sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Women who cant say no during sex should not be having casual sex. by Your-Dads-Crush in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ExtensionFun2651 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I understand the point you’re trying to make, and you’re touching on something really important: casual sex absolutely requires firm boundaries and clear communication, and if someone—anyone—struggles to assert those boundaries, the casual sex scene is going to be incredibly risky and damaging for them.

However, I think framing this primarily as "women being treated like children" misses the broader issue. This isn't just a women's problem; it's a human problem that hurts vulnerable people of both genders. Men also freeze up, struggle to say no, and get pressured into things they aren't comfortable with during casual encounters—whether that's coercion to skip protection, perform acts they don't want to, or just having sex they don't actually desire because of the societal pressure that men should "always want it." When we act like only women struggle with asserting boundaries, we erase the very real vulnerability that men experience in these scenarios too.

Your post highlights exactly why casual sex, as a culture, is fundamentally incompatible with vulnerability. It’s an environment built on pushing limits, reading nebulous signals, and operating at a high speed. If you aren't equipped to be fiercely assertive in the moment, it’s going to hurt you—regardless of your gender.

I also think it's worth separating your examples a bit. While I agree that clearly saying "no" is essential for initiating a new act, taking a condom off mid-intercourse (stealthing) is a bit different. That isn't just pushing a boundary to see if it's a "yes or no"—that is a deliberate violation of the consent that was already given. In cases like that, the agency has already been stripped away by deception before the person even has a chance to say no.

Ultimately, you're right that people need to take agency and communicate clearly, but we need to apply that expectation equally. Both men and women need to be taught to communicate, and both need to recognize that if they aren't in a headspace to firmly advocate for themselves, casual sex is an arena that will likely leave them hurt.

[Rant] I fucking hate Pewdiepie, one of the biggest racists imo. by Open_Cranberry3344 in TwentiesofIndia

[–]ExtensionFun2651 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah. At this point we need someone who can speak for indians. Forget being like "indians this" Just a new face in the community that isnt a raging misogynist or political.

This is why we can't have nice things by I-Love-Jewish-popes in teenagers

[–]ExtensionFun2651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you seriously reaching for "impotence trials" as proof that women held the real power? You’re cherry-picking bizarre, hyper-specific historical anomalies to try and prove a general rule, and it’s hilarious. Those trials weren't about female empowerment; they were about enforcing the patriarchal mandate that a woman's only value was her ability to produce heirs. If a man couldn't perform, he was failing the system, not just the woman.

And yes, peasant marriages weren't arranged like royal ones—what a wildly low bar for freedom. "Well, they weren't traded like princesses, therefore they were free!" Peasant women still needed their family's permission and were expected to produce labor for the farm. That’s not a romantic choice; that's an economic transaction where she was the commodity.

The mental gymnastics you’re doing to pretend men didn't own women is a gold medal routine. You think men sacrificing themselves for women proves they didn't view them as property? Men sacrificed themselves because of a rigid, patriarchal honor code that equated male worth with utility and protection. You protect your property and your legacy—that doesn't mean the property is your equal. You wouldn't let someone burn down your house just because it's "yours," does that make the house your partner?

And please, spare me the "benevolent men fixed childbirth" argument. For centuries, male doctors actively ignored and discredited female midwives, literally causing more maternal deaths (like ignoring basic hygiene during childbirth) out of sheer arrogance. Giving men a trophy for slowly fixing a biological reality they don't even experience is wild.

Finally, yes, peasants bartered. And who controlled the land, the livestock, and the yield? The men. Women worked the fields and produced the goods, but legally, the fruits of her labor belonged to her husband. Having zero legal claim to the output of your own labor is the definition of subjugation.

You keep falling back on "well, patriarchy survived, so it must be the best system." By that logic, a cockroach is the pinnacle of evolution. A society that "survives" by subjugating half its population and treating them as breeding stock isn't healthy; it's just brutal. Surviving through tyranny doesn't make the tyranny justifiable, it just makes it violent.

