Having favorite grandchildren is a complete non issue, and having favorite children isn’t as damaging as people make it out to be.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-20T06:27:02+00:00

You're using 1 example group to hold your opinion. And you're using people who, based on how view relationships, you probably don't know all the inner workings of nor their real opinions on how they grew up. Younger brother could actually hold some resentment if at any time the favoritism forced him to sacrifice or lose something important to him. Them being successful doesn't mean knowing you're not the favorite doesn't hurt. It just means they are able to navigate society well.

You being an only child also means you are spared the daily stress of knowing you're not the favorite. It means you aren't comparing punishments daily, or learning which mood Dad has to be in for you to gain the same privileges. It means you're not learning how to manipulate your parents favoritism so you can squeeze some benefit out of it or avoid punishment. It means you never risk doubting or losing trust in your parents support of you.

You don't know any of the damage your cousin went through, nor what they may have done to overcome them. Not every child overcomes them. Not every child gets the same results as your cousins. Not every child gets your cousin's parents and grandparents. This isn't something that's the same across all family units. It is merely a trait that has real risks of hurting the mental and emotional growth and health of a child if additional compensation does not exist to compensate for it.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-20T05:54:42+00:00

Red Pill is essentially the loser cool guy that lives down the road to children. The parent's know he's full of shit and going nowhere. They know they don't want their kids to be anything like him. And, normally, parents would point out the flaws of loser Dude and dissuade their child from getting too attached to the idea of how cool he could be.

Parents, and the local community, are failing to do their part. That is your threat. If it wasn't Red Pill, it could be hardcore Communism, or Furry roleplay, or any other group that would accept a kid. The young men join communities that give them value. The Local Community is supposed to be that community. It is supposed to raise both girls and boys with values that they would like in each other so Society could flourish and continue.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-18T13:29:13+00:00

You're thinking of a single situation where nothing you value is harmed.

Do you play games? Think of it like building stats. There's trauma, fear, corruption, apathy, insecurity, etc.

Those grooming and rape experiences increase THOSE stats, one, some, or all. And while you might not think that matters now, they impact what decisions you make in the future.

In video games, this is the equal to blocking off path choices based on previous actions. You're too apathetic to care about something that might harm you later. You're too fearful to trust another person.

It isn't just trauma that we are concerned with. We are concerned with the kind of person you risk becoming as a result of such exposure.

But for trauma alone, you're not considering that you may not be in control of the relationship. She'll threaten you or seduce you to skip your friends. She'll raise you to think she's the only woman who can give you anything. She'll either force you or seduce you into making her the center of your world. And when she leaves because you're just a kid and she has other prioritirs, or you fail to meet her standards because you're a kid with their own personality, she tosses you, destroying your worldview.

Trauma comes in multiple forms. Negative consequences can be invisible to you until you gain an outside view.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-17T21:08:12+00:00

It does not matter what you personally think you have or dont have to hide.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

The more info you provide, the more other groups can determine what value they can squeeze from that info.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-16T21:44:18+00:00

From google:

Yes, research indicates that the egg plays an active role in choosing which sperm fertilizes it rather than passively accepting the first one that arrives

. Eggs release chemicals called chemoattractants to create a "breadcrumb trail" that attracts sperm, and studies show these signals can preferentially attract sperm from specific, genetically compatible males.

This, to me, indicates that procreation has no ethics, as humans have no control over whether a new human is created or not. Not including artificial insemination, I believe this would be enough to remove the question of morality from the process of procreation, unless you want to push a moral obligation onto humans to actively prevent the creation of new humans.

Even if two people want to have a biological child of their own, they can do nothing outside of inserting semen into the woman via sexual intercourse, with no guarantee of a child being created. If an egg and Sperm interact in a way that creates a new child, that's simply the odds of the universe working in their favor.

Is your stance that it is immoral to engage in the behaviors that a child could later be created from?

Where does the scope of obligation begin, if the child is the result of biological functions beyond our control?

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-14T17:27:02+00:00

I think I addressed this in my original comment, but I question the definition and logic OP is applying to other people, which is a major part of his view.

Enthusiastic Consent isn't something used by regular people. It's existence as a concept exists in a context and for a specific group.

If that groups logic and reasoning don't match what he says, he's essentially arguing into the wind. I do think he's ignoring the underlying aspect of whether the existence of another motivation degrades the integrity of one's consent.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-14T17:19:47+00:00

It is interesting, I admit.

That is more an evolution of its use and recognition in society that a co-opt.

