The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Conserative Morality]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm doing. Damn.

The Tevinter Imperium is the lot that uses conscription, slavery, and had paid off officials to use the "plague" as an excuse to enslave the elves in the ghetto.

Orlais is the sneaky backstabby city that brought us the pirate character in 2. She was neat. Duplicitous, but neat.

She Rivaini, man. Varric calls her that all the time.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm doing. Damn.

The Tevinter Imperium is the lot that uses conscription, slavery, and had paid off officials to use the "plague" as an excuse to enslave the elves in the ghetto.

Orlais is the sneaky backstabby city that brought us the pirate character in 2. She was neat. Duplicitous, but neat.

She Rivaini, man. Varric calls her that all the time.

She, in my opinion, is an anti-hero female done correctly. She decided her terms, followed someone she felt entertaining enough to follow, and didn't change who she was to try and be "with you".

[Costa Fierro]

Either you don't know what a fetish is, or you honestly think that every heterosexual man on Earth has the exact same beliefs, preferences, and desires.

I've seen enough evidence to show that if you put a fat woman and a thin woman next to each other, the thin woman is going to get all of the attention.

Also, a 2-second Google search pulls up countless instances of elbow fetishes. Don't hate on people for what turns them on.

So pedophiles should not be universally condemned because children are "what turns them on"?

[Wallenburg]

Either you don't know what a fetish is, or you honestly think that every heterosexual man on Earth has the exact same beliefs, preferences, and desires.

I've seen enough evidence to show that if you put a fat woman and a thin woman next to each other, the thin woman is going to get all of the attention.

LOL. Sure, you keep telling yourself that. I wasn't aware that all those fat women with boyfriends or husbands are actually just an illusion.

Also, a 2-second Google search pulls up countless instances of elbow fetishes. Don't hate on people for what turns them on.

So pedophiles should not be universally condemned because children are "what turns them on"?

1. You are comparing finding elbows attractive to pedophilia. Words cannot express how ridiculous that is.
2. No, pedophiles should not be universally condemned. Those that act on their pedophilia ought to be, but those that do not do anything to children should not be condemned for what they cannot control.
3. I will repeat, elbow fetishes are real.

[Costa Fierro]

LOL. Sure, you keep telling yourself that. I wasn't aware that all those fat women with boyfriends or husbands are actually just an illusion.

They are, because they weren't fat before they got into a relationship.

You are comparing finding elbows attractive to pedophilia. Words cannot express how ridiculous that is.

Deviancy is deviancy.

No, pedophiles should not be universally condemned. Those that act on their pedophilia ought to be, but those that do not do anything to children should not be condemned for what they cannot control.

So you think pedophilia is OK as long as they don't act on it? Presumably you say the same for rapists or other social deviants.

I will repeat, elbow fetishes are real.

No they're not. It's not a fetish, it's deviancy.

[Mattopilos]

LOL. Sure, you keep telling yourself that. I wasn't aware that all those fat women with boyfriends or husbands are actually just an illusion.

They are, because they weren't fat before they got into a relationship.

You are comparing finding elbows attractive to pedophilia. Words cannot express how ridiculous that is.

Deviancy is deviancy.

No, pedophiles should not be universally condemned. Those that act on their pedophilia ought to be, but those that do not do anything to children should not be condemned for what they cannot control.

So you think pedophilia is OK as long as they don't act on it? Presumably you say the same for rapists or other social deviants.

I will repeat, elbow fetishes are real.

No they're not. It's not a fetish, it's deviancy.

Okay... how would you know they weren't fat?
Many pedophiles don't act on their urges. You would know about it if they did.
Yes, I would say the same - them having attractions to events such as that is very different than ACTING on them.
It is a fetish by the very definition.

[Wallenburg]

LOL. Sure, you keep telling yourself that. I wasn't aware that all those fat women with boyfriends or husbands are actually just an illusion.

They are, because they weren't fat before they got into a relationship.

I wasn't aware my neighbor is actually a figment of my imagination. Good to know.

You are comparing finding elbows attractive to pedophilia. Words cannot express how ridiculous that is.

Deviancy is deviancy.

Oh, deviancy! What a word! I imagine we can expect some homophobic rant at some point in the future.

No, pedophiles should not be universally condemned. Those that act on their pedophilia ought to be, but those that do not do anything to children should not be condemned for what they cannot control.

So you think pedophilia is OK as long as they don't act on it? Presumably you say the same for rapists or other social deviants.

Rapists by definition act on their urges. This analogy is so fucking false that it dumbfounds me how you can think it holds any water whatsoever.

I will repeat, elbow fetishes are real.

No they're not. It's not a fetish, it's deviancy.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. You say "X does not exist. X is Y." X cannot be Y if it does not exist. Then, you say that fetishes are not fetishes. Logic.

[Costa Fierro]

Okay... how would you know they weren't fat?

