Someone else already said this, but it's quite fitting that the first zoomer sex scandal doesn't even involve having sex. Truly this generation is showing itself to be "sex negative" to a disturbing degree.
Well, for one, our species would stop existing if we stopped having sex. By the categorical imperative, it would seem that sex therefore must be good and moral at least when engaged in for procreation.
I somehow doubt most people would find artificial insemination as psychologically fulfilling as sex in a loving relationship, which our psychology evolved to associate fundamentally with reproduction. Perhaps you should google "Chesterton's Fence."
And to be clear, I do agree that it would be better if we could genetically engineer out male sexuality, but I don't think Fluoridation would achieve this and until then, it'll be infeasible and probably unethical to criminalize horniness.
I don't literally mean fluoride. There are any number of drugs that could be synthesized to the correct degree in the next few years. This could be easily achieved with minimal funding, and is so much more important than basically everything else the government still funds.
The problem is obviously that you're never going to convince most people to take them. I think once genetic engineering takes off in a really big way, it's possible that we'll edit out other negative traits that make people averse to the removal of male sexuality, and people will generally be much smarter and will come around to this position. But this is not something that's going to be achieved quickly. This then becomes a political problem: conservatives are going to slow scientific progress the more power they have, so allowing the right to cancel guys like Sisson who really didn't do anything that destructive (although I agree that horniness is reprehensible) does not further our goals whatsoever.
If you're not a troll and are actually a radfem, you should stop LARPing. The probability that genetic engineering will take off is large, and is certainly higher than the probability of any group successfully contaminating the world's water supply on a consistent enough basis for the drugs to take hold. I sympathize with your intuitions but you're just an idiot
What do you think he did that is deserving of a prison sentence? I genuinely thought your other comment was a joke because of how poorly reasoned and, frankly, schizophrenic it sounded. I sympathize with revulsion towards male sexuality, but the position that one should go to prison for the lie he told is untenable.
I wasn't going to say anything because yeah, this is all pretty obviously true and can't be that controversial; but your comment section is full of insane people today (apparently quite literally, in one case), so it seems worth leaving at least one supportive comment. You are right, this is not a big deal.
On the other hand, though, I'm not going to be thaaat supportive, because... this is not a big deal. Harry Sisson is absolutely not "extremely famous", and most people are not online enough to have heard of him, let alone give a shit. Get back to the prawns!
Like half of your defense is that Sisson requested nude photos from women he was already sexting, when the problem is that he acted wrongly by lying to them when he knew the truth would likely stop them from sexting.
Suppose a man is having sex with a woman, the woman asks him in the act whether "I'm the only one for you" and the man lies to get her to continue having sex with him, knowing that if he said the truth the woman would likely no longer want to have sex with him. This is clearly quite scummy behavior, and it's just as clear that "Well, they were already having sex!" is not a good defense of that scummy behavior.
I'm no feminist, but I would seriously reconsider friendships with people who thought this. The fact that people like you are providing such a defense really says something about your character.
As for the severity of the crime, I thought most normal people agreed that tricking people into sharing nudes was scummy behavior. If Andrew Tate similarly tricked women into sharing their nudes on OnlyFans by insisting that he loved them and that they were "The only one for me" but that he needed the money (with the women knowing it was going on OnlyFans, but being lied to about everything else), would you be defending him, too, for "only engaging in a minor infraction"?
Or is it only a minor wrong when you deceive someone into sending you yourself nudes, but when you deceive them into sending other people nudes, now it's suddenly unacceptable?
You keep comparing the wrong involved here to crazy-wrong things like cheating or torturing animals to death for the pleasure of eating meat, but I noticed that groping someone against their will would also be less wrong than those things (ask anyone in a relationship they give a crap about whether they'd rather have the relationship ruined by their partner cheating or be grabbed inappropriately once on a bus...having your relationship ruined would be much worse). Would you be defending Sisson if he molested women, too?
Sisson is not some stupid young guy just saying "cringey" things or crossing hard-to-understand norms (like approaching a woman at the wrong time but with the right intent). This is a guy who repeatedly and intentionally deceived women in order to get them to send them nudes when he knew that they would likely stop if he said the truth. This is scummy behavior, and it's very easy to avoid being this scummy. The norms involved are not obscure at all.
