Should force that guy say “We’re destroying families.” Make him take responsibility. And if he wants to switch sides because this helped him develop humanity, then fine. Otherwise, burn in your hell and die enjoy what you voted for, fascist pig.
Look, I’m trying to advocate for an opposing viewpoint, I’m not your enemy here. And even if I were, saying shit like “you need help” hardly paints a picture of open-minded rationality worthy of a good faith conversation.
I think that’s over simplifying it pretty significantly
Wouldn’t blocking anything deemed risque or deviant more sensitize you than DEsensitize you? Or are you implying like a pornography addiction or something?
Either way, I think this subject is VERY much in play in the current culture war we’re in. The normalization of mainstream language now using shame, guilt, “on GOD”, and other European Christianity masculine values like “brother” this and “bro” and “cringe” and stuff. So much of this newfound self help and what should be behavior never really gets looked at deeply, and so much of it is extremely problematic with racist, sexist, and homophobic foundational logic. So when people adapt it, like you say, it becomes a pretty slippery slope to controlling behavior that if you came out and just wanted people to stop, there would be an uprising. But because of these more insidious jumps in logic that people just assume (“naked person in public does affect me”), it becomes this slow decay that eats away at rights.
Basically, I’m saying that we just have to ACTUALLY talk about, as hard as it may be, and we must talk about it HONESTLY and OPENLY. Maybe learning how to discuss topics like these needs to be what education reform focuses more on, so that, you and I are just screwed, but maybe the next generations can be better off, aware of, and protected against giant leaps in worldview logic, and how to address them justly.
Like, I’m pan af and very sex positive, but also think safety and long term happiness for everybody should be the end goal. Let people be people, making drugs or speech illegal doesn’t fix anything, “race” is not a synonym for species or national heritage, attractive or not naked people on the street aren’t hurting anybody, the sexualization of everything actually fixes a lot of problems, and we must keep in mind that morality doesn’t exist in nature and is solely defined by humanity and is basically infinitely fluctuating and differently simultaneously across different people across time and in different places.
But, there has to be an answer to naked-person-having-a-walk-in-public.
I’ll start, with this question:
Does the context in which the decision to do that matter? Does it matter if it was a PROTEST, or, say, a FETISH exhibitionist walk?
Because, if it’s a fetish walk, a lot of people will cry out the “no consent!” thing. But then you have to ask follow up questions about what is sexual, what is public, does it affect you, what does it mean to affect somebody, what the limits of affecting others are, what about acts of violence, how social contracts are implied, who follows, how they’re changed, etc
And if it’s a protest, you basically have to answer the same questions, but just from a second perspective. And I’m sure there’s more I’m not thinking of.
Haha all flavors are good in the moment
I used to entirely disagree with that sentiment, but was seeing a person a couple years ago and we got into a big argument over a local who would regularly walk the neighborhood (extremely liberal area) completely nude. I was all for it, but that partner at the time, wasn’t.
They made the argument that while freedom for everybody is nice and good and important and stuff, it is affecting other people because they’re attracted to it and it’s uncomfortable to just have to deal with horniness in public.
I sympathize with the notion, but am now undecided/conflicted. There’s a LOT of consideration over normativity and fundamental morality structures in this subject that I think most people cannot or just don’t want to entertain as a subject of discussion. Personally, I’m a bit too ADHD to stay on the subject without a rational opposer who would also be dedicated to finding the basis for a conclusion, rather than placing emotional duress in front of everything like most people do.
Just have her make her own comm where she’s admin and can ban people and people can block it if they want.
To me, it’s a breath of fresh air from all the terrible world events and is just a little bit validating. Human, you might say. And even if none of it’s real, it’s nice to see somebody preaching anti-stuffiness and pro-feminism.
Uhhh
“confusing” you’re dumb and/or likely being obtuse
“Dumb” or “it’s bad” is fine.
But being confused by stuff you just disagree with has to stop
eyetwitch what the fuck
GIVE IT TO THE ENTIRE MILITARY WHAT COULD GO WRONG
Rip. Probably some really valuable stuff in there. Take it all.
DNA evidence from Kirk assassination disputed
My brain: That wasn’t Kirk? Oh shit. Better go get him, then.
What? Why in perfect condition? Aluminum is aluminum. Is only taking a few at a time protecting against fraud or homeless people trying to make some money?
Yeah I know not ME, me. It’s still dismissive.
On your point, though, I actually think that’s perfectly fine. I don’t think that’s weird at all. And if not, that’s also perfectly fine. The issue is the behavior that comes from that. Shitty behavior is just shitty behavior.
I see that stuff all the time. There was a Renaissance Fair I went to recently, and there was this SUPER attractive guy with super nice legs and abs totally just out.
Anyway, for ME, am I gonna get mad or whatever from that? No. But I can see where people that do might take issue. It may be annoying, jealousy, pain, or whatever. But it may also be an unwelcome distraction from what would otherwise be a calm, cool, collected and important focus…
Now, I’m not saying the naked person should have to stop because the uncomfortable onlooker is disrupted, but I also don’t think the solution is to just dismiss them as being wrong for having an unwanted reaction. Like, you can’t just say “get good”, that seems shitty.
Which is how I arrive at my need to discuss the philosophy of what public is, what should happen with colliding perfectly acceptable, non-harm autonomies collide.
The correct solution can’t be to tell the nude person to conform. That’s overwhelmingly based on really dangerous principles. But so is telling the onlooker to basically get over it, as that’s basically the same premise of doing what OTHER people want your behavior to be in public and being like “have some self control”.
For now, however, I propose and think it is the correct course of action to allow the nude person and push for the real discussion that needs to be had, that I proposed initially, which is to examine autonomy and what it means to affect others, at all.