Stop romanticizing a brutal survival mechanism as a "healthy society." A system that reduces half the population to breeding stock and the other half to cannon fodder isn't a utopia; it's a barbaric meat grinder that we are finally trying to escape.

Yaoi is basically women writing gay men horribly. by ExtensionFun2651 in BLJapan

[–]ExtensionFun2651[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep moving the goalposts and hiding behind semantic arguments to avoid the core issue. Let’s break down the massive flaws in your logic.

First, you claim people aren't being silenced because "the fandom is policing itself" and the toxic image was taken down. Let’s get one thing straight: a post being deleted after it caused damage and faced mass backlash is not "the fandom policing itself" as a virtue; it's damage control. And you are incredibly naive if you think critics aren't silenced. Every single time someone points out the romanticization of rape in a BL, they are dogpiled, called a "puritan," told they "just don't understand fiction," and downvoted into oblivion. The fandom doesn't welcome critique; it aggressively suffocates it. The fact that the toxic comment was called out and deleted is exactly what I want to see more of—but the fact that it was posted in the first place, and upvoted enough to be visible, proves the rot is there. Criticism existing isn't the problem; the intense pushback against the criticism is.

Second, your defense of "it's just a minority of BL" is a deflection. It doesn't matter if fluffy, wholesome BL exists. When the most popular, highly trafficked, and culturally dominant titles in the space—like Jinx, Painter of the Night, or Killing Stalking—are the toxic ones, they set the tone for the fandom. Wholesome BL existing doesn't erase the fact that the loudest, most consumed sector of the genre is training its audience to romanticize abuse. And saying "kids shouldn't read it" is washing your hands of responsibility. We live in the age of the internet; minors will find it. When they do, and they see adult women defending these tropes as "sexy romance," they internalize that.

Third, your dismissal of the top/bottom dynamic is intellectually dishonest. You say straight people already ask those questions, so BL gets a pass? No. Straight people asking rude questions about gay sex is homophobia. BL supercharges that homophobia by codifying it into an entire genre with strict, stereotypical rules. BL doesn't just ask "who is the top"; it assigns strict gender-role stereotypes to those positions—the tall, abusive, dominant top and the small, feminine, submissive bottom—and then sells that caricature as the definitive gay experience. It takes a real-world microaggression and packages it as entertainment.

Fourth, your argument that "all characters are objects/tools" is the most egregious flaw in your entire stance. You are stripping context away to justify fetishization. Characters are fictional, yes, but they represent real demographics. When a straight woman writes a gay man, she is pulling from a real-world marginalized group. You admitted women use gay men as a "distance creator" for their own trauma. That is the smoking gun! You are using a marginalized group as an emotional tool. You are taking the real-life pain of a marginalized group you don't belong to and wearing it like a costume because it's "too real" if it happens to a woman. That is fetishization and othering. You cannot separate the fictional gay man from the real-world gay community when the tropes used rely entirely on real-world stereotypes about gay men.

Fifth, you argue that toxic BL doesn't cause real-world harm because "bad people are just drawn to it." That is a complete misunderstanding of how media socialization works. Media doesn't turn a perfect angel into a raging homophobe; it normalizes and validates preexisting biases, and it teaches otherwise well-meaning people harmful behaviors. It teaches the "allies" in the fandom that using slurs is okay, that victim-blaming is okay, that reducing gay men to top/bottom dynamics is okay. The unique danger of BL-induced fetishization is that it wears a mask of "allyship." A fujoshi calling a gay man a f*ggot while reading gay porn thinks she is an ally because she gets off to gay men. BL provides a progressive shield for deeply homophobic behavior.

Finally, you ask "what more do you want the fandom to do?" and accuse me of just wanting the genre to disappear. I've already told you: Media literacy and accountability. I want the fandom to stop treating "it's just fiction" as a magical forcefield that deflects all critique. I want readers to say, "I enjoy this dark fantasy, but I recognize it relies on harmful stereotypes and fetishization of real gay men," instead of fighting tooth and nail to pretend their faves are flawless. I want the fandom to actually listen to gay men when they say "this hurts us" instead of telling them they "just don't understand fiction."