He doesn't deserve to be canceled for life over this, but he for sure deserves the scrutiny he is getting. I don't get why people like you are going out of your way to defend him here.
To be clear if he did not actually indulge in any intentional deception I would agree with you, but I find your claim that at worst, he only lied is a pretty obvious case of failing the ITT. To me, at least lying to someone to get them to share a naked picture of them, which is a highly intimate and personal thing is nowhere in the same category as say lying about what you had for breakfast. Maybe you agree, but your final lines on this make me think that you don’t actually think this would be an unusually bad case of deception, which is definitely not my intuition, and I suspect also not the intuition of the people attacking him. People care very much about who sees their naked picture so lying to someone to get them to show you something they would not otherwise show you feels like an obviously egregious violation of their privacy. I would also dispute your claim that they had no right to know this information. Because again sharing your naked picture with someone is highly personal, so knowing something as relevant as whether that person is doing this with other people is definitely something you should be made aware of because if you have anything close to normal preferences, you would care very much about that information. It’s similar to how if I am selling you a laptop. I would have an obligation to tell you if it has a battery lifespan measured in minutes, even if there was no law about it because that is something you would want to know very much and which could change your decision. If anything, my example is quite a bit milder since buying a laptop isn’t anywhere near as personal and intimate as sharing a naked picture. Allthough people do obviously care about the money they spent to buy stuff. I predict that most people who are middle class and comfortably well off would mind lying about the laptop less than they would mind being lied to about the naked pictures. Of course, most people would not fall for the lies in the first place, but the fact that somebody’s being stupid isn’t a reason to take advantage of them. Otherwise, for example, it would be okay to scam people if your scam was sufficiently obvious to anyone clever. It’s true that people indulge in other types of problematic behaviour that are worse quite often, but that’s not a reason not to have a social rule against this particular uncommon type of bad behaviour. As an analogy, it’s true that bosses who bully their subordinates are pretty common in some industries, but you would not argue that this is a reason to let the bosses get away with sexual harassment in those industries, even if the sexual harassment is actually less traumatic. The reason why we don’t have social rules against comment, types of bad behaviour is because as a practical matter, it’s impossible to build a strong enough coalition to punish people for those types of behaviour at least in the usual case, but this doesn’t apply to less common types of bad behaviour, so it can be quite rational to punish Uncommon bad behaviour. That’s actually less severe than more common bad behaviour. Also, I suspect a lot of the people supporting this campaign would also be in favour of a campaign to cancel public figures who cheat on their girlfriends and just don’t have the ability to bring about campaigns to cancel those public figures. Even so I think plenty of public figures do in fact, face some level of social disapproval and cost to reputation for cheating on their partners. Again, none of this applies if he did not in fact, intentionally deceive any of the women through act or omission. I am also not sure why the presence of sex is so important to the discussion. Since in fact, just as people care a lot about sex and who the people they are having it with are, they similarly care a lot about their naked pictures and who gets to see them, so it’s not obvious to me that the absence of sex in sex scandals is a bad sign.
This is also a story of female sexual regret, and that story isn't told often enough. It's a big part of MeToo and the reaction women are having toward Sisson.
“If a person’s behavior isn’t abnormally bad, it shouldn’t be maliciously exposed to hundreds of millions of people”
It’s not malicious for people to come out and say that someone, especially an adult public figure, manipulated and lied to them about intimate relationship matters. You don’t have an obligation to not come forward. No one in their right mind goes “Oh, this person acted like a scumbag to me and has influence over countless people. Wouldn’t want the response to be disproportionate! After all, he would be a victim if that were true!”
Many types of cheating could reasonably be seen as a shortsighted, impulsive mistake. If the allegations are true, they are much worse and less excusable.
Unfortunately, I’m mostly with Wallet here, and I’m legitimately surprised you’re defending him (though I don’t think you have particularly bad character as he alleges). Also, having read a thread on Twitter with the videos containing the allegations, it seems much more serious than what you’re alleging. Now maybe they’re misleading, but I find it unlikely.
