female celebrities getting away with sexual misconduct

[Shiva99]

This is actually a good thread. I'm almost starting to think it's god who is doing this on purpose, to smack some of you in the face, destroying the stupid illusion you are holding up for yourselves, by thinking that Leo is and has to be a perfect human being at all times, who can't make any "mistakes".  

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Shiva99

[Rilles]

2 minutes ago, Shiva99 said:

This is actually a good thread. I'm almost starting to think it's god who is doing this on purpose, to smack some of you in the face, destroying the stupid illusion you are holding up for yourselves, by thinking that Leo is a perfect human being at all times, who can't make any "mistakes".  

 

 

but but... I thought he was God, Ive even made an altar of his pretty face in my bedchamber. 

[Shiva99]

4 hours ago, High-valance said:

I'm a little shocked by Leo's perspective on this. Lost a lot of respect for him there. Presumebly it's on avarage not as bad for men to get raped by women as it is the other way around but that does not warrent minimising it or making a joke out of it like that. This is disgraceful! What happened to love, compassion and perspective taking? 

Is this really the take of a highly conscious person? 

Minimising rape?!! Really?! Fucking really?! Come on!! 

Here's another shock for you: santa is not real.

[Forestluv]

Sexual consent is massively asymmetrical between men and women. This is one of the most obvious gender asymmetries there is. 

Imagine someone saying “If a rabbit tried to kick a fox’s butt, the fox would probably enjoy it”. This points out the massive asymmetry between a rabbit and a fox. Are there cases in which a sly rabbit tricks a fox and abuses the fox? Are there rare cases in which an aggressive jack rabbit assaults a naive fox? As Cenk would say: “Of Cooouuurse!!!”. Yet this does not take away the underlying asymmetry. The vast majority of foxes can freely roam without a worry of being assaulted by a rabbit.

[LaucherJunge]

1 hour ago, Display_Name said:

Holy shit y’all are fragile hahaha

Supposedly that's what stage green looks like, so I guess it's the new standard.

[TrustTheProcess]

5 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

You're stuck in some aspects of green, seriously stuck

lol

[Bando]

Man some of you people...

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

Sexual consent is massively asymmetrical between men and women. This is one of the most obvious gender asymmetries there is. 

Imagine someone saying “If a rabbit tried to kick a fox’s butt, the fox would probably enjoy it”. This points out the massive asymmetry between a rabbit and a fox. Are there cases in which a sly rabbit tricks a fox and abuses the fox? Are there rare cases in which an aggressive jack rabbit assaults a naive fox? As Cenk would say: “Of Cooouuurse!!!”. Yet this does not take away the underlying asymmetry. The vast majority of foxes can freely roam without a worry of being assaulted by a rabbit.

Sure but you can make this point without undermining the suffering of the fox. This analogy also lacks an important aspect in human relationships that seems to be overlooked here. Relationships are not some pure physical power exchange. There are physically weaker women who abuse their physically stronger men both physically and emotionally. There are many aspects to relationships that go beyond just physical dominance. To say that this is as rare as a rabbit abusing a fox is just very uncharitable.

Even wikipedia has a better take on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men

 

Now of course rape is a specific thing that is not the same as domestic violence, but I fear that this kind of generalizing and dismissive attitude is quite unhealthy to the conversation as a whole.

 

You can argue that many people use these arguments to delegitmize concerns about abuse towards women, which is obviously more common and intensive. But if we then create a position as a reaction to that, we are prey to the personal and egoic dynamics that are taking place here. You are creating an outgroup and positioning yourself against it, contributing to division amongst people. You lose objectivity due to being so heavily invested in the game.

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Amandine said:

I really hope you don't leave @Hank Galaxy Brain, your contributions are all so excellent, well-written, perceptive and articulate. This forum needs more people like you, I really love what you have to say, you're awesome. ? I think a lot of us here appreciate your opinions, I for one would be sad to see you leave. ?

He has to learn to be mature enough to explain to someone his perspective without running away. Leo could  be unconscious of some of the underlying dynamics here. It would have been more valuable if he had explained to Leo why he found such a comment insensitive.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Sure but you can make this point without undermining the suffering of the fox.

Of course. Asymmetry does not mean exclusion. 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Relationships are not some pure physical power exchange. There are physically weaker women who abuse their physically stronger men both physically and emotionally. There are many aspects to relationships that go beyond just physical dominance. To say that this is as rare as a rabbit abusing a fox is just very uncharitable.

Yes, this is why I included the example of a sly rabbit manipulating a naive fox.

I am referring to a specific asymmetric sexual dynamic between men and women. You can extrapolate things, yet doing so distorts the asymmetric sexual dynamic I am referring to. I love exploring different dynamics, yet I’ve found context is important. If we are exploring hotel room 242, describing room 240  as if it was room 242 will distort the exploration of room 242 ISness. . . I’m totally into looking at how room 240 and 242 are inter-connected, yet that is a different exploration than exploring within room 242. Both explorations have value.

