In conversations about media, power dynamics, and dating, feminist criticism often overlooks two of the most common female power fantasies: the desire to be overwhelmingly desired or to be overwhelmingly beautiful. Shows like Pretty Little Liars—created and run by women with a largely female fanbase—alongside Fifty Shades and Twilight reflect these two key fantasies.

At their core, these narratives revolve around men who become so obsessed with the female lead that they act in ways that could easily be seen as violations, yet within these stories, the male characters are framed as acting out of uncontrollable passion for the women. The women’s agency is subverted, but it’s framed as a byproduct of their appeal—either their inherent desirability or their beauty. This framing matters because it’s not just media catering to male fantasies; it's driven by female creators and consumed predominantly by women.

There are two major types of power fantasies here:

1. The “so desired” fantasy: The female protagonist becomes powerful because a man is driven beyond reason by her magnetism, as seen in Pretty Little Liars and Twilight. It's not necessarily about her beauty, but about how her very essence draws the man to act, often disregarding her autonomy in the process.

2. The “so beautiful” fantasy: In this fantasy, the woman’s physical beauty is her power. Characters like Wonder Woman or Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games) are portrayed as hyper-competent but also physically idealized. This fantasy taps into the idea that beauty itself can be a source of strength and influence.

However, these fantasies are rarely examined within feminist critiques of media or dating. Feminist discussions often focus on how male-dominated media objectifies women or how men fail to respect boundaries, but they don't sufficiently address how narratives created by and for women can also perpetuate problematic dynamics. Specifically, they overlook how media that resonates with women can condition boys to push boundaries in pursuit of women.

Take Fifty Shades as an example: here is a relationship where the male character’s obsessive desire leads him to push the female protagonist’s limits. The boundaries are blurred, but this dynamic is celebrated within the fantasy. Similarly, in Pretty Little Liars, girls are depicted as objects of male fixation, often framed as their appeal being so powerful that men can’t resist. These messages aren’t just shaping women’s expectations but also teaching boys that pushing boundaries is acceptable or even desirable.

This dynamic also connects to male power fantasies, particularly as depicted in video games and comics. Male characters often focus on hyper-competence, with diverse body types that reflect their abilities. For example, Spider-Man’s wiry frame enhances his agility, while the Punisher’s muscular build emphasizes his relentless pursuit of justice. Male power fantasies allow for this diversity, as their physicality directly informs their character traits and abilities.

In contrast, female characters in games and comics are frequently reduced to their attractiveness, as that’s the power fantasy women have shown they prefer: either being so beautiful or so desired. This results in a narrow portrayal of female power, limiting the representation of women’s potential in media.

Moreover, this disconnect mirrors how men and women have been valued historically, pointing to a deeper biological and ancient source for these power fantasies. Men were historically valued for what they could prove, while women were often valued for what they were—young, fertile, or attractive.

Ignoring these dynamics and focusing solely on male-driven media misses the point. If we’re going to talk about how men fail to respect boundaries in the dating market, we need to also critique the ways in which women’s media has conditioned men to believe that pushing boundaries is part of a successful romance or sexual pursuit.

Ultimately, if feminist critique wants to address the full picture of how gender dynamics play out in media and dating, it has to engage with these female-driven power fantasies and their influence. We need to stop pretending these stories don’t exist, or that they don’t have real-world consequences, because they absolutely do.

Traditional/conservative gender norms that fuel feminism (especially in the context of its popularity and its dominance in the gender policies of various countries and international organizations):

1. Women must be protected, rescued, and taken care of.

2. It is accepted for women to talk about their feelings, while it is not appropriate for men.

3. Men must be strong and take care of themselves. Men should not whine or complain. Men cannot or should not be vulnerable, so there’s no need to worry about their suffering. There's no need to worry about their feelings because they don't have or shouldn't have any feelings. They only have (“fragile male”) egos.

4. Women must be provided for, financed, given money (feminist projects are generously financed by governments and international organizations).

both members say their own movement is no monolith but the other is... please list requirements and disqualifications...

Welcome to to Monthly Meta!

This thread is for discussing rules, moderation, or anything else about r/FeMRADebates and its users. Mods may make announcements here, and users can bring up anything normally banned by Rule 5 (Appeals & Meta). Please remember that all the normal rules are active, except that we permit discussion of the subreddit itself here.

We ask that everyone do their best to include a proposed solution to any problems they're noticing. A problem without a solution is still welcome, but it's much easier for everyone to be clear what you want if you ask for a change to be made too.

All you have to do is go to r/detrans

It’s full of FtM trans men talking about how they didn’t know they had female privilege until they transitioned to male

The topic of minor-attracted persons (MAPs) is one that evokes strong emotions, often leading to outrage and hostility. However, as a society, we must critically examine our current approaches and challenge knee-jerk reactions that stigmatize thoughts and feelings that, by themselves, do not harm anyone. It's time to discuss the principled reasons for destigmatizing MAPs, drawing parallels to the LGBTQI community, while acknowledging the important differences. Ultimately, by focusing on preventing harmful actions rather than criminalizing or vilifying thoughts, we can better protect children and society as a whole.

1. A Principled Stand: MAPs and LGBTQI Communities

The LGBTQI community has long fought for the right to exist without fear of persecution, even when many of its members once faced criminalization and stigma for their desires. The fundamental principle behind this struggle is the recognition that attraction alone is not harmful—it is how people act on those attractions that matters.

MAPs, while dealing with an attraction that cannot ethically or legally be acted upon, deserve a similar standard. The ability to act on one’s desire is not the measure by which we validate the legitimacy of a sexual orientation. Just as we recognize that someone who is gay but chooses not to engage in sexual relationships is no less valid in their identity, the same consideration should be given to MAPs, who may struggle with their attractions but never act on them.

• Quote from the research:
  "The evidence suggests that fantasy material consumption, in certain cases, does not lead to an escalation in offending behavior and may serve as a preventative outlet for individuals" (Lievesley et al.).

This quote emphasizes that fantasy sexual material (FSM) for MAPs may serve as a harm-reduction tool, providing a safe and legal outlet for desires without crossing ethical or legal boundaries.

2. Understanding the Difference: Attraction vs. Action

One of the most important distinctions often ignored in these discussions is the difference between attraction to a person and attraction to an action. These two concepts are fundamentally separate, but public discourse often conflates them, which leads to misinformed judgments.

Many people wrongly assume that being attracted to a minor automatically means wanting to engage in sexual activity with them, and that wanting sex is equivalent to committing rape. This is a gross misunderstanding that breaks down at each level:

• You can be attracted to someone without wanting to engage in any sexual activity.

• You can desire sexual activity but deeply value consent and choose not to act on those desires.

• Rape is a violent, non-consensual act. It is an action, not an attraction, and MAPs who respect boundaries are not inherently rapists.

• Neurobiological research shows that pedophilic attractions stem from developmental or brain structural differences, and understanding these differences is crucial in shaping future prevention strategies (sMRI/fMRI studies). Punishing people for their brain wiring rather than focusing on their actions is counterproductive and ignores the science.

3. Expression of Sexual Desire and Consent: A Complex Relationship

People express their sexual desires in a variety of ways, and what may be sexually arousing for one person may be completely innocuous to someone else. Take, for example, a person who finds pressing an elevator button erotic—this action holds no inherent sexual meaning to others, but to that individual, it satisfies a sexual desire.

Similarly, someone might experience a sexual attraction to minors but choose to express that desire in non-harmful ways, such as through fantasy sexual material (FSM) or fictional outlets. As the research by Lievesley et al. shows, for some MAPs, the use of FSM may provide a way to safely regulate their impulses, reducing the likelihood of them acting out in harmful ways.

• Quote:
  "There is a clear need for legal frameworks that differentiate between fantasy use and harmful actions, focusing interventions on preventing behaviors rather than criminalizing thoughts or fantasies" (Lievesley et al.).

MAPs may turn to fantasy as a way to cope with their feelings, just as many people use fantasies or outlets to navigate desires that cannot be fulfilled in real life. By condemning them for this alone, we push these individuals into hiding, which makes it harder for them to seek help and more likely for them to engage in dangerous behaviors.

4. You Don’t Need Consent to Sexualize, But Objectification is the Problem

Another important consideration in this discussion is that sexualizing someone in your own mind does not require their consent. People regularly sexualize others without ever telling them, and this includes scenarios where someone might sexualize a minor. This is a complex and uncomfortable truth, but we cannot confuse thoughts with harmful actions.

The moral issue only arises when someone tells the person they've sexualized or when it turns into objectification that affects how they treat the other person. Simply having sexual thoughts, even about children, does not have a moral consequence unless it leads to actions that violate consent or cause harm.

If we criminalize or stigmatize thoughts alone, we create an environment where people cannot seek help or speak openly about their struggles without fear of punishment or ostracization. This leads to a situation where MAPs may be more likely to engage in dangerous behaviors because they’ve been denied access to support.

5. Destigmatization Protects Children

Contrary to what many believe, destigmatizing MAPs helps protect children. By reducing the stigma around their thoughts and offering support and resources, we can prevent these individuals from turning to more harmful avenues. Research into neurobiological and psychological factors offers insight into what leads to offending behavior and shows that early intervention can significantly reduce the likelihood of harm.

• Quote:
  "By providing therapeutic support and monitoring, we actually decrease the risk of offenses. The goal is harm reduction" (Lievesley et al.).

If MAPs are allowed to openly seek therapy and coping mechanisms, the risk of contact offenses or non-consensual actions decreases. Criminalizing or ostracizing individuals for their thoughts does nothing to prevent harm—it only drives them into secrecy, where they are more likely to offend due to lack of support and accountability.