> In the days that followed, seven additional women came forward with allegations of inappropriate behavior during photo ops. Lindsay Menz accused Franken of touching her clothed "upper" buttocks while they posed for a photo at the Minnesota State Fair in 2010.[134][135] Two anonymous women made similar complaints related to events during political events.[136] Franken apologized, saying, "I've met tens of thousands of people and taken thousands of photographs, often in crowded and chaotic situations. I'm a warm person; I hug people. I've learned from recent stories that in some of those encounters, I crossed a line for some women—and I know that any number is too many."[137] Another anonymous woman said that after she was a guest on Franken's radio show in 2006, Franken leaned in toward her face during a handshake and gave her "a wet, open-mouthed kiss" on the cheek when she turned her face aside.[138][139] The same day, Stephanie Kemplin, an army veteran, told CNN that Franken held the side of her breast for 5 to 10 seconds "and never moved his hand" while posing for a photograph[140] with her during a 2003 USO tour in Iraq.[141]
Fuck Sisson, fuck Franken, fuck all men who do this, fuck anyone who defends sexuality. You, a supposed utilitarian, should be proudly supporting a New Fluoridation, an initiative to eliminate these pointless, rape-enabling urges that make us no different from beasts, and yet you indicate nothing more than unbridled support for predation, the thing you have railed against so much?
i'm genuinely curious to understand the "anti-sex" / "New Fluoridation" position and where it comes from. Is there maybe an article you can point me too? Is the idea that from a utilitarian perspective, the harms of sexual violence outweigh the benefits from consensual sex, and therefore it would be good to eliminate both? How would this be achieved technologically? How would the human race persist, artificial insemination? Wouldn't implementing this necessarily involve massive human rights violations for non-sexually-violent people (most people)? Does this only apply to men, or to women too?
What's obvious to you (that consensual sex never has any benefits) seems insane to 99% of humanity, so I think you need to do a better job of justifying your position if you want to be taken seriously.
You do this position a real disservice. first of all you didn't come up with this, all schizoid and asexual people think this. Second of all aren't doing a good job of explaining the argument, just saying 'power dynamics' isn't an argument and there is a much more rigorous and convincing way to present this . Third of all, you're dead wrong about the mechanism, I'm completely right re: genetic engineering, see my other comment. Fourth, there isn't a strong reason for this to be unisex.
This is just aphobic. I have literally never come across an ace person with my position. Ever. Also, don't call people "schizoid".
> there is a much more rigorous and convincing way to present this .
Then go ahead, genius.
Chuuuuudjaaaaack. Nothing. Ever. Fucking. Happens. We were supposed to be on Mars by the year I was fucking born, we're not getting fuctional CRISPR shit in my lifetime.
>Fourth, there isn't a strong reason for this to be unisex.
Women commit like 24% of all rapes or something like that.
I'm not gonna write an essay for you, this isn't a major concern of mine, but you haven't even approached a persuasive argument. You're just constantly begging the question with buzzwords like 'power dynamics.'
Get off Twitter and learn to speak and write like a human being. The second paragraph makes you sound like an illiterate person. Who seriously hypothesized that we'd be on Mars the year you were born? What's the relevance? What evidence have you seen to suggest that genetic engineering isn't feasible? Why should I particularly care if it happens in your lifetime?
That women rape stat isn't accurate and is obvious BS
Someone else already said this, but it's quite fitting that the first zoomer sex scandal doesn't even involve having sex. Truly this generation is showing itself to be "sex negative" to a disturbing degree.
yeah it’s absolutely fucked
It really isn't. You're just scared of being left behind morally. No better than a carnist.
Disturbing? Mo' like... fuckin' awesome!
No seriously what is wrong with being anti-sex.
Well, for one, our species would stop existing if we stopped having sex. By the categorical imperative, it would seem that sex therefore must be good and moral at least when engaged in for procreation.
Google "turkey baster".
I somehow doubt most people would find artificial insemination as psychologically fulfilling as sex in a loving relationship, which our psychology evolved to associate fundamentally with reproduction. Perhaps you should google "Chesterton's Fence."
Sex is the exact opposed of psychological fulfillment. We chase it without reason or compassion.
I have to assume you’re trolling because if not
you’re seriously deranged!
I'm seriously ahead of the curve.
