Why Won’t Leo Date A Real Wahman?!
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (84)
sorted by:
If consent is the sole foundation of sexual morality, your moral system is based solely on power and you're on the slope to "but what if the child consents?"
This particular situation isn't a huge problem by itself and I'm rather fond of such a pure display of misogyny, but the reasoning that brought it about isn't sound.
It is by no means 'misogynistic' to date only young women.
He has reduced them to pleasure meat, no different than a good veal.
Women reduced themselves to pleasure meat, not men.
The veal isn't getting anything out of it though.
I'm saying that consent is not a solid foundation of sexual morality. Harvey Weinstein did nothing wrong based purely on a consent based system, but most people instinctively recognize that the casting couch is not a good thing. The sexual revolution, and its consequences, have been a disaster for civilization.
This particular case isn't a huge problem, but the logic is. The reasoning of consent demonstrably brought us to this point of trans kids dancing on stripper poles, and always will. Hedonism as a value is not healthy for society.
Duress is a fake concept where people don't have the spine to deal with the sinking cost fallacy.
You say that though. Even leaving aside the fact that this allows for all sorts of gross wrongs, like incest between adults, your motivation for limiting it to adults is likely that you think children cannot consent.
But we're dealing with people who think 9 year olds are able to consent to being trooned and getting drugs to chemically castrated sex offenders. Is this really the world in which we want to introduce the idea that consent and the ability to consent is all that matters?
Truth of the matter is that 'consent' is an empty standard.
Tony and the Elephant simply hijacked your comment to argue a theoretical. I wouldn't take it personally. On this topic you guys haven't said anything contradictory.
I'm glad you don't need to worry. But you do posit a standard which would allow for that. Don't you see that someone would then point out that this standard may then not be the be all and end all?
Are you calling me a 'rape apologist', or was this unfortunate phrasing?
The whole point is that it is necessary but definitely not sufficient.
Also, I don't disapprove of DiCaprio here. I'm just objecting to 'consent-only', which opens the floodgates for all sorts of filth.
It could also just be based on stripping out emotion and leaving it to pure logistics.
No power needed, just A wants X and B wants Y, both can provide. No further depth needed. Which seems to be the case here.
It's not particularly good for the women. Every new partner a woman has impairs her ability to bond, or as Gibbons put it, "the female mind is totally depraved by the loss of chastity."
Little of what women do is good for women. They are allowed to ruin their own lives.
Yeah but I'm not going praise or excuse the retard acting in tandem with them
Pair bonding isn't real, it's a tradcon cope based in complete pseudoscience.
Even without science, you can tell that someone who regularly goes into shallow, meaningless, short-term relationships isn't going to be able to develop long, meaningful ones. Any attempt to start one will end at the first hurdle because "I can just get a new one", "plenty fish in the sea", "if he can't handle me at my worst..." etc.
Might be a bit of chicken and egg situation. Does casual sex/dating lead to shallow, low-value women or are those women drawn to casual relationships/incapable of 'bonding'?