Conclusion: A Focus on Behavior, Not Thoughts

In conclusion, destigmatizing MAPs is a principled and necessary step toward preventing harm and protecting children. By focusing on behaviors rather than thoughts, offering legal and safe outlets for managing desires, and encouraging MAPs to seek help without fear of judgment, we create a safer society for everyone. Our goal must always be harm reduction, and we cannot achieve that by continuing to stigmatize private thoughts that do not lead to harmful actions.

It's time we have this difficult conversation, not to condone harmful behaviors, but to approach this issue with reason and compassion, ultimately protecting the most vulnerable.

The Neurobiology and Psychology of Pedophilia: Recent Advances and Challenges

Fantasy Sexual Material Use by People with Attractions to Children

To be clear this is not the strongest possible version of this idea. I havent fully examined issue from this angle. There are times women ask for help where it is 100% not just justified but necessary. Similarly there are times a man must explain something you may feel you already know.

If we are to make blatantly sexist terms like mansplaing i would like to proffer one for women.

Womasking = when a woman asks for help on a task she should reasonably be capable of doing without the assistance of others.

This can be physical, moving or carrying items. It may be a skilled task requiring some knowledge like getting help fixing a computer issue. Or it may be Asking for help with assembling or setting up household items.

Now before we move to why women may do this lets look at mansplainging and to see how this womasking is analogous.

Mansplaining is a pejorative term meaning "(for a man) to comment on or explain something, to a woman, in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner"- Wikipedia

A man generally does this, if we assume good faith, because men are trained to value and demonstrate our value to other peeople. Men are taught the love we get is directly tied to how much utility we provide others though gained effort.

So with that understanding lets look at why women would perhaps do this behavior? Women are trained to appear outwardly "small". Womens social structures value cooperation, while they may have a leader that leadership is often gained independent of any skill or physical merit. They have won that position though political means and often enforce or exhibit that power thorough social engineering.

So we can see that both of these come from the same place, people trying to demonstrate the things that are valued for their gender.

Both mansplaining and womasking stem from social conditioning that places different pressures and expectations on men and women. Men are conditioned to demonstrate their value through competence and knowledge, while women may be conditioned to minimize their perceived capability or assertiveness to align with social expectations of cooperation and humility.

Still if we are going to continue making gender insults this I feel should be add. I think that would be moving in the wrong direction.

If however by recognizing these behaviors for what they are—reflections of societal roles—we can better understand the ways in which both men and women navigate these gendered expectations. Perhaps, with that understanding, we can start having conversations about moving past these limiting dynamics rather than simply labeling them in a way that reinforces stereotypes.

I hate that the main characters in Good Omens are gay. Not because they are gay, but because they are one of the few examples of long-lasting male relationships that, until the end of season two, were not a couple. Although their relationship aligns with some common themes in queer media — and it touches on other common tropes mentioned later, such as the portrayal of soldiers — it was more about how their worldviews that differ from their peers overlap and finding companionship in a world they don't neatly fit into. It is also common for celestial beings not portrayed as being sexual, so their eventual romantic pairing feels like it detracts from a unique depiction of male friendship.

When male characters do exhibit genuine care for each other, it’s often in contexts tied to trauma or survival, such as soldiers or cops. This 'forged in fire' trope, where men bond through shared hardship, is quite common. In contrast, shows like Parks and Recreation and Grey’s Anatomy offer examples of female friendships, such as those between Leslie and Ann or Cristina and Meredith, which are deeply emotional and not rooted in trauma. Similarly, Broad City’s Abbi and Ilana, and Insecure’s Molly and Issa, present strong, platonic relationships that are central to their narratives.

The difference is stark when looking at how we treat male friendships, especially in the context of growing up. Boy Meets World offers an example of this with Cory and Shawn, a deep and long-lasting friendship that was central to their adolescent development. Yet, this kind of relationship is far more common in media geared toward young girls, where friendships between women or girls are central themes. Boys, meanwhile, are often left with relationships that revolve around survival or competition.

As men age, these portrayals don’t necessarily get better. Take JD and Turk from Scrubs—a rare example of an adult male friendship that isn’t driven by trauma or romance. They care deeply for each other in a way that’s almost always absent in portrayals of male friendships, particularly when compared to the variety of platonic female friendships that don’t require a life-or-death situation to justify their depth. Some may point to Harry and Ron or Holmes and Watson as examples but their friendships are narrative necessities, Watson and Ron take and give exposition needed for the reader.

This imbalance helps to explain why there is so much resistance to campaigns like “Give Captain America a Boyfriend.” The issue isn’t necessarily about opposing gay heroes but rather about the alteration of established characters who have historically been shown with limited types of male relationships. This is where progressives loose otherwise already on board supporters. The backlash against Anthony Mackie’s comments on the ‘shipping’ of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier shows this issue. When he said

"Bucky and Sam have a relationship where they learn how to accept, appreciate, and love each other. You’d call it a bromance, but it’s literally just two guys who have each other’s backs,"

and He continued,

"So many things are twisted and convoluted. There’s so many things that people latch on to with their own devices to make themselves relevant and rational." "The idea of two guys being friends and loving each other in 2021 is a problem because of the exploitation of homosexuality. It used to be guys can be friends, we can hang out, and it was cool...you can’t do that anymore, because something as pure and beautiful as homosexuality has been exploited by people who are trying to rationalize themselves,"

ending with

"it's always been important for him to show "a sensitive masculine figure" in film, and that's especially true in his role as Sam."

Mackie’s frustration exposes a massive flaw in modern media and activism—every time men show real emotional depth, a section of the audience immediately jumps to make it about sexuality. This obsession with turning any form of male vulnerability into something romantic is damaging. It robs men of the ability to form meaningful platonic bonds and sends the message that the only way men can express care is if they're gay. If you genuinely cared about breaking down gender norms, you wouldn’t be so quick to shove every male relationship into a romantic box. Some will argue that straight men, as a majority and oppressor class, shouldn’t care if they’re misinterpreted—that they’re just upset about losing power. But let’s be real: if you don’t care about societal norms, you also shouldn’t care whether you're recognized by society. That cuts both ways. The same people making this argument don’t think the norms are right anyway, so why are they using those norms to dismiss others' concerns? If societal recognition matters, then so do the ways in which straight men are depicted.

Rather than changing existing characters, which can feel like an attack on established identities, it might be more effective to focus on creating new, inclusive characters and storylines. This approach respects both the need for diverse representation and the established nature of existing characters. When you take characters who are only allowed to have one type of male relationship and remove that space by romanticizing it, people see it as an erasure of an important aspect of male identity in media.

This leads me to the frustration I often feel when progressives label my views as conservative. Despite my progressive stance on inclusion and media representation, many assume that any critique of current portrayals is somehow an attack on LGBTQ+ representation. The reality is, my discomfort with certain media portrayals isn’t rooted in opposition to queer narratives, but in the desire for more diversity in how male relationships are shown.

My argument against romanticizing male friendships like those in Good Omens or The Falcon and the Winter Soldier isn’t anti-LGBTQ+—it’s about recognizing that we need more portrayals of platonic male friendships. This is not about resisting inclusion, but about advocating for a broader range of representation. We should be pushing for more depth in both LGBTQ+ representation and in how we depict non-romantic, emotionally connected male friendships.

In conclusion, the frustration with current portrayals of male friendships and the resistance to altering beloved characters highlights a deeper issue in media representation. Addressing this imbalance requires not only creating new, inclusive characters but also ensuring that diverse portrayals are woven into the fabric of media narratives in a way that respects both new and existing characters.

The upcoming election has made abortion a central wedge issue, and I am personally upset by this development. It’s not that I disagree with pro-choice advocates, but I am deeply disappointed by their approach. Instead of working to expand support and secure meaningful changes, they have once again chosen to use this issue to mobilize their base. This strategy fails to address the broader, long-term needs for reproductive rights and doesn’t engage those who might be swayed by more nuanced arguments.

I want to make it explicitly clear that this is solely focused on non-medically necessary abortion. Even the most stringent pro-lifer would not say the life of the mother is outweighed by the life of the child. No one in this debate is arguing that. The abortion debate is about elective abortion, while some of the new strain of pro-life policy will make it more difficult to act quickly in medical situations that has happened because there is no long good faith on either side. Part of the problem in my view is pro choice advocates too often retreated to the life of the mother arguments to try and sidestep the actual debate. Its reasonable to try to counter the arguments with higher order principles but to use those you need to explain why those principles replace or override the ones being used.

All of that said I wonder how many men, like myself, refuse to support the pro-choice movement for similar reasons? If we made changes that acknowledged both men’s emotional and legal stakes, we could shift this conversation from a women’s rights issue to a genuine human rights issue.

The most common argument for gendering this is the burden of pregnancy, while those burdens are real, they are of a limited time and that burden varies widely from woman to woman. Moreover, we have the capacity to alleviate the physical burden of pregnancy through improved healthcare and work regulations. If our goal is to reduce the strain that pregnancy places on women, we should advocate for structural changes that make managing pregnancy easier rather than using the burden as a justification for unequal reproductive rights. The physical burden, while real, is not insurmountable and should not overshadow other valid aspects of the reproductive rights debate.

Consider a scenario where perfect healthcare and work regulations could fully address the burdens of pregnancy, both physically, emotionally, and financially. If pro-choice advocates were presented with a choice between maintaining abortion rights or securing these systemic changes, would they choose the latter? It’s possible that many would opt for the systemic improvements, suggesting that the emphasis on bodily autonomy might not be as absolute as often portrayed. After all, bodily autonomy is compromised in many aspects of life that we accept or agree with.