It's one of the ways men are tricked into marriages. The woman they first fell in love with at the start of the relationship slowly gets fat until she becomes someone who is not only abhorrent to look at, but also massively unhealthy, thus putting an unnecessary financial burden on the relationship. Sure, the man could divorce them but he'd end up being homeless and destitute.

Many pedophiles don't act on their urges. You would know about it if they did.

We only here about the ones that get caught.

It is a fetish by the very definition.

Just because one person calls it a "fetish" doesn't mean it is.

I wasn't aware my neighbor is actually a figment of my imagination. Good to know.

It's quite convenient how you use "your neighbour" as your supposed "evidence". I could claim that both my neighbours have wives that are morbidly obese and you'd have to take my word for it.

This is the point where I say "prove it" and because you cannot prove it without walking up to your neighbour and asking them to pose for a photo (which is possible if you and your neighbour are on good terms) so my point still stands.

Oh, deviancy! What a word! I imagine we can expect some homophobic rant at some point in the future.

And you call me out on making assumptions about other people.

So you think pedophilia is OK as long as they don't act on it? Presumably you say the same for rapists or other social deviants.

Rapists by definition act on their urges. This analogy is so fucking false that it dumbfounds me how you can think it holds any water whatsoever.[/quote]

So do pedophiles. They have to get their sexual release somehow, even if it doesn't involve actual sexual contact with children.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. You say "X does not exist. X is Y." X cannot be Y if it does not exist. Then, you say that fetishes are not fetishes. Logic.

Read my response again, please.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

It is a fetish by the very definition.

Just because one person calls it a "fetish" doesn't mean it is.

Could you clarify as to how it isn't a fetish?

[Mattopilos]

Just because one person calls it a "fetish" doesn't mean it is.

Could you clarify as to how it isn't a fetish?

Hmm, seems the quotes got swapped... but would be interested in how he thinks otherwise.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Could you clarify as to how it isn't a fetish?

Hmm, seems the quotes got swapped... but would be interested in how he thinks otherwise.

My mistake I hadn't of seen it.
EDIT: Done.

[Costa Fierro]

Could you clarify as to how it isn't a fetish?

I'm not saying it isn't a fetish, I'm saying fetishes aren't a thing. The idea that someone can get aroused by something that is by no means sexual is ridiculous.

[Mattopilos]

Could you clarify as to how it isn't a fetish?

I'm not saying it isn't a fetish, I'm saying fetishes aren't a thing. The idea that someone can get aroused by something that is by no means sexual is ridiculous.

Oh noes, that is above false. As creatures that are not entirely rational, it is surprising you would think we couldn't find non-sexual objects arousing. Let's not add mental disorders or those of not-so-normal functioning. Paraphilias are essentially fetishes to the extreme:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias

I would say I have a few paraphilias, myself. Not that I can exactly control that, since they are entirely irrational things.

[Philjia]

Could you clarify as to how it isn't a fetish?

I'm not saying it isn't a fetish, I'm saying fetishes aren't a thing. The idea that someone can get aroused by something that is by no means sexual is ridiculous.

You're new to the internet, aren't you?

[Costa Fierro]

As creatures that are not entirely rational, it is surprising you would think we couldn't find non-sexual objects arousing.

Why?

[Mattopilos]

As creatures that are not entirely rational, it is surprising you would think we couldn't find non-sexual objects arousing.

Why?

Because we can do things that don't have any noticeable gain, and only serve direct pleasure or satisfaction - I would say that is irrational, no?

[Costa Fierro]

I'm not saying it isn't a fetish, I'm saying fetishes aren't a thing. The idea that someone can get aroused by something that is by no means sexual is ridiculous.

You're new to the internet, aren't you?

Nope.

[Charmera]

Could you clarify as to how it isn't a fetish?

I'm not saying it isn't a fetish, I'm saying fetishes aren't a thing. The idea that someone can get aroused by something that is by no means sexual is ridiculous.

What...?
So are you saying that the people whom claim to be arroused by things like military uniforms, guns and trees are lying? Or otherwise don't exist?

[Costa Fierro]

What...?
So are you saying that the people whom claim to be arroused by things like military uniforms, guns and trees are lying? Or otherwise don't exist?

They're not lying. A person who likes military uniforms is more attracted to the person in them and those that are sexually aroused by guns or trees have some sort of mental issues and should see a professional.

[Charmera]

What...?
So are you saying that the people whom claim to be arroused by things like military uniforms, guns and trees are lying? Or otherwise don't exist?

They're not lying. A person who likes military uniforms is more attracted to the person in them and those that are sexually aroused by guns or trees have some sort of mental issues and should see a professional.

Why would they need to see a professional? I don't see how being attracted to the tree would hurt the individual mentally.
Things like depression, skizophrenia and other mental issues that are treated are not merely out of the norm, but actually lead to self destructive behavoiurs and mental suffering. That's why we treat them.
Attraction to a tree does not do so. It does not lead you to hurt yourself or others (Unless you literally stuck private parts in a tree and got splinters), so you wouldn't need to see someone, because attraction to these things doesn't necessarily hurt you or others.

