as The Thing That Makes Humans Human.

so you introduce the concept of people who Don’t experience either of those things and you get two reactions.

1: horror. the “this is a mental/physical illness that desperately needs to be fixed” approach. the idea is monstrous or pitiable but always revolting. they Believe that you live this way, but they don’t believe that it’s something that a “normal” human being could experience or that it’s something that someone could be Happy experiencing.

2: Suspicion. they don’t believe that asexuality or aromanticism Is Real, therefore it Must be a coverup for something even more revolting than is being lead on. it’s not unlike the idea that any feminine or non-threatening trait in a guy (Any guy) is Really just him trying to lure women into a false sense of security by Being seemingly non-threatening, and is therefore even More suspicious as a potential threat.

we’ve Always seen “well if he doesn’t want to fuck humans then I’ll Bet He Wants To Fuck Something Else” and pedophilia accusations/implications. they don’t see aspecs as Pure and Holy, they see them as a threat either to their understanding of what humans can be or as a wolf in sheep’s clothing trying to get away with something.

this is hardly even the first time that aspecs have been presented this way in published news articles or tv. the difference is that public awareness of asexuality and aromanticism has shifted, and with it the bigotry that was always there is being amplified.

that said, I think it’s important to emphasize that this isn’t new, considering the history of erasure ace and aro people have experienced when trying to talk about said bigotry.

I don’t necessarily think this post needs “evidence” (especially with the fox news article already linked above), but for the sake of illustration lets turn back the clock to 2015 for one of the examples I have saved [Link]

I am sick and I am tired of being forcibly shoved out of the spaces built by and for those like me.

I do not even care for insane allegations of things like "cultism", and I wish to say it clearly: leave our spaces alone.

How much entitlement does one need to have in order to first whine about our mere existence, then infiltrate the spaces we create for ourselves after being shunned and berated by you and your community?

'clinical zoanthropy' is not a mere identity label one can use as they please. It is a term with a history of extreme ableism and violence towards those like me, and it is a term we are forced to use not only to protect ourselves, but also to identify each other among the crowd. It is not about a metaphorical sense of physical therianthropy, it is a medical term used to enact violence onto us by the psych community, humanity and society itself. It was never something one could use as they please, and I'm really sad that I have to be so harsh over this, but it has to be said.

"why do you use this term if you claim you are not delusional?" Because I am forced to. If I don't, I get thrown into hell itself and forced to endure years of treatment to yet again mold me into the perfect, mindless citizen, all because I say "I am animal"—which is the damn truth. I have to use this term in order to be taken seriously as a person, in order to live as a person with even the minimal rights I can be given, and to not immediately be clocked as a madman (and even that fails).

And on top of that, even among this, it is still a term that helps us find each other. That helps us find a community. Due to how uncommon, "niche" it is, we easily can find each other among the general community, therefore find support and comfort... So, when a word this unused, exclusive to a very particular sort of a group suddenly goes boom, becomes mainstream and no longer exclusive to just us—we become unable to really find each other again. Therefore, our only line of support gets cut short.

The therian community has to accept one thing—not everything is for you. Just like not every closed practice is meant to be shared, that too applies here. You do not have to use a stronger term to be taken seriously, you are not less valid because you are a therian rather than a "zoanthrope". Both describe different experiences, neither are less valid than the other. You have to accept this, and get over this goddamned inferiority complex.

I really hate engaging in online discourse, but for once, this is genuinely important to me. I do not want my community to be infiltrated and sanitized just like many others were in the past.

We've been seeing a lot of beings in the community being ridiculous about physical and biological nonhumanity so here's this for yall.

(Everything stated here is based off of what we've seen/read and experienced ourself. We're not trying to "indoctrinate" anybody.)

-Physical nonhumans who are physically nonhuman metaphorically (this is my body, I am this, therefore my body is this) are valid.

-Physical nonhumans who are physically nonhuman literally are valid.

-Physical nonhumans who are physically *and* biologically nonhuman are valid.

-Physical nonhumans who experience delusions regarding their nonhumanity are valid.

-Physical nonhumans who are literally physically and/or biologically nonhuman who don't believe themselves to be delusional are valid. (me btw)

-Physical nonhumans who are literally physically and/or biologically nonhuman who don't believe themselves to be delusional even after being diagnosed are valid.

-Physical nonhumans who experience delusions regarding their nonhumanity AND who don't want/have the energy (or for whatever reason) to double bookkeep when talking about those experiences are valid.

