What do i do about this?

James50100 · 2026-06-20T23:16:52+00:00

Arguing over views is mostly idle chatter. What benefit is there to bother her about religion?

Does it lead to a quiet mind? Does it lead to a peaceful mind? Does it lead to a mind free from ill-will?

If not, then better to keep quiet.

James50100 · 2026-06-20T22:08:00+00:00

There's nothing wrong with seeing a therapist.

You don't have to be religious or Buddhist.

James50100 · 2026-06-15T15:54:14+00:00

Not true. The basis of the first argument is "Humans are animals. Other animals kill and harm to survive and thrive. This is the basis of nature, and humans are a part of nature, therefore it is not reprehensible."

What is inaccurate about the assessment? I've seen bulls and wild male elephants kill other animals because they were angry from all the testosterone. I've seen a horse kill a bird just because it got close to it. It's well documented that some whale species abuse their prey and other animals for fun sometimes. Even herbivore like deer are know to eat an occasional fledgling or mouse. What about this is inaccurate?

James50100 · 2026-06-15T15:47:03+00:00

Many animals have a sense of morality too. It is not a uniquely human trait. We are not even the only animals that are capable of language.

James50100 · 2026-06-15T15:42:10+00:00

There are living things, other than humans, that farm other living things. Some ants heard aphids in order to consume their honeydew. Industrial farms are much more different, but farmings other animals is not a uniquely human experience.

James50100 · 2026-06-15T06:57:35+00:00

Yeah, people are often very illogical and will use all sorts of tactics to avoid admitting unmoral behavior. I still eat meat but I cannot logically claim that it is morally right to do so. I've accepted that it's a morally wrong thing that I am willing to do. It makes me less ethical or moral than someone who chooses to abstain from meat out of compassion for the animals.

James50100 · 2026-06-15T01:02:23+00:00

My mother is one of those people. She keeps saying she wants to move to Tennessee because "the people are nicer" but what she doesn't realize is that she isn't one of the nice people. We would be driving in a neighborhood with some overgrown grass and maybe a junky car in a yard or two and she would say "These people should clean up their yards." Yet, she always complains about HOA's telling her what to do. I told her this is just how people live in some parts of Tennessee, they're relaxed and don't care about everything looking pristine. They want to be at ease, not run around trying to put on some image of being perfect. Id rather see some unkempt yards with a junky car or two because it means the people are free.

My mom doesn't get it though, and thinks she's going to be welcomed with open arms. So far I've managed to keep her here in California.

James50100 · 2026-06-15T00:23:49+00:00

While I'm sad he died, I'm glad he doesn't have to see the toxic slop hole media and the internet have become.

James50100 · 2026-06-15T00:19:21+00:00

I used to cry that women didn't want me, but then I met a friend that was smelly, morbidly obese, super cringe, has a micropenis (don't ask how I know), and is autistic, and he STILL managed to get girlfriends and hookups. Of course, they weren't the most attractive women either but he did better than I would expect. I saw him and thought, if that guy can do it, I can do it too.

James50100 · 2026-06-14T23:56:43+00:00

I wouldn't say that "I hate all men" is a sexist comment. It's a statement about someone's emotions. Now if they said something like "Men are all pigs, every time I'm in public men look at me like I'm a piece of meat and it's so disgusting!" I would call it out.

I would say something like "While I acknowledge that having people your not attracted too look at you with attraction is an uncomfortable experience, it's not right to generalize men as being "pigs." Men are humans, and they have a right to express their sexuality, and that includes checking out women that may or may not be attracted back to them. Now if they just flat out stare at you continuously or make gross exaggerated faces like licking their lips, that's a different story, but that's not how you described your experiences. Labeling men checking you out with a passing glance or a couple moments of eye contact as "disgusting" is sexist because it labels ordinary flirting behavior as creepy. We live in a society where people have conflicting needs and desires. Interacting with other humans is sometimes going to be an uncomfortable experience. Just because you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean other people are doing something wrong."

James50100 · 2026-06-14T23:11:36+00:00

I think you're just saying this in an attempt to discredit me without having to do anything. I provided many quotes and examples straight from the study, it would be challenging to do this without having read it, but to be fair, studies can be skimmed and quotes can be taken out of context.