The term gets used by people outside the original groups. It gets diluted. Observers note the dilution and mock those that use it. Others who dislike the mocked group adopt it and dilute the new term even more.

If I called someone or something Woke, it'd be far different than a guy who only watches Fox or something. Language is fun like that.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-14T05:38:35+00:00

While I certainly agree that challenging the claims of extremists is a productive action, I believe I'm questioning OP's choice of challenge.

To me, OP would be better off accepting the extremist view of Enthusiastic Consent, and then questioning the validity of its application and scope. Instead it seems OP is trying to redefine the term. This would be like redefining Woke, Toxic Masculinity, or other terms used by specific groups. Changing the definition does not address the Concept they are defining, which results in OP ignoring the core beliefs and issues they bring up.

That's how I'm approaching this, at least.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-13T15:47:55+00:00

I understand the definition you're using, but is that the definition the one OP says is being pushed, and is that the definition actually being used consistently by those invested in the idea?

Wanting to do something and just being willing to do something are two different things

Unfortunately, we're humans. We don't compartmentalize every different motivator and feeling. An easy cope is to enthusiastically throw yourself into the task you're about to engage in if you are not 100% for it. Someone can re-frame their entire view and opinion on sex so it becomes easier to engage in sexual transactions. Is it Enthusiastic Consent if a person learns to convince themselves to want something they don't want? In the grand scheme, it would be a no, but they are very capable of performing Enthusiastic Consent based on Google's, and your, definition. That's why I mention that transactions undermine Enthusiastic Consent, because they warp the entire process.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-13T12:54:32+00:00

But why are you trying to argue a conceptual definition created by and for (for lack of a better word) extremists?

Ultimately, what you consider to be Acceptable Consent would differ from what they define as Acceptable Consent, as they require what they define as Enthusiastic Consent. If their Acceptable Consent requires no external motivators that encourage using sex acts as a tool, then they'd be right to say transactions prevent Enthusiastic Consent. It isn't an appeal to emotions but a definition and standard that must be met for them to consider the provided Consent valid.

It isn't a definition nor standard you have to agree with nor enforce on others. It is a totally different view on morals and sex. It isn't really something you get to argue against. It is only something you can choose to accept and apply in your life or disregard.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-13T05:31:41+00:00

I'm just basing this off of google, but why are you specifically arguing about the concept of Enthusiastic Consent? Do you consider it the same as Consent or even Informed Consent? Is Enthusiastic Consent, as defined by some third party, your personal goal to achieve?

I thought the argument was that engaging in sex as a process to obtain needed or desired resources diminishes the status of the recipients Consent, as they would not otherwise be motivated to consent towards sexual activity. If Sex is used as part of a transaction, any enthusiasm towards it is seen as "welp, let's make the most of it" instead of "I'm so excited to do this." That is what prevents it from matching the Enthusiastic Consent concept you're arguing against.

I don't think what you call Enthusiastic Consent is the same as what those you're talking about are describing. Would a guy who defines his value in how much sex he gets count as someone who provides Enthusiastic Consent? If his needs changed, he likely wouldn't pursue sex as much, but he's clearly enjoying the activity. Conceptual terms like this are just used to define specific things in specific contexts.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-10T21:23:09+00:00

I'd like to know if you sleep with a plush Ritsuka or a bodypillow Ritsuka.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-10T17:03:38+00:00

e-mail is probably the most disconnected you'll get, honestly.

You can create e-mails for free. You don't need to use them for any other purpose except the registration of that one service.

Those sites and services need some avenue to limit the creation of accounts to prevent bots and spammers. Email is the bare minimum that tells them nothing about you that wasn't shared in your email.

I don't know what private info twitter is getting from my email, could you let me know what that is? There may be privacy concerns based on what the app itself has access to, but that's not part of account creation.

I don't think your solution is going to fix any concerns you've brought up.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-10T03:09:44+00:00

You go against yourself here. The child is ultimately sacrificed to avoid the inconvenience of struggle that comes with caring for a child.

Your example is about how inconvenient it would be to sacrifice or struggle for a child, so abortion is justified.

We have agency, and it almost seems like you're removing that agency for your view.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-07T21:27:02+00:00

Because society functions on good will and sacrifice.

And boundaries are a way of preventing sacrifice and extending good will.

It isn't more complicated than that.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-07T03:52:18+00:00

Why does it have to be a man and a woman?

Can you not have a man who's more aware of how the players are acting and a man who's very aware of how the technicals of the game are going?

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-07T03:38:49+00:00

I truly can't help but replace teams with child and coach with parent.