Well, to start with, sex is real freakin' neato. It's fun! It feels good! If you're doing it right, it counts as exercise!
"He needs to be in prison" is so unbelievably deranged
"We shouldn't eat chickens" is so utterly deranged
-my impression of you in the 20th century
And to be clear, I do agree that it would be better if we could genetically engineer out male sexuality, but I don't think Fluoridation would achieve this and until then, it'll be infeasible and probably unethical to criminalize horniness.
I don't literally mean fluoride. There are any number of drugs that could be synthesized to the correct degree in the next few years. This could be easily achieved with minimal funding, and is so much more important than basically everything else the government still funds.
The problem is obviously that you're never going to convince most people to take them. I think once genetic engineering takes off in a really big way, it's possible that we'll edit out other negative traits that make people averse to the removal of male sexuality, and people will generally be much smarter and will come around to this position. But this is not something that's going to be achieved quickly. This then becomes a political problem: conservatives are going to slow scientific progress the more power they have, so allowing the right to cancel guys like Sisson who really didn't do anything that destructive (although I agree that horniness is reprehensible) does not further our goals whatsoever.
That's why we *put it in the water*. Also, genetic engineering? Lmao. Let me get right on that as soon as I teleport back from mining this asteroid.
If you're not a troll and are actually a radfem, you should stop LARPing. The probability that genetic engineering will take off is large, and is certainly higher than the probability of any group successfully contaminating the world's water supply on a consistent enough basis for the drugs to take hold. I sympathize with your intuitions but you're just an idiot
What do you think he did that is deserving of a prison sentence? I genuinely thought your other comment was a joke because of how poorly reasoned and, frankly, schizophrenic it sounded. I sympathize with revulsion towards male sexuality, but the position that one should go to prison for the lie he told is untenable.
I wasn't going to say anything because yeah, this is all pretty obviously true and can't be that controversial; but your comment section is full of insane people today (apparently quite literally, in one case), so it seems worth leaving at least one supportive comment. You are right, this is not a big deal.
On the other hand, though, I'm not going to be thaaat supportive, because... this is not a big deal. Harry Sisson is absolutely not "extremely famous", and most people are not online enough to have heard of him, let alone give a shit. Get back to the prawns!
FREE SISSON!!! Legalize being a horny young man!!!
NO. IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. MAKE IT FUCKING ILLEGAL.
Also, i’m glad you’re a Cartoons Hate Her! enjoyer, she’s one of my favorite writers!
This is an extremely dumb take.
Like half of your defense is that Sisson requested nude photos from women he was already sexting, when the problem is that he acted wrongly by lying to them when he knew the truth would likely stop them from sexting.
Suppose a man is having sex with a woman, the woman asks him in the act whether "I'm the only one for you" and the man lies to get her to continue having sex with him, knowing that if he said the truth the woman would likely no longer want to have sex with him. This is clearly quite scummy behavior, and it's just as clear that "Well, they were already having sex!" is not a good defense of that scummy behavior.
I'm no feminist, but I would seriously reconsider friendships with people who thought this. The fact that people like you are providing such a defense really says something about your character.
As for the severity of the crime, I thought most normal people agreed that tricking people into sharing nudes was scummy behavior. If Andrew Tate similarly tricked women into sharing their nudes on OnlyFans by insisting that he loved them and that they were "The only one for me" but that he needed the money (with the women knowing it was going on OnlyFans, but being lied to about everything else), would you be defending him, too, for "only engaging in a minor infraction"?
Or is it only a minor wrong when you deceive someone into sending you yourself nudes, but when you deceive them into sending other people nudes, now it's suddenly unacceptable?
You keep comparing the wrong involved here to crazy-wrong things like cheating or torturing animals to death for the pleasure of eating meat, but I noticed that groping someone against their will would also be less wrong than those things (ask anyone in a relationship they give a crap about whether they'd rather have the relationship ruined by their partner cheating or be grabbed inappropriately once on a bus...having your relationship ruined would be much worse). Would you be defending Sisson if he molested women, too?