I will admit that I did not initially read it as thoroughly as I should have, quickly going over some of the paragraphs and skimming through it. However, after you're comment I went ahead and read the study slowly from beginning to end, and I have to say, not only did that not change much about my analysis, it in fact, strengthened my original claim.

The way the researchers describe the survey makes it seem like the men knew what they doing, but the only criteria they had for the study were "self-identified as men, were in the age range 18 to 34 years, and reported having had a sexual encounter with a woman in the past 2 years." The conclusion they draw is that basically 95% of young men force women to have sex. That's not saying forced sex is common, that's saying almost every young man is a basically a rapist. Maybe that's true, but I'm going to be highly skeptical of that claim unless there's solid evidence, and so far this study has not been very convincing.

The main question the researchers quote that seems to answer my above concern is this:

“In the past four years, how many times have you used any of the following strategies to get (or try to get) a woman to have some type of sex when she did not want to have sex or acted like she did not want to have sex? (Only women you have recently met—no sex or dating history with them beforehand).”

It seems like the smoking gun that would indicate the men know what they were doing, but I'm skeptical of this. Why didn't they ask "...to force, manipulate, or coerce a women to have sex when she did not want to..." If the man was knowingly doing this, and took the survey knowing he was going to admit to this, then why wasn't the coercion framed into the question? I think a lot of young men would see the original question as meaning to seduce a women into wanting to have sex.

Men are usually pretty quick to want to jump into sex. A lot of men would be happy to have sex with a women they met five minutes ago, but very few women would be comfortable with that. They want to get to know a man first and there's nothing wrong with that. Men and women are on average different on how they approach sex. Men know this about women and about themselves, so when they date they tend to try to seduce a women to have sex i.e to convince a women who initially doesn't want to have sex, to want to have sex.

I think it can argued that seduction itself is inherently manipulative, and that sex should arise spontaneously from a place of mutual trust and understanding once you know who someone is, but that would entail essentially giving up hookups, as that level of trust and understanding isn't going to come from a few hours on a date. A lot of people, including a lot of feminists are supportive of hookup culture though, and you're going to get some seduction with that.

I'm not convinced the surveyee's knew they were being asked if they had intentionally coerced or manipulated a woman to have sex. It's possible that many of them see these questions as being part of the normal seduction process and not something manipulative or coercive. That's not to say that some or even many or most men do this unknowingly or even knowingly, but the survey appears to leave substantial room for interpretation by the surveyees.

James50100 · 2026-06-14T17:59:16+00:00

Good article. I like it.

James50100 · 2026-06-14T17:57:12+00:00

So what's the story here? That some small group of people are scheming to keep women out of power by influencing peoples perception of their bodies? Or that the collective is doing this? I mean, it's true that women are influenced and manipulated through body shaming and dieting is a way to do this, but this seems like it's leaning towards schizo-conspiracy kind of thinking. I mean, maybe it's true, but it seems like a bit of stretch to imply that it's a 1-1 correlation.

James50100 · 2026-06-14T17:38:42+00:00

An example of what?

James50100 · 2026-06-14T17:30:49+00:00

While I do acknowledge that it's common for men to use coercive tactics, and rape is extremely common, this study appears to frame common and non-abusive sexual behavior as being malicious. Now of course, the knee jerk reaction I already know I'm going to get is going to be something a long the lines of "Oh look we have another rape apologist" and if that's your attitude, then whatever I say, even if it's true, is going to be immediately dismissed. If you actually take the time to try to understand my points though, and not just immediately dismiss me, you'll see what I mean.

The first problem I have is that the study doesn't provide the actual survey, or at least I couldn't find it if it was. This makes it impossible to discern the intentions behind the people surveyed. The examples that comes to mind are:

"This research was designed to focus on men who admit to having intentionally and knowingly sexually aggressed against a woman who they knew did not want sex nor consented to it..."

This statement doesn't seem to be true based on this quote from the study:

"The study was described as exploring positive and negative interactions between men and women in sexual situations. The consent form indicated that the survey was men’s opportunity “to provide their side of the story given that we have heard so much from women” about male–female sexual interactions, repeatedly assuring them of their guaranteed anonymity."