What would the psychologist even do? "Stop being attracted to trees, and take this drug which makes you normal again?"

[Costa Fierro]

Why would they need to see a professional? I don't see how being attracted to the tree would hurt the individual mentally.

So you don't think being sexually attracted to inanimate objects is something detrimental for human mentality? Also, if you think psychology is just a front for pushing drugs, then your mind would be blown if you heard about cognitive behavioural therapy.

[Wallenburg]

Okay... how would you know they weren't fat?

It's one of the ways men are tricked into marriages. The woman they first fell in love with at the start of the relationship slowly gets fat until she becomes someone who is not only abhorrent to look at, but also massively unhealthy, thus putting an unnecessary financial burden on the relationship.

I didn't realize women have a responsibility to be as fucking gorgeous and fit as possible at all times for their husbands. That idea sounds pretty sexist to me.

Sure, the man could divorce them but he'd end up being homeless and destitute.

Not how divorce works, buddy.

I wasn't aware my neighbor is actually a figment of my imagination. Good to know.

It's quite convenient how you use "your neighbour" as your supposed "evidence". I could claim that both my neighbours have wives that are morbidly obese and you'd have to take my word for it.

This is the point where I say "prove it" and because you cannot prove it without walking up to your neighbour and asking them to pose for a photo (which is possible if you and your neighbour are on good terms) so my point still stands.[/quote]
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/23 ... 94ce4e.jpg

Oh, deviancy! What a word! I imagine we can expect some homophobic rant at some point in the future.

And you call me out on making assumptions about other people.

Often, when someone calls another a sexual deviant, that person is homophobic. It's part of homophobic vocabulary to call anything that isn't a heterosexual relationship "deviant".

So you think pedophilia is OK as long as they don't act on it? Presumably you say the same for rapists or other social deviants.

Rapists by definition act on their urges. This analogy is so fucking false that it dumbfounds me how you can think it holds any water whatsoever.

So do pedophiles. They have to get their sexual release somehow, even if it doesn't involve actual sexual contact with children.[/quote]
If pedophiles are not acting sexually with children, they are not acting on their pedophilia. It isn't this fucking difficult to understand.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. You say "X does not exist. X is Y." X cannot be Y if it does not exist. Then, you say that fetishes are not fetishes. Logic.

Read my response again, please.

Tested the function again. For the same input, the function returns the same output.

[Charmera]

Why would they need to see a professional? I don't see how being attracted to the tree would hurt the individual mentally.

So you don't think being sexually attracted to inanimate objects is something detrimental for human mentality?

No.
You're asking that like it's inherently bad in a way that everyone should be able to understand. Explain why it's bad or this will go nowhere.

Also, if you think psychology is just a front for pushing drugs, then your mind would be blown if you heard about cognitive behavioural therapy.

I'm more surprised that you think that I implied that I think psychology is pushing drugs.
You just interpreted my statement to mean that for some reason.

Again, that's used to treat depression. Although I guess someone could use it to treat fetishes to, but then the person with the fetish would have to consider such " an unwanted behavior".
Unless you're implying the state should determine who or what we should be attracted to. And that if I had a fetish for Elbows I should see a psychologist.

[Wallenburg]

Could you clarify as to how it isn't a fetish?

I'm not saying it isn't a fetish, I'm saying fetishes aren't a thing. The idea that someone can get aroused by something that is by no means sexual is ridiculous.

You shouldn't pretend to know about shit you don't understand. Come back to us when you have taken a basic psychology course.

Also, you clearly have paid zero attention to modern sexuality. Tits and abs are at the forefront (pun intended) of sexual interest.

[Costa Fierro]

I didn't realize women have a responsibility to be as fucking gorgeous and fit as possible at all times for their husbands. That idea sounds pretty sexist to me.

Fitness has more benefits that just aesthetics. Being healthy for one thing is better, because it means less stress and expenses on otherwise potentially life threatening diseases and health conditions.

Not how divorce works, buddy.

How would you know? Do you think men benefit from divorce?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f7/5c/76/f75c7621703fa605a878936ec994ce4e.jpg

That looks like it's been lifted from some random dancing website. I'm not convinced that these are your neighbours or that they're a couple for that matter.

Often, when someone calls another a sexual deviant, that person is homophobic. It's part of homophobic vocabulary to call anything that isn't a heterosexual relationship "deviant".

So because I use the word "deviant", I am automatically a homophobe?

If pedophiles are not acting sexually with children, they are not acting on their pedophilia. It isn't this fucking difficult to understand.

They are act on their pedophilia if they engage in sexual acts that involve either actual children or have something involving with children.

You shouldn't pretend to know about shit you don't understand. Come back to us when you have taken a basic psychology course.

Have you taken a basic psychology course yourself?

Also, you clearly have paid zero attention to modern sexuality. Tits and abs are at the forefront (pun intended) of sexual interest.

Yes but breasts are actually part of the visual stimuli that generate sexual attraction in men. For women (according to anecdotal "evidence"), it's actually forearms, not abs.