Sisson is not some stupid young guy just saying "cringey" things or crossing hard-to-understand norms (like approaching a woman at the wrong time but with the right intent). This is a guy who repeatedly and intentionally deceived women in order to get them to send them nudes when he knew that they would likely stop if he said the truth. This is scummy behavior, and it's very easy to avoid being this scummy. The norms involved are not obscure at all.
He doesn't deserve to be canceled for life over this, but he for sure deserves the scrutiny he is getting. I don't get why people like you are going out of your way to defend him here.
"I don't get why people like you are going out of your way to defend him here."
Lots of moderates want another Bill Clinton and don't like seeing young Bill Clintonalikes getting slagged. Seems clear cut to me.
To be clear if he did not actually indulge in any intentional deception I would agree with you, but I find your claim that at worst, he only lied is a pretty obvious case of failing the ITT. To me, at least lying to someone to get them to share a naked picture of them, which is a highly intimate and personal thing is nowhere in the same category as say lying about what you had for breakfast. Maybe you agree, but your final lines on this make me think that you don’t actually think this would be an unusually bad case of deception, which is definitely not my intuition, and I suspect also not the intuition of the people attacking him. People care very much about who sees their naked picture so lying to someone to get them to show you something they would not otherwise show you feels like an obviously egregious violation of their privacy. I would also dispute your claim that they had no right to know this information. Because again sharing your naked picture with someone is highly personal, so knowing something as relevant as whether that person is doing this with other people is definitely something you should be made aware of because if you have anything close to normal preferences, you would care very much about that information. It’s similar to how if I am selling you a laptop. I would have an obligation to tell you if it has a battery lifespan measured in minutes, even if there was no law about it because that is something you would want to know very much and which could change your decision. If anything, my example is quite a bit milder since buying a laptop isn’t anywhere near as personal and intimate as sharing a naked picture. Allthough people do obviously care about the money they spent to buy stuff. I predict that most people who are middle class and comfortably well off would mind lying about the laptop less than they would mind being lied to about the naked pictures. Of course, most people would not fall for the lies in the first place, but the fact that somebody’s being stupid isn’t a reason to take advantage of them. Otherwise, for example, it would be okay to scam people if your scam was sufficiently obvious to anyone clever. It’s true that people indulge in other types of problematic behaviour that are worse quite often, but that’s not a reason not to have a social rule against this particular uncommon type of bad behaviour. As an analogy, it’s true that bosses who bully their subordinates are pretty common in some industries, but you would not argue that this is a reason to let the bosses get away with sexual harassment in those industries, even if the sexual harassment is actually less traumatic. The reason why we don’t have social rules against comment, types of bad behaviour is because as a practical matter, it’s impossible to build a strong enough coalition to punish people for those types of behaviour at least in the usual case, but this doesn’t apply to less common types of bad behaviour, so it can be quite rational to punish Uncommon bad behaviour. That’s actually less severe than more common bad behaviour. Also, I suspect a lot of the people supporting this campaign would also be in favour of a campaign to cancel public figures who cheat on their girlfriends and just don’t have the ability to bring about campaigns to cancel those public figures. Even so I think plenty of public figures do in fact, face some level of social disapproval and cost to reputation for cheating on their partners. Again, none of this applies if he did not in fact, intentionally deceive any of the women through act or omission. I am also not sure why the presence of sex is so important to the discussion. Since in fact, just as people care a lot about sex and who the people they are having it with are, they similarly care a lot about their naked pictures and who gets to see them, so it’s not obvious to me that the absence of sex in sex scandals is a bad sign.
This is also a story of female sexual regret, and that story isn't told often enough. It's a big part of MeToo and the reaction women are having toward Sisson.
if harry is going to jail i’m fit to be lynched
“If a person’s behavior isn’t abnormally bad, it shouldn’t be maliciously exposed to hundreds of millions of people”
It’s not malicious for people to come out and say that someone, especially an adult public figure, manipulated and lied to them about intimate relationship matters. You don’t have an obligation to not come forward. No one in their right mind goes “Oh, this person acted like a scumbag to me and has influence over countless people. Wouldn’t want the response to be disproportionate! After all, he would be a victim if that were true!”
Many types of cheating could reasonably be seen as a shortsighted, impulsive mistake. If the allegations are true, they are much worse and less excusable.