To further show how even if we ignore men’s part this is not solely a woman’s issue, nor should she be the only party we give moral consideration to. At a certain point, the sentience of the fetus should also be part of the discussion. Before we move to the question let’s better understand what sentience means and why it matters. Sentience to me and the only workable definition is a mental state that has the ability to abstract in a manner that is uniquely human. No animal can grasp the concept of “next Tuesday”. While a fetus can’t either, every structure needed to do so has been developed at a certain point. It is important to have this hardline understanding as it is the line we actually care about. The onset of sentience could be seen as a pivotal moment in moral and legal considerations. Just as our society grants rights based on developmental milestones, age of consent, age of majority and so on, the recognition of sentience might suggest that the fetus, once it reaches this threshold, deserves a degree of protection as the first pivotal moment for moral and legal considerations.

What fundamentally changes when the fetus moves from inside the womb to outside it? While this is often presented as a conservative, pro-life argument, to dismiss it is wrong, and often done so to ignore the very real question it poses. At the very least even pro-choice advocates wouldn’t be okay with on demand no reason abortion until breach. We can again have a discussion on balance of rights but to imply human consideration is location based fundamentally fails the common sense test and shows either bad faith or that the person has not actual thought of these issues. Similarly the argument that it doesn’t happen or that late term abortions only happen when the life of the mother fails to answer the central question and, in my view, is also very bad faith. Especially in this conversation as we are focused on principals not practicality. The issues of the real world happen only after we have decided on what is moral.

Feminism, which claims the moral high ground in advocating for human rights, often overlooks men’s emotional connection to their unborn children. Despite their claims of equality, men’s emotional experiences are frequently dismissed, which is problematic if we are serious about equal parental involvement. To allow only one side to determine parenthood while expecting both sides to be equally involved is unfair to men again highlighting the hyperagency even feminist still put on men. This inconsistency reflects a broader issue: while pro-choice advocates may claim to fight for human rights, their approach often fails to fully account for men’s roles and emotional stakes in the reproductive process.

This imbalance not only affects men’s rights but also undermines the potential for stronger connections between fathers and their children. If we want men to be more emotionally involved, we must stop placing unrealistic expectations on them and recognize that life’s complexities extend beyond simple solutions.

Furthermore, we must consider the social consequences. Just as we don’t shame women for choosing abortion—and we shouldn’t—men should also be given the same grace when they reject fatherhood. Equality means extending understanding to both sexes, recognizing that their decisions are complex and deserving of empathy. Telling men to keep it in your paints while simultaneously causing any behavior women do that lead to pregnancy should cause cognitive dissidence at the very least.

This isn’t a perfect solution, but it forces us to confront uncomfortable truths. Ignoring men’s emotional stakes and the growing sentience of the fetus creates a system where one parent’s experience is prioritized over the others. That’s not equality—it’s selective empathy.

If we truly want to advance reproductive rights men’s roles need to be acknowledged at the very least. We must acknowledge that men’s connection to their children—whether born or unborn—is genuine and that men’s sexual choices are respected. When combating a problem ignoring half of it will never solve the issue. We don’t end sexism by replacing it with a different form of sexism. Any policy or discussion that overlooks this is incomplete. Feminism and the pro-choice movement claim to advocate for human rights, but until they fully recognize the emotional and legal stakes for men, their approach will always necessarily fall short. I want to support pro-choicer’s, I don’t agree with the pro-life side, . In the realm of human rights, we must strive for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach—one that acknowledges all human experiences, not just one side.

Do people in your country expect men to give up their seats to young healthy women? It goes without saying that people should give up seats to small kids, elderly people and disabled people. But what is the reason to give up to young healthy women? In my opinion, it's the beginning of any "Titanic" situation. It is neglecting of men's comfort and safety. What do you think? What country are you from?

Some feminists argue that sex work is inherently abusive and exploitative, often identifying themselves as "Sex Work Exclusionary Radical Feminists" (SWERFs). While this term may not be widely recognized, it refers to those who believe sex work is fundamentally harmful and should be excluded from feminist advocacy. However, this view overlooks important nuances and inconsistencies. To claim that sex work is intrinsically abusive, one would have to show that sex work is fundamentally different from other forms of "real" work.

Argument 1: Coercion vs. Consent A key distinction here is between coercion and consent. The common argument is that sex work is inherently coercive because it involves exchanging money for sexual services. But consider this: not wanting to have sex for free but agreeing to do so for payment is not coercion—it’s simply work. Just as someone might not want to mow a lawn but will do so for a fair wage, sex work involves valid consent as long as it’s informed and voluntary. The decision between sex work and a minimum wage job is for the individual worker, not the public, to make. Coercion implies a lack of choice, but a voluntary exchange of services for money does not meet that definition.

Argument 2: Platforms and Regulation Critics often focus on the platforms where sex work occurs, citing overlaps with illegal activities like child abuse and trafficking. These are serious concerns that must be addressed, but they don’t justify banning consensual sex work any more than the existence of illegal activities online justifies shutting down the entire internet. Just as with other industries that face abuse, the solution is better regulation, not prohibition. The focus should be on improving enforcement and protecting consensual adult interactions, rather than penalizing the entire industry.

Argument 3: Mental Health and Autonomy Some argue that sex work causes mental harm to both workers and clients. While this may be true for some, it is not a universal experience. In a liberal society, we treat all actions as morally neutral unless we have good reason to prohibit them. Adults should be free to engage in legal activities they find fulfilling. For many, sex work is not just a viable career but an enjoyable one. High-profile sex workers like Betty Bondage, Sydney Harwin, Riley Reid, and Dani Daniels have shared positive experiences in the industry. We shouldn’t stigmatize the profession based on a minority of negative experiences, just as we wouldn’t ban alcohol because some people develop addictions.

On the client side, some individuals prefer the structured, transactional nature of sex work to traditional relationships. They may lack the time, personality, or desire to commit to a full relationship but still want the benefits of intimacy. Legal sex work provides a clear framework with defined boundaries, much like therapy does. It reduces the potential for misunderstandings between clients and workers, with ethical guidelines ensuring a mutual understanding of the relationship.

Argument 4: Impact on the Dating Market Although less commonly discussed, sex work doesn’t just affect workers—it impacts clients and the dating market as well. By giving people more freedom to navigate their personal sexual and romantic lives, sex work could reduce confusion in the dating world. Men who are only interested in short-term, transactional relationships might turn to sex work instead of seeking one-night stands, while women seeking financial security through relationships would have clearer protections. The dating market is already filled with competing incentives, and legal sex work could help clarify some of these, allowing for more genuine relationships to form.

Many will likely respond with the same arguments I’ve already addressed—coercion, platforms, and mental health concerns. If your critique falls into one of these categories, I encourage you to revisit the relevant points above (1, 2, or 3). If you have a different argument or want to explore further nuances, I’m open to engaging more deeply. Some might try to dismiss my use of ChatGPT, but I assure you these are my original arguments. ChatGPT simply helps me refine and express my thoughts more clearly, much like an editor would for any writer.

Welcome to to Monthly Meta!

This thread is for discussing rules, moderation, or anything else about r/FeMRADebates and its users. Mods may make announcements here, and users can bring up anything normally banned by Rule 5 (Appeals & Meta). Please remember that all the normal rules are active, except that we permit discussion of the subreddit itself here.

We ask that everyone do their best to include a proposed solution to any problems they're noticing. A problem without a solution is still welcome, but it's much easier for everyone to be clear what you want if you ask for a change to be made too.

When the "man or bear" question made the rounds, a lot of men were upset—and rightly so. Their reaction mirrors the frustration behind the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests: feeling unfairly judged based on an aspect of their identity. While BLM has a legitimate point in exposing systemic racism, it becomes more complicated when people defend statements like #menaretrash, #yesallmen, or the "man or bear" meme. Do those who defend these messages understand the harm they’re perpetuating?

Society generally agrees that it’s acceptable to criticize Nazi sympathizers, alt-right extremists, and militia groups. But lately, it seems men, in general, have been added to that list. But why? Men are present in those problematic groups, yes, but so are women. It’s not as though those groups are exclusively male.

If the argument is that men as a whole are as evil as Nazis, that’s a pretty extreme—and frankly, unsustainable—position to hold. The best I can tell is this permission comes from a pop-feminist interpretation of patriarchy theory, where men are seen as an oppressor class. But even this falls short. Historically, the vast majority of men lived in the same harsh conditions as women, burdened by rigid gender roles and survival challenges. It’s not accurate—or fair—to paint all men as oppressors, especially not today.

This pervasive, subtle sexism is not just about hashtags like #menaretrash or #yesallmen; it’s about the everyday ways men are portrayed as inherently dangerous or toxic simply for being men. This has long lasting effects and starts early.

If hypothetically you were told from a young age that just by existing as a man, you’re potentially harmful, how would that affect your self-worth? How would it shape your interactions with the world? We see the impact of systemic bias on other groups all the time. Take the experiences of Black students in predominantly white schools—they often face challenges that negatively impact their academic performance and overall well-being because of the constant pressure of being seen as "different" or "less than." Similarly, if men are conditioned to believe they're dangerous just for being male, it’s easy to see how this could damage their self-worth and behavior. It’s no different from the kind of systemic biases that other marginalized groups have fought against for years. And yet, when men point out this bias, they're often dismissed or ridiculed.