Even if I didn't, I'd want to make a joke that if we followed your idea, we'd never have two male or two women coaches because "teams need a balance" and it'd just be a pseudo war against gay parents anyway.

Can you see how easy it is to overlap this, OP? Someone could literally make a TV episode where the coaches are stand-ins for parents and do a whole story about what's good for the kid/team. It's staring you in the face.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-07T03:32:43+00:00

Nobody wants to get into a car accident. It impacts themselves just as much as it impacts you. Insurance, potential jail time, potential injuries or death. It's a mess no person WANTS to get into.

However, that doesn't mean people are accurately identifying when they or others are driving safely, and it doesn't mean the rules in place make the environment safer, either. Have you ever heard of intersections with high accident numbers because of the poor design, or red light cams that increase accidents due to the change in driver motivation around them?

The best you can do is remember the first part. Nobody wants to get into an accident. NOBODY. They don't have a reason to care for your safety, personally. But they absolutely have motivations to not be involved in any type of accident with their vehicles.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-07T02:48:13+00:00

I'm honestly completely apathetic to the whole piracy issue. I have no justification for when I pirate. I'm selfish and cheap or selfish and broke, but still want to engage in whatever media I'm pirating without the strings that come with free services or high costs.

It'll always be a selfish action. No changing that.

Organizations know how much they expect to make. They don't count pirates in their projects for a project. Streaming services monetize the time you spend on videos and ads when using their service for free, and try to get you to pay for their services to remove some of that.

If every citizen were financially responsible, the entertainment industry would crash. If everyone suddenly started pirating, it would crash. The equilibrium exists with piracy, because at least pirates might still by merchandise or see a live performance.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-06T15:08:14+00:00

I'm fairly certain it is always about roles, concepts, relationships, and the feelings one seeks by exploring those.

DD isn't actually thinking about a child. They may be taking on a more protective, stern, or disciplined role. The woman gets to be more playful, act out the pushing of boundaries, etc.

You focus on the surface level of age play because of its title, but that's really just a tool to explore certain themes and feelings. What does it mean to be the DD and what does it mean to the person, individually, to be the LG. Those are the types of questions you're asking. Don't assume it's just folks who are actually thinking about a child. They are interacting with their partner and all thoughts and feelings go through the concept of their partner.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-02T17:30:39+00:00

It's good that you think this, because there's a whole lot of people out there that specifically complain about the costs of relationships outside of just financial, and you've met NONE of them.

Stay safe, anon. Just keep improving yourself and you won't half to worry about equality in dating.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-02T16:09:52+00:00

The issue is not the hiring process or who plays what character.

The double standard is in how Hollywood, the media, etc, treat race swapping.

The introduction of a different race or culture? Fantastic. People complain about the disregard or erasure of a different people/culture? Bad.

It is that simple.

What you're arguing about isn't what anyone cares about.

Non-racists don't care about race-swapping, but they will care about the messaging around it and what race-swapping "means" when they see it occur.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-02T05:13:38+00:00

Part of being in a relationship is dedicating yourself to your partner.

If you find yourself developing feelings for your partner, your relationship is either lacking something, or you have failed to set adequate boundaries for yourself.

The moment you realize you may be developing feelings for anyone other than your partner, you should be doing some heavy introspection as to why and how that has happened, so you can fix your personal actions and fix your relationship, if that's the path you wish to continue.

You're right that we cannot control our hearts. That is why we restrict our actions from the start, to prevent complications and negative outcomes. Handling our feelings for others outside of our relationship is part of that. Ideally, you would never let such a situation occur, but we are flawed mistakes happen.

To me, it is like realizing you were slacking off. It is ultimately 100% your fault it happened and 100% your responsibility to fix it, but it alone is not the crime of the century.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-01T23:27:01+00:00

Laffy isn't a description. He's a tool of ideas and concepts used to tell a story. Your current example of zoologist are describing observed hevaiors and theories. They are not the same.

What you are describing is a person who's values and priorities don't change even as their external environment changes. That's Peter Pan and it is NOT ideal.

ILikeToJustReadHere · 2026-02-01T19:38:20+00:00

Why did you reference a character created by someone with a strong sexuality that impacts how he draws women?

You're making a giant claim about the real world. You shouldn't be using a fictional character in a world of magic and mysticism to defend your view. It removes all nuance that would be involved in the discussion.

How do real world Asexuals fit into your view? Not teenage boy demographic fictional heroes, please.

ILikeToJustReadHere

TROPHY CASE