-And any other physical and/or biological nonhuman experiences I missed (sorry /gen) YOU ARE VALID.

-Physical and biological nonhumanity in any way or form is valid.

Sick to my stomach just reading this!

Hamas is treating the hostages like worthless little playthings that have no other meaning to them.

The fact that the propaganda involved a “guessing game” for the viewers is infuriating especially since SO MANY IGNORANT PEOPLE claim everything but the truth!!

So for all of you reading this reply: let’s get right on to the FACT!!

The FACT is that Hamas is a terrorist organization that does horrid and unspeakable crimes against Israel and its citizens. Hamas ensures that all funding and aid don’t go to the actual people they claim to protect but instead continue to build upon their regime which includes torturing, killing, and holding innocent Israelis hostage for their own evil gains!!

If you’re offended by this, unfollow me right now! I had enough of this! I can’t believe that the internet went feraly rabid to hop on the antisemitism train! I alway see my friends getting harassed and sent death threats online and I will not have any of it! I will not play your game and will reject any death threats on the asks!

I cannot even begin to express how horrifying the lack of outrage about this is.

May anyone who ever claimed "the hostages were treated well" be cursed. Such lies are absolutely disgusting and despicable.

This is not what being treated well looks like. This is psychological torture, abuse, and warfare. This is pure evil.

moreover, i'd like to briefly add - in an admittedly more unstructured addition - that this issue surrounding how we conceptualise masculinity as inherently malevolent also hurts queer people as well.

even if we choose to decide that we have no concerns about how this can - and does - hurt men (which, personally, is not something i can agree with), it cannot be ignored how this affects queer people by proxy.

when we assert masculinity is inherently toxic, we therefore, whether intentionally or not, implicitly assert that those who are connected to masculinity in any way are similarly toxic - or are at least, by nature of their proximity masculinity, inherently more 'dangerous.'

this is the type of essentialist logic that paints transgender women as predatory or inexorably socialised as male for no reason other than having committed the 'original sin' of being born a boy; this is the same type of essentialist logic that asserts that transgender men are, by nature of identifying with masculinity, somehow 'dangerous' to women (please, i encourage you to read the many posts discussing this transandrophobia); this is the essentialist logic that leads to bisexual women being seen as 'dirty' through this puritan lens of evaluating their attraction and love of men as somehow 'tainting' them; this is the essentialist logic that presumes butches are, by their masculine nature, 'aggressive' or 'rougher' than femmes.

it's easy to fall victim to these ideas - and it doesn't inherently make you a bad person - but it's important to critically examine and sit with our conceptualisations of masculinity, gender, and gender essentialism so that we can grow beyond them.

i’ve been thinking a lot lately about AI and its use in pornography, specifically in the seemingly gendered approach to it. Broadly speaking, there is a sort of ‘binary’ to the demographics of AI Pornography; men, typically, gravitate towards AI Images while women tend to gravitate more towards AI erotic roleplay (such as Chai and similar platforms which permit 18+ roleplay, unlike CharacterAI, generally speaking). While the gendered differences in consumption of pornography have been discussed and analysed before, I’m particularly interested in the broader implications of the intersection of AI and roleplay within pornography as I feel it differs from the traditional erotica-focused/text-focused pornography that many women gravitate towards, which I feel indicates a broader social pattern.

Particularly, what fascinates me about this is how much of this roleplay isn’t simply action-based (i.e., focused solely on sex) but rather more narrative-based (i.e., a specific dynamic - a mafia husband who’s secretly falling for you, a demon boyfriend courting his angel girlfriend, a prince smitten with a princess, and so on), which speaks to a broader desire for emotional connection.

Simply put, a cursory glance at these bots suggests that the user demographic seeks more than just sex - they seek connection.

Now, on its own this is not inherently surprising nor new - many women tend to prefer to feel ‘desired’ or ‘courted’ by their partners - but rather, I think that the broader social context that we see this interest evolving in is noteworthy. I think it is fundamentally linked to a larger social dynamic of the growing social gaps between men and women.

Over the past several years, particularly since the start of the pandemic, men in many countries have shifted towards more conservative and reactionary viewpoints; men overwhelmingly vote conservatively, many men have become far more outspoken in their misogynistic viewpoints, and many men have overwhelmingly demonstrated themselves to not be a desirable partner - be it due to politics, unequal contributions to domestic labour, disinterest in female sexual pleasure, or a litany of other factors.