I’m not saying men don’t have privilege in many areas—that’s a separate discussion. But privilege in one area doesn’t mean we should ignore issues in another. The fact that some men hold positions of power doesn’t negate that the average guy is still dealing with being stereotyped as a predator or a ticking time bomb. Yet we continue to be surprised that men dont like this.

So, what are you going to do with this information? Will you keep hiding behind hashtags like #menaretrash and pretend it’s all just a joke? Or will you stop and realize that by defending these ideas, you're participating in the same kind of lazy, damaging generalizations that we've fought against in other contexts?

If you’re comfortable labeling half the population as dangerous or evil based on their gender, then maybe it’s time to admit that your worldview is hypocritical, simplistic, or, frankly, stupid. But if you’re not, and you actually care about improving society, then it’s time to speak up and call this out for what it is: unacceptable. Just as we work to dismantle racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry, we need to start addressing this new form of gender bias before it becomes entrenched.

So here’s the challenge: if you truly believe men as a group are inherently dangerous, let’s have that debate. But if you recognize this bias for what it is, then stop excusing it. Either confront the idea head-on and justify it, or admit that it’s flawed and work to change the narrative. Because if we don’t, we’re just perpetuating the same kind of discrimination we claim to fight against.

Here are responses to the possible counterarguments in a question-and-answer format:

1. Counterargument: Men Hold Institutional Power

   • Response: Does holding institutional power mean that every man is inherently dangerous or toxic? Can we address issues of power and privilege without resorting to harmful generalizations about all men?

2. Counterargument: Not All Criticism is Harmful

   • Response: Even if phrases like #menaretrash are expressions of frustration, does that justify the psychological impact they have on men who are trying to be good allies? Can raising awareness be effective without demonizing an entire gender?

3. Counterargument: Focus on Intersectionality

   • Response: How can we have an intersectional conversation if we’re not acknowledging that men also face biases, particularly in ways that impact their mental health and self-worth? Shouldn’t intersectionality include the challenges men face as well?

4. Counterargument: Privilege and Fragility

   • Response: Is it fragile to point out that labeling someone as inherently dangerous just because of their gender is harmful? Can we address toxic masculinity without perpetuating a different kind of toxicity against men?

5. Counterargument: False Equivalence

   • Response: Is it really a false equivalence, or are we seeing a pattern where systemic bias—whether based on race, gender, or something else—has similar harmful effects on individuals? Shouldn’t we recognize and address bias wherever it exists?

6. Counterargument: Accountability vs. Bias

   • Response: How do we balance holding individuals accountable with avoiding harmful stereotypes? Isn’t it possible to hold men accountable for their actions without labeling all men as dangerous or toxic?

7. Counterargument: Generalizations About Men

   • Response: Isn’t the point of challenging these generalizations to encourage more nuanced conversations? How can we ensure that our critiques of harmful gender norms don’t themselves fall into the trap of overgeneralization?

I've been thinking a lot about how certain sexual behaviors are heavily gendered in our society, and I’m curious to hear your thoughts. For example, have you noticed how teenage boys often label fellatio as either "for girls" or "for gays," but in this context, "gay" usually just means something feminine, not necessarily homosexual? It’s interesting how receiving fellatio as a guy might be seen as "gay" in a homosexual sense, but never feminine. This seems to suggest that the act of orally stimulating a penis is, in their minds, intrinsically feminine.

This kind of thinking isn’t just limited to that one example. Consider the term "pillow queen," which describes someone who just lies there and receives during sex. This kind of passive or receiving role is often coded as female. Similarly, when we talk about someone being a "bottom" in a sexual relationship, it’s often associated with femininity because it’s seen as a submissive or passive role.

These examples make it pretty clear how sexual roles are perceived: to be a "man" means being in control, being the focus of pleasure, and being the one who advances things. We can argue that these roles aren’t necessarily intrinsic to gender, but rather cultural constructs. But does this distinction really matter? Who does it benefit to keep these roles so rigidly defined?

As society has become more egalitarian, the space for women in sex has opened up significantly. Women today have more sexual freedom and can explore a broader range of sexual experiences than ever before. Meanwhile, men are still boxed into a narrow range of acceptable sexual behaviors, especially if they identify as heterosexual. Even though there are many diverse sexual identities and behaviors outside of the majority cis-hetero male experience, men’s sexuality hasn't seen real change since the sexual revolution—and even then, it was more about men being allowed to have more sex rather than expanding the roles and experiences available to them, like women have seen.

So, where do we go from here? Men need to have a broader range of behaviors and roles considered normal, but I think one of the biggest barriers is women’s expectations around masculinity and male sexual behavior. Just as the male gaze limited women’s sexuality in the past, female expectations might now be holding men back.

Take, for example, the evolution of female sexual identity. We've moved from limiting labels like the "lipstick lesbian" to now embracing diverse expressions like masculine-presenting women and "muscle mommies," while still allowing room for traditional, more feminine identities like the '50s pin-up girl. These all comfortably fit within the category of being a woman.

We need the same kind of diversity and acceptance for men, but first, we need to be okay with other forms of masculinity and male sexual behavior, much like how men have come to accept women wearing pants or taking on other non-traditional roles.

Have any of you noticed this trend? How accurate do you think my observations are, and what do you think can be done to help men, which in turn might help us all? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

I've spent some years reading about men's issues on the internet & I've never come across the Manosphere as defined by Wikipedia. I've concluded it doesn't exist.

Feel free to convince me otherwise.

Wrongful rape convictions wreak havoc on innocent lives in ways that go far beyond standard legal and social consequences. Take Brian Banks, for instance. This promising football player spent over five years in prison because of a false accusation. Even after being exonerated, he faced immense difficulty trying to salvage his career and reputation, thanks to the lasting stigma of the wrongful claim.

Then there’s the Central Park Five—five teenagers who were wrongfully convicted of raping a woman in 1989. Despite being cleared years later, they were left to deal with severe psychological trauma and societal rejection, showing just how damaging false accusations can be.

Rape cases are uniquely problematic because they often lack the concrete physical evidence seen in other crimes, like theft, where stolen items provide clear proof. The ambiguity surrounding consent means that cases can be incredibly difficult to navigate accurately. Examples like Juanita Broaddrick’s retracted accusations against Bill Clinton and Crystal Mangum’s false claims against the Duke lacrosse players highlight the messiness and potential for harm in such cases.

This isn’t about stigmatizing potential false accusers or suggesting that there should be any efforts to prevent false accusations. This is about confronting the harsh reality faced by men who are wrongfully convicted of rape and later exonerated. They endure severe stigma, psychological damage, and ongoing challenges in rebuilding their lives. It's high time we address how to genuinely restore these individuals and mitigate the long-term harm caused by such severe and complex accusations.

When we talk about trans rights and conservative beauty pageants, it might seem like we’re just debating gender issues. But often, these discussions are masking bigger, underlying problems. If we dig a little deeper, we can see that we’re actually dealing with broader issues and can work on real solutions instead of just arguing over symbols.

Using the minimum wage debate, as an easier exampl we see on the surface, it’s all about how much workers should be paid. But at its heart, it’s really about the role of government and its involvement in our lives. Similarly, when we debate whether trans people should be included in beauty pageants or sports, it often distracts us from larger questions about our society and its values.

For instance, the argument about whether trans women should compete in women’s sports highlights this issue. Supporters argue for inclusion based on gender identity, while opponents raise concerns about fairness. However, this debate often misses the point of how we handle diverse identities and what kind of fair policies we need to create.

On the other hand, conservative beauty pageants, like Miss Universe, emphasize traditional ideas of femininity. Some people argue that this approach reinforces outdated stereotypes, while others see it as a platform for showcasing women’s talents. This tension shows a deeper conflict over how we define and value femininity and beauty in society.

So, what’s really going on here? These debates often reflect larger cultural and ideological conflicts rather than focusing on the specifics of the issues. For instance, arguments about trans rights or beauty pageants can reveal fears about changing gender norms more than they address practical concerns.

And if someone accuses me of using ChatGPT to come up with these ideas, that’s not a valid critique. ChatGPT is just a tool to help explain my thoughts, but the ideas themselves are mine. The focus should be on the arguments and not on the tools used to articulate them.

In conclusion, rather than getting caught up in symbolic arguments, we should direct our attention to real changes that affect people’s lives. We need to have discussions about creating fair and inclusive policies that truly make a difference, moving beyond proxy debates to tackle the fundamental issues at hand.

The controversy around Imane Khelif’s exclusion from the 2024 Olympics due to failing a gender eligibility test underscores the difficulties of the trans athlete debate. This debate has put the pro-trans rights side in a difficult position, where attempts to justify the inclusion of trans women in women's sports have led to increased scrutiny on both trans and cis women.

Historically, women’s sports were established to give women a fair space to compete, recognizing the physical differences that generally make it impossible for women to compete on equal footing with men. Introducing trans women into these spaces based on hormone levels or other criteria complicates this distinction and creates a narrative that can be easily attacked by opponents.

This approach not only makes it more difficult to defend the inclusion of trans athletes but also plays into harmful conspiracy theories. For example, fringe theories like the idea that Michelle Obama is secretly trans are not only false but also demonstrate how easily transphobia can blend with sexism, casting suspicion on all women.

If the right were more strategic, they could have argued that competitive women’s sports should be reserved for those who have always identified as female. Such a stance is easier to defend because it appeals to a clear, binary distinction that most people are familiar with. By contrast, the more nuanced and inclusive approach that involves discussions of hormones and identity can seem convoluted and opens the door to increased scrutiny, which ultimately harms both trans and cis women.