 

[Scholar]

20 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Of course. Asymmetry does not mean exclusion. 

Yes, this is why I included the example of a sly rabbit manipulating a naive fox.

I am referring to a specific asymmetric sexual dynamic between men and women. You can extrapolate things, yet doing so distorts the asymmetric sexual dynamic I am referring to. I love those exploring different dynamics. Yet if we are exploring hotel room 242, describing room 240  as if it was room 242 will distort the exploration of room 242 ISness. . . I’m totally into looking at how room 240 and 242 are inter-connected, yet that is a different exploration that exploring within room 242. Both explorations have value.

The issue I see here is that you seem to be confusing your generalization and abstractions for actual reality. There is no such thing as a man and woman. There is no such thing as an asymmetry between all men and all women, because to even begin to create such a devision and abstract it into a single entity it requires reductionism that will render all nuance void.

These kinds of abstractions serve a very specific purpose and are useful in a very specific context. We get into big trouble when we use these abstractions of groups that do not truly exist and apply them to the undeniable reality of the individual.

 

Your example seems to be a good indicator for this confusion. Because the relationship between men and women is not at all similar to the relationship between a rabbit and a fox. A fox is in it's biological reality superior to that of the rabbit. This implies a sort of underlying reality that cannot be broken. It admits to the confusion of the abstraction and an generalization upon all individuals.

It says in quite a sneaky way: "Men on average are more dangerous, therefore all men are more dangerous."

 

Yet there are men that are completely unimpressive and a threat to nobody. To include these people into the group of the men, which you have previously abstracted to be a group that is more dangerous on average, is in and of itself discriminatory. Can you see this dynamic happening? It is very subtle even for someone who is very conscious.

This dynamic for an unconscious person however will inevitably lead to actionable discrimination. The problem you are facing here is basically the discriminiation of the minority or the discriminiation of those who fall outside the norm. Because those who fall outside of the norm of the group which you have arbitrarily established are excluded from the group that are opposite to them (male vs female), they will actually be bound to be victims of discrimination. They are not the physicially superior individuals of the Male group, yet despite being physically inferior they are excluded from the Female group.

They are essentially excluded from being viewed as a group worthy of moral consideration. In practice this has severe consequences for those individuals, in abstraction anyone you will ask will claim that they actually do believe that this group is worthy of moral consideration. Yet because this group does not fit the conventional abstraction and division, it will in practice find little consideration.

 

 

Trans people have faced a similar issue in the past. It is the silent minority that is outside of the spectrum of the contemporary norms that will always be subject discrimination. Their suffering is always dismissed in the name of the majority, the norm, the abstraction.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The issue I see here is that you seem to be confusing your generalization and abstractions for actual reality. There is no such thing as a man and woman. There is no such thing as an asymmetry between all men and all women, because to even begin to create such a devision and abstract it into a single entity it requires reductionism that will render all nuance void.

Within that construct, I agree and think that is a super interesting area to explore. Yet here, I am not exploring the actual reality of no such thing as a man and woman. Here, I am exploring the actual reality of man and woman. Yet an exploration of the actuality of man and woman by no means negates the actuality of no man and woman.

If we are exploring the actuality of no man and woman, how can we explore the actuality of man and woman? If we limit our exploration to the essence of room 240, how can we explore the essence of room 242 and the inter-connectedness between the rooms?

I don’t disagree with your descriptions of room 240, it’s just not the room I was describing. It’s some good stuff though. 

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Because the relationship between men and women is not at all similar to the relationship between a rabbit and a fox.

Any analogy can be invalidated from a different perspective. Yet in doing so, we blind ourselves to the analogy’s value from another perspective. If I give an analogy of room 242, it can easily be invalidated from a perspective of room 240. This is true from this perspective, yet a contraction into the perspective of room 240 will exclude the perspective from room 242. 

[Scholar]

22 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Within that construct, I agree and think that is a super interesting area to explore. Yet here, I am not exploring the actual reality of no such thing as a man and woman. Here, I am exploring the actual reality of man and woman. Yet an exploration of the actuality of man and woman by no means negates the actuality of no man and woman.

If we are exploring the actuality of no man and woman, how can we explore the actuality of man and woman? If we limit our exploration to the essence of room 240, how can we explore the essence of room 242 and the inter-connectedness between the rooms?

I don’t disagree with your descriptions of room 240, it’s just not the room I was describing. It’s some good stuff though. 

Any analogy can be invalidated from a different perspective. Yet in doing so, we blind ourselves to the analogy’s value from another perspective. If I give an analogy of room 242, it can easily be invalidated from a perspective of room 240. This is true from this perspective, yet a contraction into the perspective of room 240 will exclude the perspective from room 242. 