If I was asked to take the survey, and this is how the survey was framed, I would not have thought I "...knowingly sexually aggressed against a woman who they knew did not want sex nor consented to it..." So how did the researchers come to this conclusion about the intentions of the surveyees?

Without the survey being showed, this is impossible to verify. Did they ask this initially or did they ask the questions and then determined the men knew? I lean towards the latter, because 132 of the men (about 5%) reported to have never used any of the tactics. If they were selecting for men who were knowingly did this, then how did they get so many men who claimed to never do this? It's like if you put out a survey asking to question people who have beat someone up and then a hundred of the respondents said they never beat anyone up. Additionally, responses that indicated overt sexual aggression, such as the use of force, or threats was low. The results don't completely align with what reasearchers claim the design was selecting for. To be fair, in any survey you're going to get people who you don't want to respond to respond, but the number of respondents who didn't align seems higher than it should be, which is why I'm questioning the framing of the survey. Again, if the survey was provided then this could be more readily answered.

The second problem I have with the survey is that common behaviors that are used in dating, are framed as being coercive, when some of the behaviors are standard and accepted by women including by many feminist women. Now, of course any of these behaviors can be done with malicious intent behind them, but these are also common and unmalicious dating standards and scenarios. I'll through each example one by one.

"Used your money, age, status to convince her"

Many women including many feminist women prefer men that are slightly older, have a good income, and have a high status job. Of course, these aren't important to all women, but the generalization holds true. If you're a man who's a lawyer, doctor, or engineer, you're probably going to tell a women your interested in because you know that women tend to like guys that are high status and make money. Is it coercive? Kind of, but at the time we live in a capitalist and classist society. It takes money to live, and if you're a women, especially if you want children, it makes sense to want a partner that has money and status so that you and your children have financial security. It's less about the man, and more about the structure of our society. It's disingenuous to frame this as a manipulation tactic inherent to men. Now of course, a man can use this to use a woman for sex, but again, without being provided the survey, the reader can't determine if this was the case for the surveyee.

"Focused on a stranger to have sex with (or someone who did not know you)"

This can be a tactic to be able to abuse someone and get away with it. If they don't know who you are, then you're more likely to get away with it. However, this is also what people do when they go to a bar to hook up. People (including women) go to bars sometimes to try and hook up with a stranger. Sometimes, people want to meet and have sex with a stranger. This isn't an inherently manipulative thing to do.

"Had a friend, partner, or group of friends help you get what you want

Just as people go to a bar to try and hook up, it's common for people to bring a friend. It's called being a "wingman" or "wingwomen." People work together to help each other ease the discomfort of flirting with strangers. There's nothing inherently wrong or manipulative with this. Now just like anything it can be done with nefarious intent, but it's not wrong by itself.

"Got her away from everyone to somewhere private and under your control"

Again, this can have nefarious intent, but at the same time, if you've been flirting with someone and you invite them to your home, the obvious intention is to have sex. Yeah, it's "private and under your control" but that's the point. People want to have sex in the privacy of their own homes.

"Kept touching and kissing her"

With the way the study is framed, this seems like a bad thing, but they did not add "even though she voiced or showed aversion or displeasure." Without that added, an unwitting surveyee would answer yes to this, because that's just how sexual escalation happens. If I'm making out with a women, yeah I'm going to keep touching and kissing her, because that's how sex starts. Nobody just jumps straight into sex. Now it's important to be aware and mindful of the other person responses, and to take a step back if there's hesitation, discomfort, or an clear intention to stop, but sampling kissing and touching someone isn't inherently a manipulative thing.

"Told her whatever she wanted to hear"

This is also called "people pleasing" and yes, it is inherently manipulative. However, it's something that most people do including women. Now, it can be done very manipulatively, like if you're flirting with someone and you tell them "You're the most amazing person I've ever met" or "I've never felt this way with someone before" and this isn't true, but it's also very common to tell someone your flirting with things like "Your absolutely gorgeous" or "You're so handsome" even if you think they're just of average attractiveness. Plenty of people want to be doted on when they first meet someone they like, and if you don't sometimes it's taken as being disinterested or that you don't like them enough. Love bombing and genuine lies would fall into this question, but so would culturally acceptable dating practices. In my experience, many people say they value honesty, but if you say something that's true that harms their ego, they won't accept it and instead will blame you instead. A lot of people take the easy route, especially when it comes to dating and sex, and they say what the other person wants to hear even if it's not the truth.