In trying to push for inclusivity, the pro-trans side may have underestimated how the complexity of their arguments could be weaponized by the right to stoke fear and division. This reveals a broader challenge in social justice movements: changing the status quo often requires more robust and easily communicable justifications than maintaining it. This issue in sports is a microcosm of that larger challenge.

So I am going to try this a different way. This is me acknowledging there has been a fault in my approach and I am trying to fix that. Here is my attempt to better present my view on a specific type of problem in rape culture and how to fix it.

Purpose of the Questions:

Goal: This structured approach aims to dissect the nuances of consent, gender dynamics, and sexual behavior. By establishing shared assumptions and systematically exploring key issues, we aim to forge a more informed and realistic perspective on the responsibilities and implications for both men and women in sexual encounters.

Purpose of the Questions:

• To establish baseline assumptions and investigate how societal expectations and individual behaviors drive misunderstandings about consent.

• To evaluate these implications and develop decisive conclusions on how to address these issues effectively.

These questions focus on describing the current state of societal dynamics and behaviors. They reflect reality as it exists today, rather than how we would ideally like men and women to behave. The goal is to understand the existing patterns and their impact on consent, even if this reality does not align with our ideal standards of behavior.

Please answer the following questions with a simple 'yes' or 'no.' If you answer 'no' to any question, take a moment to consider why. Explaining that specific 'no' will help us explore the nuances of these issues.

1. On an individual level, are men generally perceived as more physically threatening to women, such that if a man crosses a boundary, it could imply a greater risk of further boundary violations?

   Context: If you answered "yes," you acknowledge the perception of male physicality as a critical factor in understanding and respecting boundaries, which is central to discussions about consent.

2. In many cases, are men expected to initiate and advance sexual encounters at the start of most relationships?

   Context: If you answered "yes," you recognize the traditional expectation for men to initiate, which influences how both men and women approach sexual encounters and creates significant pressure.

3. Do most men generally not intend to commit rape, and if they are clearly told "no" with sufficient emphasis, will they typically stop?

   Context: If you answered "yes," you affirm that clear communication is often effective in preventing sexual violence, although misunderstandings can still arise.

4. Are women often subjected to slut-shaming when they actively seek out sexual encounters?

   Context: If you answered "yes," you recognize the double standards that criticize women for expressing sexual agency, contributing to a culture of silence around consent.

5. Are women generally socialized to be more agreeable, often described as cooperative, polite, kind, and friendly?

   Context: If you answered "yes," you understand that social conditioning complicates women’s ability to assert boundaries, particularly in sexual contexts.

6. Given that men are often expected to initiate and women are socialized to be agreeable, might some women experience social or emotional pressure to display "token resistance"—indicating reluctance even if they are willing to engage in sexual activity?

   Context: If you answered "yes," you acknowledge that these gendered expectations can lead to token resistance, which muddles the clarity of consent and can lead to serious misunderstandings.

7. Is there widespread awareness and discussion about token resistance and its role in rape culture, including how it contributes to misunderstandings about consent and perpetuates harmful behaviors?

   Context: If you answered "yes," you recognize that while awareness is growing, token resistance continues to perpetuate confusion around consent, necessitating deeper and more comprehensive education.

8. Considering the expectations on men and the possibility of encountering women who display token resistance, might a man be in situations where he perceives token resistance in sexual encounters?

   Context: If you answered "yes," you see that men might misinterpret token resistance as part of the expected dynamic, potentially leading to inappropriate behavior.

9. If a man encounters a woman displaying token resistance and either has sex with her or she later implies that sex could have occurred if he had persisted, might he believe that pushing against a "no" is sometimes acceptable, as suggested by some "red pill" ideologies?

   Context: If you answered "yes," you understand that such experiences might reinforce harmful beliefs, like those promoted by "red pill" ideologies.

10. Is it likely that this man will encounter similar situations with other women?

    Context: If you answered "yes," you recognize that these patterns are part of a broader social dynamic that can lead to repeated misunderstandings and harmful behaviors.

11. If during a hookup, a woman says "no," but due to societal or emotional pressures, she continues to engage out of fear or to avoid conflict, does this scenario align with earlier assumptions about token resistance and perceived pressure?

    Context: If you answered "yes," you see how societal pressures can force women to engage in sexual activity despite verbal refusals, underscoring the need for unequivocal mutual consent.

12. From the man’s perspective, could he perceive situations where a woman says "no" but later appears willing to engage in sex (whether due to token resistance or genuine willingness) as similar if he lacks a nuanced understanding of consent?

    Context: If you answered "yes," you recognize that without a clear grasp of consent, men might conflate different scenarios, leading to actions that could cross boundaries and potentially constitute rape.

13. If a man perceives these situations as similar, might he be at risk of engaging in behavior that could be classified as rape?

    Context: If you answered "yes," you acknowledge the serious risk that misunderstandings of consent can lead to criminal behavior, highlighting the urgent need for improved education and communication.

14. Does simply telling this man that "no means no" address the underlying issues unless additional education and understanding are provided?

    Context: If you answered "yes," you recognize that while "no means no" is a critical message, it is insufficient on its own. Comprehensive education is essential to address the complexities of consent.

15. Should our approach to teaching consent move beyond the basic concept of "no means no" to include more comprehensive education on consent, communication, and recognizing boundaries?

    Context: If you answered "yes," you affirm the need for an expanded approach to consent education that addresses the complexities of human interaction and ensures responsible navigation of sexual situations.

Conclusion:

Your answers reveal that the complexities of consent demand a sophisticated approach. We must advance beyond the simplistic "no means no" approach to foster genuine understanding and communication about consent.

To tackle these issues effectively, boys need in-depth education on interpreting body language and enhancing communication. For instance, teaching them to ask clarifying questions and provide "outs" (e.g., "Do you want to go or do you have work tomorrow?") will help ensure that consent is actively and clearly communicated.

At the same time, girls must be educated on the dynamics of escalation and how to assertively communicate boundaries. This includes understanding how to escalate from a soft "no" to a firm refusal if necessary. While most men respect clear boundaries, the minority who do not are a separate concern.

Both parties in a sexual encounter hold agency and responsibility. The current expectation that men must initiate and escalate sexual encounters while solely bearing responsibility for consent implies that women lack the autonomy to engage independently. This perspective is flawed and undermines mutual agency.

Responsibility and fault are distinct. Consider the analogy of a sober driver witnessing a drunk driver swerving: while the drunk driver is at fault for any resulting crash, the sober driver also has a responsibility to act if they can. Similarly, if women are expected to have no role in stopping rape, it reflects an unrealistic and patronizing view of their autonomy.

I advocate for an approach that empowers women to engage in consensual sex without needing external protection. To achieve this, we must address flaws on both sides and align our approach to rape culture with the realities of consent and personal responsibility. This comprehensive perspective will ensure a more realistic and respectful approach to consent and sexual interactions.

My goal is to have less rape and less bad sex for the average person. Ive tried many different ways to do this. Ive tried limited scopes ive tried expansive ones. Ive tried to have neutral language and aggressive language.

Ignoring the issue that i dont think anyone has ever been able to restate my post and that they probably have lost the ability to have a discussion whenever the Voldemort word come up what is the problem?

Should we be able to discuss this? Look at my post on purplepill. Please tell me if anything i am saying is actually wrong but if you try to do that do me a favor and also tell me what it is you interpret my post to actually mean.

Welcome to to Monthly Meta!

This thread is for discussing rules, moderation, or anything else about r/FeMRADebates and its users. Mods may make announcements here, and users can bring up anything normally banned by Rule 5 (Appeals & Meta). Please remember that all the normal rules are active, except that we permit discussion of the subreddit itself here.

We ask that everyone do their best to include a proposed solution to any problems they're noticing. A problem without a solution is still welcome, but it's much easier for everyone to be clear what you want if you ask for a change to be made too.

If a two people are on a first date, for this its a Man and a W. W says to M why dont we go back to my place and have some coffee? They get there and she takes off her clothing grabs a condom and opens it.

He asks "So you want to have sex" and she responds No, please tell me what you think he should do?

I think the answer is clear but from even this sub i dont think most of you do.

Was watching the news (already self harm there) and during this there is a segment on what is called KOSA kids online safety act.

It will make platforms have a duty of care on online platforms to mitigate a list of harms. Theoretically awesome practically fucking stupid. Want to give the MAGA crowd another tool to stop kids from learning about trans issues? Want to give them the tools to stop abortion and birth control information? Add that shit to the list and boom.

Humans never learn do we? The left are the adults, we are the ones who should know better. We should know you cant let the average right winger get to sacred. We bitch about respectability politics GUESS WHAT OPTICS FUCKING MATTER. Thankfully they have truly gone too far and i can go back to attacking them but i want to make it very clear: WHEN I SHIT ON THE LEFT IT IS BECAUSE I SAW THIS SHIT COMING.

We should have never let fucking morons claim they were deer gender or when Republicans try to say they are trans we should have just been fine with it. The BIGGEST FUCKING MISTAKE WE MADE WAS NOT DISAVOWING MEDICAL INTERVENTION FOR KIDS. We just got them to accept adult trans people, let that shit ride for at least another 7 to 10 years then push social transition for kids. Now that we are here we need to fight the right again when they were fine to just be a minority cultural opinion. They would try to stir up shit with gays, weed and stuff but were crushed and moved to a just leave me and my family alone stance.

SWERF's separate out work from sex work. While pointing to abuse in that industry is good, abuse happens in every industry. I just want a good argument for why sex work, legal consensual sex work, is not the same as any other work?