Yes, this is all relativism. They point is to establish when some of these perspectives are useful and valuable, and when they are not. I was trying to make a case specifically for why the concepts you were using here create disharmony and reductionism that actually leads to suffering rather than healing.

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I was trying to make a case specifically for why the concepts you were using here create disharmony and reductionism that actually leads to suffering rather than healing.

For sure. I have no problem within that context of which creates suffering, rather than healing. That context has enormous value, yet not the context I was referring to. You are recontextualizing, which is fine and has value within that contextualization. Yet it is not the original contextualization. And within that original contextualization there is the development of understanding, harmony and healing. To me, you are creating and immersing yourself into intellectual constructs, which have value yet are missing a different mode of observation and being. You seem to disagree with that, which is totally fine. I am as wrong as you create me to be. 

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

For sure. I have no problem within that context of which creates suffering, rather than healing. That context has enormous value, yet not the context I was referring to. You are recontextualizing, which is fine and has value within that contextualization. Yet it is very far from the original contextualization. And within that original contextualization there is the development of understanding, harmony and healing. You seem to disagree with that, which is totally fine.

 Whether or not there is, we must be careful as to how our communication is affecting the world. Because of how tricky and subtle this dynamic is it can very easily lead to unintentional consequences. This is similar to how people can contribute to racist stereotyping while being well intentioned without themselves being consciously racist. If you leave the context open for interpretation, this is what well intentioned rhetoric can lead to.

 

Truth can be harmful precisely because the ego can interpret it however it wants. Sometimes we can do a lot of harm by presenting one side of the truth, but not the other. When we present one perspective in the absence of the other.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

 Whether or not there is, we must be careful as to how our communication is affecting the world. Because of how tricky and subtle this dynamic is it can very easily lead to unintentional consequences. This is similar to how people can contribute to racist stereotyping while being well intentioned without themselves being consciously racist. If you leave the context open for interpretation, this is what well intentioned rhetoric can lead to.

Yes, of course. This is a form of wisdom. I’ve certainly made many errors in this area. Yet at the edges it disempowers. One cannot point to a somewhere and have it be seen the same from the perspective of all other somewhere’s. 

[Raze]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

See, if a guy gets raped by a woman, he will most likely enjoy it.

Not so the other way around.

Very offensive and sexist comment and not remotely true. Data shows many women orgasm during rape, would you say they enjoy it and should just accept it? No you wouldn't, same for guys. Rape is wrong no matter who it happens too, even if the person who got raped doesn't think so (but they most likely would).

Quote

Lol

If a man lets a 67 year old obese woman rape him, that's his fault.

Leo what in the ever loving fuck are you saying. If what you're saying is not ok with the genders reversed, it's not ok. There have been men who were raped by women and they were traumatized for life. Even if you believe these things you shouldn't post about it because someone will quote it and try to cancel you.

Just because women raping men doesn't happen that often and most men are physically stronger then women does not mean it never happens or it's not a problem. Many men who go on to become rapists or kill women were actually molested or raped by older women as a kid, and they never got help or even realized they were traumatized because of behavior like this, and they ended up just hurting more people. If you cannot empathize with men, realize that in the end it will only hurt women. Are you seriously going to call people SJW's for saying you shouldn't say rape victims are at fault when you accuse people of being egoic for mild criticisms of feminism. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

At least study the topic before making insane ignorant comments. Being raped by someone physically weaker than you is not abnormal because of things like drugs or weapons.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Raze

[Akemrelax]

Rape is different from sexual misconduct.

We can have a robust conversation about useless gender identities but not about men’s issues. 

[Raze]

6 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

Rape is different from sexual misconduct.

We can have a robust conversation about useless gender identities but not about men’s issues. 

Forcing someone to have sex when they don't want too is rape. There was a 13 year old kid who got drugged by his older female neighbor and raped while he was unconscious, he was traumatized and needed therapy for years, he never got justice and not only that the rapist had his kid and forced him to pay child support. Imagine what that was like, this is what attitudes like what Leo is suggesting cause. This isn't even like the metoo conversation which is based on if someone might be innocent, we are talking about guilty people here.

The asymmetry argument is ridiculous, imagine going up to a male rape victim and telling him it doesn't matter because mostly other men rape other women. That has nothing to do with his situation, a crime is a crime.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Raze

[Akemrelax]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

Forcing someone to have sex when they don't want too is rape. There was a 13 year old kid who got drugged by his older female neighbor and raped while he was unconscious, he was traumatized and needed therapy for years, he never got justice and not only that the rapist had his kid and forced him to pay child support. Imagine what that was like, this is what attitudes like what Leo is suggesting cause. This isn't even like the metoo conversation which is based on if someone might be innocent, we are talking about guilty people here.

??? I don’t even disagree with you.

The title says sexual misconduct, the video is about sexual misconduct. Leo is talking about rape which is completely off.