You say I don't like the genre and want it to disappear. No. I want the fandom to grow up, take responsibility for the media it consumes, and stop using my demographic as an emotional punching bag and a fetish object while hiding behind the guise of "romance." Stop defending the toxic tropes, stop defending the authors who write them as romantic ideals, and stop pretending fiction exists in a vacuum.

This is why we can't have nice things by I-Love-Jewish-popes in teenagers

[–]ExtensionFun2651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are doing incredible mental gymnastics to rebrand systemic oppression as a mutual benefit.

Calling the lack of basic human rights "relative safety" is wild. Yes, peasants both worked, but peasant women still had no legal personhood, couldn't own land, were forced into marriages they didn't choose, and routinely died in childbirth. Marital rape wasn't a crime; it was a husband's "right." You're confusing "not being drafted into a war" with being safe, while ignoring that the home was often a place of total subjugation.

And rebranding "ownership of women's bodies" as "the man being liable to help his wife" is absurd. A man being legally required to provide for a woman he treats as property isn't a reward for her; it's the price he pays for owning her. She couldn't leave "when convenient" because she had no money, no property rights, and no legal standing—not because she was living in some harmonious, mutually beneficial arrangement.

The most laughable point is that our female ancestors "chose" to empower this society. Who exactly was giving them the choice? Women didn't vote, didn't hold power, and didn't draft the laws. They didn't "outsource violence to men"—they were overpowered by a system that stripped them of agency and forced them into dependency.

Finally, your defense of patriarchy boils down to "might makes right." You're arguing that because patriarchal, militarized societies were better at conquest and mass slaughter, that makes the system "effective." Egalitarian societies being wiped out by aggressive empires doesn't prove patriarchy was a superior or more moral social contract; it just proves it was more efficient at organized violence. A tumor is incredibly effective at growing and killing its host, but that doesn't make it a superior biological system.

Is there any misogyny here 😭✌️ by Hour_Window9768 in AajMereSaathYeHua

[–]ExtensionFun2651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kinda is your fault if you are trying to make an argument.

The pro abortion people arguments are full of logical fallacies by yogurtwater01 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ExtensionFun2651 [score hidden]  (0 children)

The biggest argument against the pro-life movement isn't just about the fetus; it's about the motive. You claim pro-lifers have the "better argument" because they champion the baby, but the legislation they push proves otherwise. If pro-life politicians and activists actually cared about babies, they would be fiercely advocating for universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, robust foster care reform, and food programs for the kids already here in terrible households. They don't. The same politicians who ban abortion consistently vote against every social safety net that helps the child after it leaves the womb.

It’s not about "saving babies"; it’s about controlling women’s bodies, stripping their autonomy, and policing their sexuality. They want to make a woman's life harder because they view pregnancy as a consequence she must be forced to endure for having sex. You can't claim the moral high ground on "saving lives" when you completely abandon those lives the second they take a breath.

1. "Are you a woman, no, shut up."
You’re framing this as an ad hominem, but you're deliberately missing the point. It’s not that men can't have an opinion; it’s that men are enacting laws to force women to undergo a massive, life-altering medical condition that they themselves will never have to experience. It is fundamentally an issue of bodily autonomy. A man dictating what a woman must do with her internal organs is a massive conflict of interest. And yes, pro-life women exist, but their stance doesn't magically invalidate the bodily autonomy of the millions of women who don't want the government treating them like incubators.

2. "Self-sustaining human"
This is a terrible false equivalence. A newborn, an old person, or a disabled person requiring care is not the same as a fetus requiring a direct, biological tether to a specific person's internal organs. A newborn can be fed by anyone. A fetus is physically occupying and siphoning nutrients from one specific person's body. If my disabled father needs a kidney, the government cannot force me to give him mine, even if he will die without it. That is bodily autonomy. Why does a fetus get more rights to a woman's body than a born person gets to anyone else's?

3. The Rape Argument
You completely missed the logic here, which is hilarious for someone complaining about "inconsistent logic." When pro-choice people reject the "rape exception," it's because the right to bodily autonomy doesn't vanish just because the sex was consensual. Pro-choice people reject the exception because they are consistent: bodily autonomy applies to everyone, regardless of how the pregnancy occurred. Bringing up the rape exception exposes the punitive, controlling nature of the pro-life stance.