I believe the best way to use ChatGPT is to homogenize arguments so the most number of people can understand, which softens the author's voice and makes it more standardized. Below is that version if you would like a version that has more of my personal voice it is also posted under ChatGPT's version as most people will only ever read at best three lines after this one.

Rape victim advocates often cite the low conviction rate as evidence of rape culture. However, this argument fails to prove that the low rate is a systemic flaw rather than an indication that the system is functioning according to Western judicial principles.

Victim-centered approaches are important, but they must not conflict with the rights of the accused or the fairness of the process. The legal system is procedural, allowing two adversarial parties to present their cases. The prosecution must prove a crime, while the defense can remain silent. If the evidence does not support a guilty verdict, the defense does not need to act. This rarely happens as, by the time it goes to trial, there is an expectation they do have a case.

Rape victim advocates propose procedural changes that would fundamentally break core legal principles. Whether due to a lack of understanding of the legal system or excessive sympathy, their criticisms and proposed changes are misguided.

Advocates often emphasize rape kits and testing. While important, physical evidence plays a minor role in most rape trials. Physical evidence alone often does not resolve questions of consent, which is usually the core issue. This demonstrates a misunderstanding and oversimplification by advocates.

Rape is not a crime where the action is inherently bad, unlike killing. We need to recognize that rape and sex look the same most of the time. Sex can be positive and meaningful; it is often a core part of the human experience, unlike killing. Nearly 99% of adults will have sex at least once in their life, while only a small percentage will face a life-threatening physical encounter. Rape involves proving the accused knew or should have known they lacked consent. This standard is crucial as proving the absence of consent is simpler than proving affirmative consent. It protects both parties from wrongful convictions and prevents irrelevant arguments about the accuser's behavior or attire. Requiring proof of consent would invite unnecessary evidence.

Criticism of the hostile and adversarial process often suggests that cross-examining an accuser is wrong or that more should be done to help accusers report. However, the adversarial nature of the legal system, where defense and prosecution cross-examine witnesses, safeguards against wrongful convictions. A criminal case is between the State and the accused, not the accuser. The State can prosecute without the accuser's help if they believe they can convict. Criminal law concerns the State's interest in punishment and the protections for the defense against an entity that has functionally infinite resources and time pretrial. Ensuring evidence is thoroughly scrutinized and allowing both sides to challenge the case is essential. While systemic issues need addressing, the adversarial system is designed to maintain balance and procedural integrity.

Many proposed changes fail to balance protections for all parties involved. While protections for accusers are necessary, the rights of the accused are a fundamental principle. The presumption of innocence must prevail until a verdict is reached. Reforms should carefully consider this principle to avoid undermining it or overly restricting the accused’s ability to defend themselves.

Addressing concerns while maintaining a fair legal process is crucial. We should do this proactively, not reactively, during the trial phase. This issue parallels college affirmative action; helping minorities at the college level misses the point if they have already faced irreparable disadvantages. Affirmative action should start at preschool, not college.

Like in college, we need to improve consent education and awareness. We can support victims before and after investigations and trials but not during the trial. Support includes access to counseling, legal assistance, and protection from harassment. Most importantly, we need to address cultural issues that support rape culture. Discussions often neglect how women themselves contribute to rape culture.

There is an excessive burden on men to be the only responsible party during sex. Men must be extremely cautious because if a woman freezes or cannot even whisper a soft no, it's not on her; freezing, dissociating, or other reactions are considered normal. However, these reactions shouldn't occur in most cases. Most rape incidents come down to bad communication. If women leave all initial sexual advances to men, it trains men to take the next steps, expecting them to remember every conversation and read minds. Is it fair to expect such a dynamic not to fail often? On the other hand, if a woman cannot clearly and unambiguously set boundaries, perhaps conservatives are correct in suggesting women need to be treated like children. Women must ensure their "no's" are always definitive.

We need to teach women to be clear when something is a "not right now" versus a real "no." Saying "slow down" or putting "No Hookups" in dating profiles and other soft no's, especially when not genuine, teaches men to push past these boundaries. Suggesting that "men should treat all signals the same way" exemplifies the hyperagency placed on men and the infantilization of women.

Both sides must be responsible for ensuring a successful sexual encounter. Even when it fails, it isn't always rape. Teenagers, who often face these issues, are inexperienced and prone to awkward sexual encounters. An uncomfortable or confusing sexual experience is part of growing up. Bad or uncomfortable sex should not be considered rape, a belief that is becoming more prevalent after MeToo.

To be explicit, the man who crosses a boundary is 100% at fault. However, the woman also has some responsibility, a complexity rarely discussed. While women often focus on protecting their drinks, more rapes could be prevented by teaching women about escalatory violence and assertiveness. When women state that men they turn down respond with "Whatever, bitch," they sometimes don't understand that this reaction is valid. When you tell a guy no in a soft manner and get asked again, responding with "I told you, fuck off" is an example of the wrong escalation of violence. Women need to make their "no's" absolute and use clear language to avoid issues caused by their agreeableness. This is one reason the "I have a boyfriend" excuse works; it has nothing to do with respecting other men and believing she's his property.

Men need to learn about escalatory violence naturally because the games boys play can lead to violence if neither side recognizes escalation and reacts appropriately. We harm women by not teaching them this, just as we harm boys by not teaching emotional regulation and coping skills. Expecting them to figure it out while their bodies are saturated with hormones that increase aggression, impulsiveness, and decrease empathy is unrealistic. It's a miracle more fights don't happen in schools.

We cannot vilify men based on these factors as is often done in rape discourse. Too often, the accused is treated as inherently evil. Most of these rapes occur when all parties involved are young, inexperienced, and driven by hormones.

Efforts to improve rape conviction rates and support victims must not compromise the rights of the accused or the integrity of the legal system. While victim support is essential, proposed reforms disrupting fundamental legal principles should be scrutinized. We must focus on enhancing evidence collection and ensuring procedural fairness without sacrificing justice for all parties involved.

Rape victim advocates often cite the low conviction rate as evidence of rape culture. However, this argument fails to prove that the low rate is a systemic flaw rather than an indication that the system is functioning according to Western judicial principles.

Balancing Victim-Centered Approaches with Legal Fairness

Victim-centered approaches are important, but they must not conflict with the rights of the accused or the fairness of the process. The legal system is procedural, allowing two adversarial parties to present their cases. The prosecution must prove a crime, while the defense can remain silent. If the evidence does not support a guilty verdict, the defense does not need to act. This rarely happens because, by the time it goes to trial, there is an expectation that the prosecution has a case.

Challenges with Proposed Procedural Changes

Rape victim advocates propose procedural changes that would fundamentally break core legal principles. Whether due to a lack of understanding of the legal system or excessive sympathy is irrelevant. Their criticisms and proposed changes are misguided.

Role of Physical Evidence in Rape Trials

Advocates often emphasize rape kits and testing. While important, physical evidence plays a minor role in most rape trials. Physical evidence alone often does not resolve questions of consent, which is usually the core issue. This demonstrates the misunderstanding and oversimplification by advocates.

Understanding the Nature of Rape and Consent

Rape is not a crime where the action is inherently bad, unlike killing. We need to recognize that rape and consensual sex look the same most of the time. Sex can be positive and meaningful and is often a core part of the human experience, unlike killing. Nearly 99% of adults will have sex at least once in their life, whereas a much smaller percentage will face life-threatening physical encounters. Rape involves proving the accused knew or should have known they lacked consent. This standard is crucial, as proving the absence of consent is simpler than proving affirmative consent. It protects both parties from wrongful convictions and prevents irrelevant arguments about the accuser's behavior or attire. Requiring proof of consent would invite unnecessary evidence.

The Importance of the Adversarial Legal Process

Criticism of the hostile and adversarial process often suggests that cross-examining an accuser is wrong or that more should be done to help accusers report. However, the adversarial nature of the legal system, where defense and prosecution cross-examine witnesses, safeguards against wrongful convictions. A criminal case is between the State and the accused, not the accuser. The State can prosecute without the accuser's help if they believe they can convict. Criminal law concerns the State's interest in punishment and the protections for the defense against an entity that has functionally infinite resources and time pretrial. Ensuring evidence is thoroughly scrutinized and allowing both sides to challenge the case is essential. While systemic issues need addressing, the adversarial system is designed to maintain balance and procedural integrity.

Balancing Protections for All Parties

Many proposed changes fail to balance protections for all parties involved. While protections for accusers are necessary, the rights of the accused are a fundamental principle. The presumption of innocence must prevail until a verdict is reached. Reforms should carefully consider this principle to avoid undermining it or overly restricting the accused’s ability to defend themselves.

Proactive Solutions for Addressing Concerns

Addressing concerns while maintaining a fair legal process is crucial. We should do this proactively, not reactively during the trial phase. This issue parallels college affirmative action; helping minorities at the college level misses the point if they have already faced irreparable disadvantages. Affirmative action should start at preschool, not college. Though I wonder how many will accuse me of being anti-affirmative action rather than so pro that I want to expand it?

Improving Consent Education and Awareness

Like in college, we need to improve consent education and awareness. We can support victims before and after investigations and trials, but not during the trial. Support includes access to counseling, legal assistance, and protection from harassment. Most importantly, we need to address cultural issues that support rape culture. Discussions often neglect how women themselves actually promote and contribute to rape culture.