Moreover, as the rate of female college graduates continues to rise - while the male rate declines - and womens’ overall growth in careers, mental health, education, income, and similar categories catches up to - or outright outpaces - mens’ performance, more and more women have seemed to developed a growing awareness that, simply put, being in a relationship with a man frankly does not offer the same benefits as it once did.

In reaction to this, many - though not all, of course - men have reacted negatively, instead doubling down on these behaviours rather than seeking to improve, which, in turn, has resulted in many women de-centering and de-prioritising men.

Concurrent to this, we’ve seen the rapid development and evolution of AI, which almost offers an escape - the ability to instead find fulfillment from an ‘AI Boyfriend’ - who’ll never leave dishes by the sink or ignore your pleasure - which I think contributes to this divide. Fundamentally, if you still desire companionship, at least in the vaguest of senses, you can satisfy it momentarily through the virtual embrace of AI.

Now, this isn’t to blame women for such a pivot - it’s wholly understandable why, given the above reasons, a woman might decide that remaining single isn’t that bad of an option - but I think it nonetheless requires discussion as we stare down the question of what happens when a large portion of the population may not end up in a relationship?

Regardless of what side of the issue an individual falls on, the question nonetheless retains its gravity. Fundamentally, whether or not we view men as wholly or in part at fault for this social trend in women choosing to remain single, we must consider how this affects men.

For example, if we take a group of 100 heterosexual men and estimate that 20% of them will not end up in a relationship, that leaves 20 men effectively isolated - particularly when we look at statistics of male friendships. Now, if we assume that 40% of them are unable to find a partner for ‘self-induced’ reasons - such as holding misogynistic views, for instance - that nonetheless leaves 12 seemingly ‘decent’ men single.

Now I’m not arguing that those 12 individuals are entitled to a relationship nor that they are obligated to be ‘given a chance,’ but rather I think we must ask ourselves: what happens to those overlooked individuals? It’s not sufficient to simply say “sucks to be you” as, ultimately, humans will still desire connection. Moreover, when we look at the systems that target these men - pipelines of radicalisation, such as the Far-Right - we fundamentally need to consider the outcomes of these circumstances.

I’m not positioning myself as a ‘defender of men’ here, but I fundamentally believe that we should not just abandon a segment of the population for no reason other than their gender. While, yes, the onus does ultimately fall on men as a whole to build up spaces and connections to combat this isolation, we nonetheless have to consider, as progressives, what will we do in response to this? Will we simply abandon these individuals, telling them to effectively ‘figure it out’ and leave them to search for communities, many of which implicitly push them out?

Fundamentally, I feel that that is an issue that pervades many progressive spaces; there is this tendency to engage in rhetoric outwardly hostile towards men and then be surprised that men are broadly disinterested in these spaces.

Now, I’m not arguing that we should placate and centre men - much of this rhetoric comes from people and groups who have understandable reasons to be distrustful of men, given the unfortunately too-common experiences of male violence - but we must nonetheless consider how we communicate this. To put it bluntly, we cannot reasonably expect men to happily sit by and be told they are fundamentally evil due to their gender; rather, we should try to find a reconcile our justifiable anger towards patriarchial violence while still offering space to men.

This doesn’t mean that we have to blindly tolerate patriarchial views and attitudes - fundamentally, I believe that everyone, regardless of who they are, should be held accountable and encouraged to grow - but instead we should open ourselves to a more intersectional perspective that considers that we are all victims of patriarchial violence.

Obviously, I’m not trying to equivocate between individual experiences of patriarchial violence and present them as all equal; instead, I’m simply positing that, in our ever-divided society, extending empathy to others is beneficial to reactionary ideology when we can.

In closing, I feel the words of Bell Hooks communicate my point much better than I ever could:

“To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved.” - Bell Hooks, “The Will To Change”

i’ve been thinking a lot lately about AI and its use in pornography, specifically in the seemingly gendered approach to it. Broadly speaking, there is a sort of ‘binary’ to the demographics of AI Pornography; men, typically, gravitate towards AI Images while women tend to gravitate more towards AI erotic roleplay (such as Chai and similar platforms which permit 18+ roleplay, unlike CharacterAI, generally speaking). While the gendered differences in consumption of pornography have been discussed and analysed before, I’m particularly interested in the broader implications of the intersection of AI and roleplay within pornography as I feel it differs from the traditional erotica-focused/text-focused pornography that many women gravitate towards, which I feel indicates a broader social pattern.