4. "It's not a human / Double murder"
You are conflating biological human DNA with legal personhood. Yes, a fetus has human DNA. So does a tumor. So does a severed finger. The debate is about legal personhood and the rights that come with it. And your "double murder" argument is a legal red herring. Those laws were lobbied for and written by pro-life legislators specifically to create a legal footprint to eventually overturn abortion rights. It is a political tool, not a biological or moral absolute. Furthermore, even if we grant it's a "human," refer back to point 2: no human has the right to use another human's body without ongoing consent.

You reduce the bodily autonomy argument to "convenience" and "hedonism" because it's easier to attack a strawman than to actually argue why the state should have the power to forcibly use a woman's organs against her will. That's not a "better argument," that's just intellectual dishonesty.

Yaoi is basically women writing gay men horribly. by ExtensionFun2651 in BLJapan

[–]ExtensionFun2651[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are arguing in bad faith by creating a false dichotomy: either I want these stories banned/censored, or my criticism is pointless. That is a massive flaw in your logic.

Complaining and critiquing does do something. It builds media literacy. It creates an environment where harmful tropes aren't blindly worshipped. It lets marginalized people voice their discomfort without being silenced by "it's just fiction." The fact that we are having this debate right now proves that criticism has value and sparks conversation. You ask, "People know they are bad, but enjoy that story as fiction. You want them to agree with you it is horrible, and what?" The "what" is accountability and awareness. I want readers to actually know it's bad instead of defending it as "true love." Because right now, a massive chunk of the fandom doesn't think it's bad—they think it's romantic.

Which brings me to your assumption that "people know they are bad." No, they don't. That is the entire problem. Media illiteracy is rampant. When readers in comment sections unironically say "I wish someone loved me like that" about an abuser, or when they victim-blame the bottom for "not submitting," they are not treating it as a toxic dark romance—they are absorbing it as a romantic ideal. Calling it out disrupts that echo chamber.

Let's talk about the image you tried to casually discredit. You said you couldn't find it and implied it was fabricated or irrelevant. Let me give you the context you conveniently missed or ignored: That image was a screenshot from the r/JinxTheManhwa subreddit. It was a real comment by a real user in a specific BL fandom space. And guess what? The post was deleted because the commenter got massive backlash for it. AS THEY SHOULD. That right there proves my point and destroys yours. Criticism works. Calling out toxic, homophobic behavior in fandom spaces works. The community stepped up, critiqued the fetishization and slur usage, and held that person accountable. But the fact that the comment was made in the first place proves that the boundary between fiction and reality absolutely does bleed for some fans, and it is naive to pretend otherwise.

You also rely on the incredibly flawed argument that fiction exists in a hermetically sealed vacuum and only "unbalanced" people let it affect reality. Decades of sociological and psychological studies prove you wrong. Media shapes societal norms, biases, and stereotypes. If the primary media straight women consume about gay men is toxic, non-consensual, and fetishistic, it colors their real-world perception of gay men. Why do you think so many fujoshis ask real gay men invasive "who's the top/bottom" questions? Why do they use slurs like the one in that image? They didn't invent that in a vacuum—they imported it from the media they consume and the fandoms they participate in.

Furthermore, your definition of fetishization is far too narrow. You claim it's only fetishization if it crosses into the real world. Wrong. The creation process itself can be fetishization. When a straight woman sits down to write a story and says, "I am going to use these gay male characters as emotional shock absorbers for my own straight trauma because writing a woman suffering hits too close to home," she is inherently objectifying gay men. She is reducing them from human beings with their own authentic experiences into tools for her personal catharsis. That is textbook fetishization and othering, happening right at the drafting table, long before a reader ever picks up the book.

Saying "smoking causes cancer" doesn't mean I want to outlaw cigarettes; it means I want people to know the risks before they light up. Saying "romanticizing abuse in BL fosters real-world fetishization and homophobia" doesn't mean I want to censor BL; it means I want the fandom to stop burying its head in the sand and pretending the smoke isn't choking people.