Shared Responsibility in Sexual Encounters

There is an excessive burden on men to be the only responsible party during sex. Men must be extremely cautious because if a woman freezes or cannot even whisper a soft no, it's not on her; freezing, dissociating, or other reactions are normal after all. However, these reactions shouldn't occur in most cases. Cases where the victim is being aggressed on enough to trigger such responses are not the norm; most rape incidents come down to bad communication. If women leave all initial sexual advances to men, it trains men to take the next steps, expecting them to remember every conversation and read minds. Is it fair to expect such a dynamic not to fail often? On the other hand, if a woman cannot clearly and unambiguously set boundaries, perhaps conservatives are correct in suggesting women need to be treated like children. Women must ensure their "no's" are always definitive.

Clear Communication and Boundaries

We need to teach women to be clear when something is a "not right now" versus a real "no." Saying "slow down" or putting "No Hookups" in dating profiles and other soft no's, especially when not genuine, teaches men to push past these boundaries. Suggesting that "men should treat all signals the same way" exemplifies the hyper-agency placed on men and the infantilization of women.

Adolescent Experiences and Miscommunications

Both sides must be responsible for ensuring a successful sexual encounter. Even when it fails, it isn't always rape. Teenagers, who often face these issues, are inexperienced and prone to awkward sexual encounters. An uncomfortable or confusing sexual experience is part of growing up. Bad or uncomfortable sex should not be considered rape.

Addressing Escalatory Violence

To be explicit, the man who crosses a boundary is 100% at fault. However, the woman also has some responsibility, a complexity rarely discussed. While women often focus on protecting their drinks, more rapes could be prevented by teaching women about escalatory violence and assertiveness. When women state men who they turn down respond with "Whatever bitch" sometimes don't understand that reaction was valid. When you tell a guy no in a soft manner and get asked again, responding with "I told you fuck off" is an example of the wrong escalation of violence. Women need to make their "no's" absolute and use clear language to avoid issues caused by their agreeableness, which is one reason the "I have a boyfriend" works—it has nothing to do with respecting other men and believing she's his property.

Natural Learning of Escalatory Violence for Men

Men need to learn about escalatory violence naturally because the games boys play can lead to violence if neither side recognizes escalation and reacts appropriately. We harm women by not teaching them this, just as we harm boys by not teaching emotional regulation and coping skills. Expecting them to figure it out while their bodies are saturated with hormones that increase aggression, impulsiveness, and decrease empathy is unrealistic. It's a miracle more fights don't happen in schools.

Avoiding Vilification of Men in Rape Discourse

We cannot vilify men based on these factors as is often done in rape discourse. Too often, the accused is treated as inherently evil. Most of these rapes occur when all parties involved are young, inexperienced, affected by drugs, and driven by hormones.

Conclusion

Efforts to improve rape conviction rates and support victims must not compromise the rights of the accused or the integrity of the legal system. While victim support is essential, proposed reforms disrupting fundamental legal principles should be scrutinized. We must focus on enhancing evidence collection and ensuring procedural fairness without sacrificing justice for all parties involved.

SERF's claim porn is about abusing women. That women being put in bondage, being choked, or just having normal sex has nothing to do with womens desires, fantasies or enjoyment. It was made for the male gaze after all.

What if they are wrong? Women are not asexual wombs, except when they are for ideological reasons like defending women who rape children, otherwise they are powerful sexually confident and desire sex as much as men, but again this is never the case when a woman sexually assults anyone, then they are abused asexuals who did it because they were abused or had a love so pure.

Moving away from that mini rant, if 50 shades helped in any way it made it clear women like the same fucked up shit men do they just want it presented differently.

Even then I know from person experience women are as fascinated with sexual novelty as men. When i was maybe a sophomore i went to my parents room and they had left a porn dvd case of transgirls on the night stand (my moms), perhaps if i were a more normal boy i would not have been able to tell but it was very embarrassing for her to say the least.

Now we have a growing genra of porn. I stumbled across this recently looking for porn filmed from a female queer pov. Yes there are times i enjoy inhabiting a female role which has been very difficult to find. Two examples (of course this is NSFW) and this which has comments like

Omg that’s so sexy, I’ve been looking for something like this for queer women and I found it. My body’s trembling

and

On behalf of your female fans, Thank you.

These are videos designed for women with a womans gaze.

I do understand the situation women find themselves in, if they embrace and openly enjoy their sexuality they are a slut, an insult that primarily comes from other women even if the times a man does it stands out more) or they can be a prude which does come primarily from young men.

The biggest hindrance to people viewing womens sexuality as "valid" as mens is the inability of even feminists to acknowledge womens agency in sex and recognizing womens sexual abuse.

Porn like the ones linked i feel will do a lot to help society better accept womens sexuality and hopefully it will change the narrative on female perpetrated sexual assult.

Had chatgpi evaluate and give counter arguments for fun.

The critique of pornography from feminist perspectives often centers on the portrayal and treatment of women within it. The claim that pornography inherently involves the abuse of women, or that it exclusively caters to male desires, is a contentious issue. Here’s an evaluation of this perspective, along with counterarguments:

Evaluation of SERF's Claim

**1. Sexual Agency and Desire:

Claim: Pornography represents women as passive objects of male desire and often depicts abusive scenarios, which misrepresents women's actual sexual desires and fantasies.

Counterargument: Pornography is a diverse genre, and not all content perpetuates these harmful stereotypes. There are productions made specifically for and by women, which portray consensual and mutually satisfying sexual experiences. For example, feminist and queer-friendly porn aims to challenge traditional narratives by centering women's desires and experiences. The existence of such content suggests that women’s sexual agency and desires are not uniformly suppressed or misrepresented.

**2. Diversity of Pornography:

Claim: Mainstream pornography is designed from a male perspective and often shows women in degrading or non-consensual situations.

Counterargument: The rise of feminist and queer pornography challenges this perspective by offering content that reflects diverse sexual fantasies and experiences from a female and non-binary point of view. The growing demand for content that caters to different perspectives, such as the female queer gaze, indicates that there is an audience for porn that respects and portrays women's sexual autonomy and pleasure.

**3. Sexual Agency and Social Stigma:

Claim: Women who openly express their sexuality are often stigmatized as sluts, and their sexual agency is undermined.

Counterargument: The stigmatization of women's sexuality is a broader societal issue, not confined to pornography. The existence of women-centered and feminist porn can contribute to shifting perceptions about female sexuality by offering positive and respectful representations. Acknowledging women’s agency in their sexual expression and supporting diverse portrayals in porn can help combat these stigmas.

**4. Impact of Pornography:

Claim: Pornography that depicts consensual and diverse sexual experiences can help validate and normalize women's sexuality, leading to a more nuanced understanding of sexual consent and agency.

Counterargument: While there is potential for porn to positively influence societal views on female sexuality, it is crucial to consider the potential for harm if not handled carefully. Ensuring that all pornography is consensual and ethically produced, and advocating for better education about sexual consent and agency, are important steps in mitigating potential negative impacts.

**5. Female Perpetrated Sexual Assault:

Claim: The portrayal of women’s sexuality in pornography could influence societal attitudes towards female-perpetrated sexual assault.

Counterargument: Pornography alone is unlikely to shift perceptions of female-perpetrated sexual assault significantly. Broader societal changes, including better education on sexual violence, support for survivors, and addressing gender biases, are necessary to improve understanding and treatment of female-perpetrated sexual assault. Pornography can be a part of this conversation, but it should be accompanied by comprehensive measures addressing sexual violence and consent.

Conclusion

While feminist critiques of pornography often focus on its potential to perpetuate harmful stereotypes and depict abuse, it’s important to recognize that pornography is a varied field. Efforts to create feminist and queer-friendly pornography, which centers on consensual and respectful portrayals of sexual experiences, reflect a move towards addressing these critiques. To effectively support women’s sexual agency and combat stigmas, it is crucial to support diverse and ethically produced porn while also addressing broader societal issues around sexual consent and violence.

The whole Drake and Kendrick rap feud completely missed me as it is outside my cultural interest. Having heard and looked into it, I noticed a glaring problem that really bothers me. Many of the same people who have a problem with the "bear in the woods" question posed by women, myself included, were incredibly hypocritical regarding Drake. The exact bad faith view of Drake's actions mirrors the bad faith views the "bear fear" is built on. The idea that a grown man (especially being part of a group that is already very far from the statistical norm) messaging young actors (he has messaged both male and female performers) has bad intentions is the same argument women use to justify saying the bear is less scary.

If you look at my post history, you can hopefully see where my problem lies. Just like assuming men are more likely to be a danger to women is the same as assuming a grown man (even a pedophile) is likely a danger to a young woman, as they are both built on the idea that for some reason they are inherently going to sexually assault someone.

I criticize feminists and feminist theory, not necessarily feminist activism, as I do believe the problems pointed out are true. I just disagree on why that is the case and how to fix it. I may not post many criticisms of the more right-wing or manosphere stuff, not because they are correct or that I agree with them, but more that I don’t care about them. I don’t think they are worth criticizing most of the time because it’s stupid. The notable figureheads of that side are only ever "right" on things we should be biting the bullet on anyway. It hurts us politically to not accept the basic facts on the ground. Arguing the pay gap the way it’s done is just bad rhetoric. The actually good debate we never get to because we can’t admit simple things like there is a reason a neurosurgeon makes more than a pediatrician and then go on to talk about how part of the reason for that is we don't value those things. The feminists who get put as "good" debaters are so bad they get L’s on things that are so easy to win on it makes FEMINISTS and FEMINIST ACADEMICS who go on these look incredibly dumb.