Unfortunately, I’m mostly with Wallet here, and I’m legitimately surprised you’re defending him (though I don’t think you have particularly bad character as he alleges). Also, having read a thread on Twitter with the videos containing the allegations, it seems much more serious than what you’re alleging. Now maybe they’re misleading, but I find it unlikely.
> In the days that followed, seven additional women came forward with allegations of inappropriate behavior during photo ops. Lindsay Menz accused Franken of touching her clothed "upper" buttocks while they posed for a photo at the Minnesota State Fair in 2010.[134][135] Two anonymous women made similar complaints related to events during political events.[136] Franken apologized, saying, "I've met tens of thousands of people and taken thousands of photographs, often in crowded and chaotic situations. I'm a warm person; I hug people. I've learned from recent stories that in some of those encounters, I crossed a line for some women—and I know that any number is too many."[137] Another anonymous woman said that after she was a guest on Franken's radio show in 2006, Franken leaned in toward her face during a handshake and gave her "a wet, open-mouthed kiss" on the cheek when she turned her face aside.[138][139] The same day, Stephanie Kemplin, an army veteran, told CNN that Franken held the side of her breast for 5 to 10 seconds "and never moved his hand" while posing for a photograph[140] with her during a 2003 USO tour in Iraq.[141]
Fuck Sisson, fuck Franken, fuck all men who do this, fuck anyone who defends sexuality. You, a supposed utilitarian, should be proudly supporting a New Fluoridation, an initiative to eliminate these pointless, rape-enabling urges that make us no different from beasts, and yet you indicate nothing more than unbridled support for predation, the thing you have railed against so much?
Sexualists and sex defenders are all scum.
i'm genuinely curious to understand the "anti-sex" / "New Fluoridation" position and where it comes from. Is there maybe an article you can point me too? Is the idea that from a utilitarian perspective, the harms of sexual violence outweigh the benefits from consensual sex, and therefore it would be good to eliminate both? How would this be achieved technologically? How would the human race persist, artificial insemination? Wouldn't implementing this necessarily involve massive human rights violations for non-sexually-violent people (most people)? Does this only apply to men, or to women too?
There is not, as far as I am aware. I am the Benjamin Lay of my era.
Obviously, if you can even claim there are benefits reaped from "consensual" (in a society of power dynamics, it never truly is) sex.
Chemicals in the water killing libido.
Turkey basters. IVF. Test-tube-to-vat babies. Anything.
Banning cocaine is a massive human rights violation. Same with tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol-but they all have to go.
Unisex.
Lay wrote pamphlets.
What's obvious to you (that consensual sex never has any benefits) seems insane to 99% of humanity, so I think you need to do a better job of justifying your position if you want to be taken seriously.
Also you want to ban coffee too? why?
You do this position a real disservice. first of all you didn't come up with this, all schizoid and asexual people think this. Second of all aren't doing a good job of explaining the argument, just saying 'power dynamics' isn't an argument and there is a much more rigorous and convincing way to present this . Third of all, you're dead wrong about the mechanism, I'm completely right re: genetic engineering, see my other comment. Fourth, there isn't a strong reason for this to be unisex.
This is just aphobic. I have literally never come across an ace person with my position. Ever. Also, don't call people "schizoid".
> there is a much more rigorous and convincing way to present this .
Then go ahead, genius.
Chuuuuudjaaaaack. Nothing. Ever. Fucking. Happens. We were supposed to be on Mars by the year I was fucking born, we're not getting fuctional CRISPR shit in my lifetime.
>Fourth, there isn't a strong reason for this to be unisex.
Women commit like 24% of all rapes or something like that.
I'm not gonna write an essay for you, this isn't a major concern of mine, but you haven't even approached a persuasive argument. You're just constantly begging the question with buzzwords like 'power dynamics.'
Get off Twitter and learn to speak and write like a human being. The second paragraph makes you sound like an illiterate person. Who seriously hypothesized that we'd be on Mars the year you were born? What's the relevance? What evidence have you seen to suggest that genetic engineering isn't feasible? Why should I particularly care if it happens in your lifetime?
That women rape stat isn't accurate and is obvious BS
Remember: don’t engage with the mentally ill people and they go away. It’s like a magic trick.