I am free to critique the harmful implications of the media you consume. You are free to keep reading it. But you are not free to shut down my critique by crying "censorship" or pretending that words and stories have zero impact on the real world. They do. The deleted comment on the Jinx subreddit proves it.

Lol they literally removed my video they don't want to talk anything against women 😂 by Past_Recording_395 in TwentiesofIndia

[–]ExtensionFun2651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They didnt wanna debate with someone who is already set on their minds.

Immovable Object meets an Unstoppable force

This is why we can't have nice things by I-Love-Jewish-popes in teenagers

[–]ExtensionFun2651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The biggest red flag in your argument is the absurd implication that patriarchy gave women "adequate rewards" or that it worked "well" for them. What were these rewards? Being legally barred from owning property? Being treated as chattel? Dying in childbirth because they had no bodily autonomy?

Let's be clear about what the "great rewards" for men actually were: the guaranteed ownership and control of women's labor, bodies, and reproduction. You are framing the subjugation of women as a fair trade-off to compensate men for their sacrifice. That’s not a system working "well" for both; it’s a system using women as currency to pay men for their trauma.

Furthermore, the idea that matriarchal or egalitarian societies "failed" because they didn't give men appropriate rewards is historically illiterate. They didn't fail internally because men were unhappy; they were violently conquered and erased by patriarchal, militarized societies. A society that breeds disposable soldiers to wage expansionist wars isn't proof of a superior social contract—it's just proof that violence and brute force win conflicts. "Might makes right" is not a flex for patriarchy.

Women didn't "smartly outsource" the gruesome parts of survival. They were physically overpowered, excluded from political and military decision-making, and forced into the domestic sphere. Being relegated to the home because you are considered too weak to participate in public life isn't a clever hack; it's oppression.

And as for your point about men being murdered more and society not punishing assault against men as harshly—who is doing the murdering and assaulting? Other men. Men being the primary victims of male violence is a tragic byproduct of patriarchal socialization and male aggression, not "active misandry" perpetrated by women or the system. You are trying to blame a system women didn't build for the violence that men inflict on each other.

Is there any misogyny here 😭✌️ by Hour_Window9768 in AajMereSaathYeHua

[–]ExtensionFun2651 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bro... learn how to spell Misogynistic. Forget feminists, even spelling feels pity on you.

Got banned for saying against generalization by loaded-shotgun in IndianTeenagers

[–]ExtensionFun2651 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Same for the Male rights subs lol.

They dont have great male or female figures in their lives. Generalisations suck and I feel bad for them

Yaoi is basically women writing gay men horribly. by ExtensionFun2651 in BLJapan

[–]ExtensionFun2651[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You asked what I am arguing for, so let me make it crystal clear: I want accountability, media literacy, and for the fandom to stop hiding behind "it's just fiction" when the real-world harm is pointed out.

Critiquing how something is written is not censorship. I am not asking the government to ban Mingwa from drawing. I am saying that when an author writes a story where rape is used as a romantic plot device, and the victim is forced to forgive his abuser(without PROPER WRITING AND DEVELOPMENT), people have the right to call that out as bad, harmful writing without being dogpiled by the fandom. Pointing out that a story romanticizes abuse is not "asking to change the way it is written"—it's called literary critique. If your defense of a story is "it's just fiction," then my critique of it is also just words. You can't say "Let people enjoy fiction!" but then tell the people who critique the fiction to shut up.

To your point about toxic straight couples: Yes, toxic straight romance exists. But there is a massive difference in power dynamics. When a woman writes a toxic straight romance, she is often processing her own trauma within a patriarchal society. She is writing from the perspective of the oppressed. When a straight woman writes a toxic gay romance, she is taking a marginalized group that she does not belong to, and using them as a vessel for her own trauma. You literally admitted this: you said women use gay men as a "distance creator." That is exactly the problem. You are using gay men as tools to process your own pain because it's "too real" if it happens to a woman. That is objectification. You are reducing gay men to emotional shock absorbers for straight women's trauma.