Here is a good example of where I can say the side people would generally miscategorize me as is absolutely being dumb. It’s the same problem they have with the LGBT and a problem that is very substantively different than my issue with the LGBT though it may seem similar. You can’t be offended by the bear or a man in the woods question and at the same time make the statements about Drake that have been made. Him talking to underage people about dating, and so many other things, does not mean grooming. There are many contexts where this behavior is not just ethical but normal. The people who see grooming or attack non-offending pedophiles are making the same dumb assumption that women are making: "Men are unable to control their sexual desire to the group that they are attracted to." We don’t see this assumption with women or cis women pedophiles, just with people who are AMAB.

While there is a complex mix of historical, cultural, and psychological factors, none of that affects the principle we should be aspiring to. We view prejudice and discrimination as so morally wrong that we teach children not to express prejudicial thoughts even if they have them. The principle we should aim for is to judge people based on their actions and character, not on prejudiced assumptions. It is true that social conditioning and ingrained fears or prejudices exist. They may even come from personal trauma. We can acknowledge that on an interpersonal level while combating it when it becomes detrimental to the ways we interact with others. No one should have a problem with a person who is afraid of dogs because they were attacked or they are physically intimidated, but we should criticize people who are afraid of dogs because they read a news story of a bad owner that resulted in the dog needing to be put down.

The line between a "safety concern" and undue scrutiny should not be so broad as to encompass anything. While power imbalances are potentially risky, especially with children, the power imbalance is so great that you could argue no adult should interact with a minor. However, that view is impractical. We can't take that stance because, while bad actors exist who will do outright evil things, the basic fact is that 99% of people can avoid doing bad things. They may make a mistake where it gets super complex, like power imbalances between coworkers, but especially the group that sexually abuses kids has nothing to do with attraction, love, or desire. It has to do with abusing power for self-gratification. We should always be aware of when there is a safety risk but be incredibly careful culturally in how we react to those risks.

We should always be aware of the vulnerabilities of groups around us and should be aware of the vulnerabilities we have in our own groups, but that can never become so paternalistic that it inhibits social cohesion. Many influencer Red Pillers have taken to Islam as a Muslim they can all go fuck themselves. Tate and the others like Islam for the same reason TERFs want to keep trans women out of anything. I am talking specifically about real TERFs who see trans women as men in disguise, not TERFs who want to hold some select spaces based on physical advantages out of sports. Another example of where we on the left should have bit the bullet and said yes no trans women in varsity and college but pro sports we can leave to the governing body. They both come from the view that we must be so protected that it becomes paternalistic. Part of having minority and vulnerable groups being acknowledged is not to stop bad people necessarily. It is to help them against people who would unintentionally step over their boundaries. Look to a recent AD campaign where they push to give space to people with Down syndrome, a group that is definitively vulnerable. We need to balance the protection we impose, the protection that is asked for, and the ways those protections affect all of society. Again, if a Down syndrome rape survivor is scared or needs more protection, that is right and should be done. We shouldn't, however, stop anyone who isn't so chemically and mentally castrated that they are 100% safe be the ones interacting with them (yes, this is hyperbolic).

The comparison and this is a comparison between the "bear in the woods" fear and the reaction to Drake's interactions with young actors highlights a broader issue of hypocritical and prejudiced assumptions.

We need to recognize the complexity of these issues and strive for a balance between vigilance and fairness. Addressing the underlying fears and prejudices requires acknowledging their roots while advocating for a principle of judging individuals based on their actions and character.

By doing so, we can create a more just and cohesive society that protects the vulnerable without falling into paternalism, undue scrutiny, and most importantly it lets us have more validity when cases do present themselves.

Lets first start with a few statements that this who thing will rest on, if you have an issue with the statements themselves addresses that before moving to other issues.

This post is only directed at people who believe you can shame and punish people into doing things. The people who think you can shame sexuality out of women (slut shaming), shame homosexuality out, or use peoples fetishis and kinks against them.

People who commit crimes 100% should be punished.

People, while having some level of control over their actions, generally have their behaviors and personality impacted heavily by their environment, socioeconomic level, and home dynamics.

Most of the time people would rather do the easy legal thing, compared to even an easy illegal thing.

Shaming, and even incarnation doesn't actually stop people from doing the thing they want.

One reason prison is generally good is that by taking young offenders out of the population till they are old does actually measurably increase safety but it doesnt deter new criminals.

As for shaming this is less strong but if shaming people generally worked, we wouldnt have homosexuals, obesity or a whole list of other things.

So given we agree the above statements are reasonable, logical, and true enough for this we can move to the big question.

Why do so many people think we can?

Why is the answer to rape culture to try to shame men rather than treat men and women as both active and responsible for giving and getting consent proactively? We could teach kids to talk a day or two before they want to have sex the first handful of times to tell each other initially what they are interested in, what they are okay with, what is completely off the table then the following times they go over the same stuff, what they want yada, yada, yada, but most importantly they talk about what they liked, disliked, want to try, how to make it better.

Instead of comparing men and bears in the woods, teach women how to tell a guy when he makes her uncomfortable, AND we should teach men to find validation and self worth outside of womens approval so they can handle being rejected better from the start, that way we both show how both sides have things to be improved and that both sides have the abilty to cause change.

When I look at the red pill tradcon podcast and thought leaders like Tate, Sneko, or Fresh and Fit they seem to think, outside of the claims about grooming, that people having sex that doesn't line up with the way they prefer sex are not just immoral but destroying the world. Even if their was zero pushing, zero of whatever they call "grooming" they would still try to shame those people, and it just doesnt make sense.

So im asking where in this thought process you are getting the idea the way to get people having consensual legal sex or having fantasies played out in ethical and moral ways, but not monogamous or missionary is to try to shame them rather than do anything else?

Below is how chatgpt evaluated the post

Your argument raises a fundamental issue about the efficacy of shaming and punishment in addressing rape culture and other social issues. Let's break down the key points and address the central question: Why do some people think that shaming and punishing can effectively address rape culture and related issues?

1. Ineffectiveness of Shaming and Punishment:

   • Shaming and punishment often fail to address underlying causes of behavior. As you noted, behaviors and personality are heavily influenced by factors like environment and socio-economic conditions. Shaming does not necessarily change attitudes or behaviors; instead, it can reinforce stigma and push problematic behaviors underground.

2. Prison System Limitations:

   • While incarceration can remove offenders from the population and potentially reduce crime temporarily, it does not necessarily deter others from committing similar crimes. The prison system often fails to rehabilitate offenders effectively or address root causes of criminal behavior.

3. Shaming and Social Issues:

   • Shaming has not been effective in eradicating homosexuality, obesity, or other stigmatized conditions. This suggests that shaming is an inadequate tool for bringing about meaningful social change or improving behaviors.

4. Addressing Rape Culture:

   • The idea that shaming men will solve rape culture is problematic. Effective solutions should focus on proactive consent education, improving communication between partners, and addressing underlying societal attitudes. Shaming often fails to change fundamental attitudes and can lead to backlash rather than progress.

5. Positive Approaches:

   • Instead of shaming, teaching proactive communication and consent is a more constructive approach. Educating both men and women about how to express discomfort and handle rejection can foster healthier relationships and reduce instances of sexual misconduct.

6. Misguided Views on Sexuality:

   • Figures like Tate and others who promote shaming based on personal moral views often ignore the complexities of human sexuality. Their approach often focuses on enforcing a specific moral framework rather than promoting healthy, consensual interactions.

In summary, shaming and punishment alone are unlikely to effectively address rape culture or other complex social issues. Instead, a focus on education, communication, and addressing root causes is more likely to foster meaningful change.

im 🪨

Most importanly do you hold consistant views? If Riley Reid or someone started streaming would you have an issue? Do you have a problem with male OF streamers or men who make money also selling sex like women do now? What in your view makes single person OF style porn any diffrent than a moron like XQC and Xavire Woods (WWE) or other sports figures?

At this point we have enough instances of how the show treats rape that we can make some general statements about the show and how it uses rape.

In the show rape is a narrative device that is used to further plot with women and for humor with men. Becca's rape by Homelander doesn't fit the character we have been shown. When rejected he kills, and what we see with Stillwell and Stormfront as opposed to the shapeshifter he wants the person to want him. When the shifter makes it clear he is acting out of self preservation he kills them, most importantly when Stillwell starts to be distracted due to the baby he becomes enraged that she no longer was enthusiastically consenting, I dont think Becca would have been such a great actress that she made him believe she was into him, she probably reacted like many rape victims and generally froze or minimized her actions to protect herself but from how she leaves it is clear. This is outside what has been shown to be his character.

With Annie and The Deep's rapes we see again a break in character. The Deep shows he is a rapist, clearly enjoying the power over Annie, yet a person who enjoys sexual power over a supe does nothing when being raped by a normal human? This is a perosn who has been shown to have violent outbursts when made to feel vulnerable.

Finally we have Huiey who has now been raped twice. The show creator stated they thought what was done to him by Tek and Ashley was funny. Even if (and for Tek that is a huge if) they didnt know, we the audience do know. We know he is the exact same situation as Becca, locked in a room with a Supe, even Homelander upstairs.

This is a show that openly wears its progressive ideology. As such we have to hold it to that standard. Treating rape and SA as nothing is pretty clearly something they view as bad. The Deep even stating metoo didnt work and he does not honer her story. Yet they don't actually seem to care, or at least that care is limited. They certainly dont let it actually affect the characters that are men and only let it affect women in ways that further the plot.

Addition after episode 8: SHE IS PISSED AT HIM WHEN HE WAS THE ONE FUCKING RAPED REALLY?