Particularly, what fascinates me about this is how much of this roleplay isn’t simply action-based (i.e., focused solely on sex) but rather more narrative-based (i.e., a specific dynamic - a mafia husband who’s secretly falling for you, a demon boyfriend courting his angel girlfriend, a prince smitten with a princess, and so on), which speaks to a broader desire for emotional connection.

Simply put, a cursory glance at these bots suggests that the user demographic seeks more than just sex - they seek connection.

Now, on its own this is not inherently surprising nor new - many women tend to prefer to feel ‘desired’ or ‘courted’ by their partners - but rather, I think that the broader social context that we see this interest evolving in is noteworthy. I think it is fundamentally linked to a larger social dynamic of the growing social gaps between men and women.

Over the past several years, particularly since the start of the pandemic, men in many countries have shifted towards more conservative and reactionary viewpoints; men overwhelmingly vote conservatively, many men have become far more outspoken in their misogynistic viewpoints, and many men have overwhelmingly demonstrated themselves to not be a desirable partner - be it due to politics, unequal contributions to domestic labour, disinterest in female sexual pleasure, or a litany of other factors.

Moreover, as the rate of female college graduates continues to rise - while the male rate declines - and womens’ overall growth in careers, mental health, education, income, and similar categories catches up to - or outright outpaces - mens’ performance, more and more women have seemed to developed a growing awareness that, simply put, being in a relationship with a man frankly does not offer the same benefits as it once did.

In reaction to this, many - though not all, of course - men have reacted negatively, instead doubling down on these behaviours rather than seeking to improve, which, in turn, has resulted in many women de-centering and de-prioritising men.

Concurrent to this, we’ve seen the rapid development and evolution of AI, which almost offers an escape - the ability to instead find fulfillment from an ‘AI Boyfriend’ - who’ll never leave dishes by the sink or ignore your pleasure - which I think contributes to this divide. Fundamentally, if you still desire companionship, at least in the vaguest of senses, you can satisfy it momentarily through the virtual embrace of AI.

Now, this isn’t to blame women for such a pivot - it’s wholly understandable why, given the above reasons, a woman might decide that remaining single isn’t that bad of an option - but I think it nonetheless requires discussion as we stare down the question of what happens when a large portion of the population may not end up in a relationship?

Regardless of what side of the issue an individual falls on, the question nonetheless retains its gravity. Fundamentally, whether or not we view men as wholly or in part at fault for this social trend in women choosing to remain single, we must consider how this affects men.

For example, if we take a group of 100 heterosexual men and estimate that 20% of them will not end up in a relationship, that leaves 20 men effectively isolated - particularly when we look at statistics of male friendships. Now, if we assume that 40% of them are unable to find a partner for ‘self-induced’ reasons - such as holding misogynistic views, for instance - that nonetheless leaves 12 seemingly ‘decent’ men single.

Now I’m not arguing that those 12 individuals are entitled to a relationship nor that they are obligated to be ‘given a chance,’ but rather I think we must ask ourselves: what happens to those overlooked individuals? It’s not sufficient to simply say “sucks to be you” as, ultimately, humans will still desire connection. Moreover, when we look at the systems that target these men - pipelines of radicalisation, such as the Far-Right - we fundamentally need to consider the outcomes of these circumstances.

I’m not positioning myself as a ‘defender of men’ here, but I fundamentally believe that we should not just abandon a segment of the population for no reason other than their gender. While, yes, the onus does ultimately fall on men as a whole to build up spaces and connections to combat this isolation, we nonetheless have to consider, as progressives, what will we do in response to this? Will we simply abandon these individuals, telling them to effectively ‘figure it out’ and leave them to search for communities, many of which implicitly push them out?

Fundamentally, I feel that that is an issue that pervades many progressive spaces; there is this tendency to engage in rhetoric outwardly hostile towards men and then be surprised that men are broadly disinterested in these spaces.

Now, I’m not arguing that we should placate and centre men - much of this rhetoric comes from people and groups who have understandable reasons to be distrustful of men, given the unfortunately too-common experiences of male violence - but we must nonetheless consider how we communicate this. To put it bluntly, we cannot reasonably expect men to happily sit by and be told they are fundamentally evil due to their gender; rather, we should try to find a reconcile our justifiable anger towards patriarchial violence while still offering space to men.