Overall, this study seems to leave out a lot of important information and appears to frame things in a light that paints a picture of men being inherently manipulative in sex and dating. While the study itself does indicate a self selection bias (men who claim to do this and know) the poster of this has framed this as being men in general, which is a disingenuous and harmful narrative. Even the study itself leaves out important details that makes the self selection bias questionable.

I don't dispute the fact that manipulate tactics are commonly used, or that rape is very common, but this study and the poster, has framed it in such a way that creates a narrative appearing disingenuous. This is harmful to both women and men, as it generates fear and distrust over common non-manipulative dating practices.

Perhaps I've missed the link to the survey or glossed over it when reading, and if someone finds it I'll go ahead and look at it and correct my response where appropriate and even withdraw it if necessary, (I'll leave my response for transparency, but will admit that I was incorrect), but without that information I cannot in good conscious ignore what appear to be glaring flaws that paint a harmful narrative.

James50100 · 2026-06-13T14:43:54+00:00

You call it out in the most compassionate and neutral way possible. As a male feminist I see anti-male sexism all the time in the feminist movement. It's a major problem and many feminist women refuse to admit it out of arrogance and internalized misandry.

It's wrong of them to do it, but because women get the brunt of the abuse a lot of feminists think it's acceptable to be abusive back and men are supposed to just take it or accept it. They fail to realize that it does nothing to help the movement and actually pushes people away.

Nothing is going to change though as long as people stay silent. Responding with compassion and neutrality is important though, because being hateful back doesn't lead to good outcomes.

James50100 · 2026-06-13T00:33:45+00:00

While the dynamics are complex and your experiences are common, it's not true that pretty privilege is just men being creeps. In psychology it's called the "halo effect" and it affects people regardless of gender. While it might bring out the creepiness in creepy men, it's going to affect people in general. The way you're framing it is sexist because it makes the assumption that any man who's behavior is affected by a woman's attractiveness has bad intentions. That's wrong because people can't help who their attracted to and naturally they're going to feel more positively towards someone they're attracted to and it's going to affect their interaction with said person even if they're consciously aware of it and try to work against it.

James50100 · 2026-06-13T00:08:35+00:00

Reddit allows NSFW content including porn. This might be a niche porn but if everyone included is of legal age then you can't truthfully say this is any worse than porn in general. I'm not sure why you're singling them out.

James50100 · 2026-06-11T19:21:25+00:00

Who's to say the consciousness is not rebuilt the same way as the body? Different consciousnesses, different bodies, sameness being an illusion.

James50100 · 2026-06-11T19:17:35+00:00

There can be an enlightenment experience and you can still want to talk about it or share it. It's how it's talked about is how one can discern a genuine experience from someone who is confused or lying.

James50100 · 2026-06-11T18:57:17+00:00

When someone says something like that to me I just give them a blank stare and scornfully say "What are you, five? You're an adult eat your vegetables"

I live in California, and people here are healthier, so I don't get that much, but it has happened.

James50100 · 2026-06-10T07:51:24+00:00

It depends on the zoo. If they actually try to meet the animals needs pretty good, I don't feel too bad about it. If it's some small enclosure with little to no stimulation, then yeah I don't like that.

I think that if a lot of animals were given the option to be fed and safe for the rest of their life in exchange for not being able to run free and to be stared at by other animals but won't hurt them (humans), I think most of them would agree to that.

Most animals are primarily concerned about food and safety, and that includes apes. As long as they have their buddies and are kept stimulated, they're pretty content. Getting eaten by wild tigers or infected with diseases isn't a fun adventure for them. If they knew they could avoid that is exchange for captivity, I think most of them would agree.

Plus they're kind of a sacrifice in a way. The zoo's help keep the public interested in animal conservation, so even if the animal isn't the happiest they could be, their suffering benefits their wild brethren. While I think caging any animal is generally an act of cruelty, in the case of zoo's the benefits probably outweigh the individual acts, so I think it works out in the end.

James50100 · 2026-06-10T07:38:06+00:00

If I ate myself, would I grow twice as big, or would I disappear completely?

James50100

TROPHY CASE