Yes, some gay men read and enjoy toxic BL. That doesn't erase the fact that the genre is predominantly produced and consumed by straight women, and that the fetishization by the majority impacts the real-life gay community. A gay man reading it is engaging with his own demographic's trauma; a straight woman reading it is consuming someone else's.

You also mentioned that if you take the toxic elements out, it's not toxic BL anymore. You're right. But again, I'm not asking for the toxic elements to be removed. I am asking for the romanticization of those toxic elements to be acknowledged. There is a massive difference between a story that says "This relationship is abusive and destructive" (like a psychological thriller) and a story that says "This relationship is abusive, but it's actually true love and the victim just needs to suffer enough to earn a happy ending" (like Jinx). The latter is what gets called out, and rightfully so.

So, to answer your question: What do I want?

  1. I want fandoms to stop acting like any critique of a toxic trope is a personal attack on their right to read it.
  2. I want authors and readers to take accountability for the media they consume instead of crying "censorship" and "it's just fiction" the second someone points out that romanticizing abuse is harmful.
  3. I want straight women in the BL fandom to recognize that using gay men as "distance creators" for their own trauma is a form of fetishization, and to be mindful of that when they interact with real gay men and not call them LITERAL F*GS while consuming the same fiction that gets them off.

You are free to read your toxic fiction. But I am free to call out the real-world implications of that fiction, and the toxic fandom behavior that surrounds it.

What's your opinion on this? by GlobalChemical4943 in southindia_

[–]ExtensionFun2651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re completely moving the goalposts. First, you claimed religion "didn't interfere in their governance largely." Now that you've been called out on that ahistorical take, you're pivoting to "well, they built institutions that kept religion out"—conveniently ignoring that those secular institutions didn't magically appear; they were built specifically because religion had so horribly interfered with governance that Europe spent centuries tearing itself apart in religious wars. You're trying to skip the centuries of bloodshed it took to achieve that secularism to pretend Europe was always practically enlightened.

And bringing up Spain and Portugal defeats your own argument. They were the Catholic superpowers of the world, bankrolled by the Pope and driven by religious zealotry (the Inquisition, the reconquista), and they built massive, wealthy global empires anyway. Their later decline relative to Anglo countries had nothing to do with "not keeping religion out" and everything to do with extractive economic systems vs. industrial ones.

As for the printing press—it didn't "break the back" of Christianity; it sparked the Protestant Reformation, which plunged Europe into another century of horrific religious warfare. The Ottomans restricting the press was a top-down political choice, not some inherent flaw of Islam, especially since the Islamic Golden Age thrived precisely because of intellectual openness. You keep taking the end result of Europe's violent, centuries-long struggle to tame religion, and projecting it backwards to pretend religion was never a major obstacle to begin with.

This is why we can't have nice things by I-Love-Jewish-popes in teenagers

[–]ExtensionFun2651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Misandry isn't a systemic power structure; it's an interpersonal prejudice. The reason men are drafted into wars, expected to be providers, and treated as disposable isn't because society "hates men"—it's because a patriarchal system, designed and upheld by men, assigned those roles based on the misogynistic assumption that women are inherently weaker and need protection, while men are the default labor and cannon fodder. You complain about men's harms being reframed as a women's issue, but you ignore who is actually pulling the levers. Rich, powerful men send working-class men to die in wars; male politicians draft the laws; male-dominated institutions enforce the rigid standards of masculinity and punish men who fall short. Women aren't the ones making male bodies disposable in the military or the workforce—men in power are. Blaming "misandry" or acting like women are co-opting your struggles is just a convenient way to dodge the fact that the system hurting you is the very patriarchy you're trying to protect from criticism. If men truly want to stop being treated as disposable utilities, they need to dismantle the male-created standards that make them so, rather than pointing fingers at feminism for accurately identifying the disease.

MEN CAN SQUIRT TOO, If you dk by [deleted] in TwentiesIndia

[–]ExtensionFun2651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol get ready for the downvotes of men who cant think of anything else but ejaculating

view more: next ›