This doesn’t mean that we have to blindly tolerate patriarchial views and attitudes - fundamentally, I believe that everyone, regardless of who they are, should be held accountable and encouraged to grow - but instead we should open ourselves to a more intersectional perspective that considers that we are all victims of patriarchial violence.

Obviously, I’m not trying to equivocate between individual experiences of patriarchial violence and present them as all equal; instead, I’m simply positing that, in our ever-divided society, extending empathy to others is beneficial to reactionary ideology when we can.

In closing, I feel the words of Bell Hooks communicate my point much better than I ever could:

“To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved.” - Bell Hooks, “The Will To Change”

oh boy, incoming bisexual discourse

so this is admittedly quite rambly, but ive been thinking a lot about the stigmatisation of bisexuality within sapphic spaces a lot lately. like, there’s this pervasive expectation that bisexuals will downplay their attraction to men (e.g., the whole “i’m attracted to like every woman and 2 men” and similar), which feels so incredibly hurtful to me.

i think my issue with it stems from the fact that it’s rooted in basically the need to ‘apologise’ for experiencing attraction to men - and masculinity writ large - that bothers me so much as a bisexual. like, i shouldn’t have to apologise or downplay that, yes, i find men attractive - and no, not just uwu submissive soft boys. like, there’s this pervasive issue within queer spaces that results in the demonisation of masculinity and it results in creating this expectation that bisexuals, especially in sapphic spaces, will suppress their attraction to men in a sort of ‘apology’ for it.

and like this is fundamentally biphobic. like, it’s rooted in this expectation that we as bisexuals must downplay and dismiss and apologise for committing the sin of gasp being attracted to men - which is deeply rooted in purity culture. this puritanism creates this notion that being attracted to or, even worse, having past experiences with men taints the individual, which is incredibly harmful. this type of attitude is what hurts bisexuals (and other multi-sexuals), hurts late-bloomer lesbians, hurts mascs, and hurts butches. it fundamentally creates this exclusionary atmosphere that is rooted in this pervasive, inescapable disdain for masculinity.

anyways i'm sure i have more thoughts on this, but thats kinda what's been in my brain lately

and let me be clear, i'm not saying you have to agree with these people. like, you're allowed to not want to interact/see/whatever a certain community, i genuinely do not care. but like, that still does not justify creating blind, visceral hatred over it.

and it's not because a lot of these communities targeted, such as radqueers, tend to be younger or neurodivergent, or whatever else (though do keep that in mind); it's that no one deserves this blind hate for simply existing. you're welcome to have a dni for them, you're welcome to want to avoid stuff you don't like, you're welcome to have boundaries, but like consider whether this is a "yeah i don't feel comfortable about this and would like to avoid it when possible" vs a "these people existing is wrong and bad"

the whole “is x valid” discourse is so bizaare to me; like obviously there’s the fact that we’re arguing about whether a person’s existence and identity is valid (especially when queer existence and rights as a whole are under attack), but also just the absurdity of the premise?

like what is the successful outcome here? does anyone genuinely believe that tumblr discourse is going to make someone change their identity? like is a non-binary lesbian gonna be like “you know what, tucutesmasher46 raises a valid point and i’ll re-define my entire identity to align with their stance?” (or is it just the desire to bully and harass people who ‘don’t lesbian correctly?’)

moreover, it’s the disparity between the outrage to the population that confuses me; like, i’ll see posts ranting about rad-queers, and it’s like…guys…you’re worrying about like 30 people on tumblr.

the whole “is x valid” discourse is so bizaare to me; like obviously there’s the fact that we’re arguing about whether a person’s existence and identity is valid (especially when queer existence and rights as a whole are under attack), but also just the absurdity of the premise?

like what is the successful outcome here? does anyone genuinely believe that tumblr discourse is going to make someone change their identity? like is a non-binary lesbian gonna be like “you know what, tucutesmasher46 raises a valid point and i’ll re-define my entire identity to align with their stance?” (or is it just the desire to bully and harass people who ‘don’t lesbian correctly?’)

moreover, it’s the disparity between the outrage to the population that confuses me; like, i’ll see posts ranting about rad-queers, and it’s like…guys…you’re worrying about like 30 people on tumblr.

Bi women aren’t secretly straight. Bi men aren’t secretly gay.