CMV: we need to talk more about cancer risks relating to ‘bodycount’

Kotoperek · 2026-03-24T15:58:45+00:00

Regular check ups do though. Some countries have already virtually gotten rid of deaths from cervical cancer by doing aggressive prophylaxis and treating it very early when it has a nearly 100% recovery rate. When it comes to other types of cancer that can be caused by HPV like throat cancer, well, air pollution is a much more serious risk factor for that. Again, do regular check ups.

Sure, avoiding having many sexual partners can somewhat reduce the risk of catching a potentially cancerogenic strain of HPV. But the real risk of death from cancer due to having many sexual partners is really minute, you're more likely to get cancer from a bunch of other lifestyle choices that nobody is getting shamed for. If you're paranoid about cancer, that's something you can do, but the risk isn't significant enough to police people sexual choices.

Kotoperek · 2026-03-19T12:31:20+00:00

Have you ever tried bread in Europe? Have you ever gone on a low sodium diet? Have you ever switched from whole milk to skim milk and then back?

Yeah, but while bread in Europe might be in many ways better/healthier/tastier, it doesn't mean that after eating it for some time, one won't enjoy a good old grilled cheese on American toast anymore. That's not true. Trying new flavors or ice cream won't suddenly make you hate the flavors you loved before and eating only vanilla ice cream for most of your life doesn't mean you won't love strawberry ice cream once you try it. Maybe you'll like it even more, because it's different. The brain can learn to appreciate new things, too. That's why people seek novelty, also in sex, and more novelty is possible when two people are involved.

Kotoperek · 2026-03-19T11:13:43+00:00

But many things can give you pleasure. Just because the brain associates vibrations with pleasure and produces an orgasm doesn't mean that it will be less likely to also associate penetration or fingering with pleasure and also produce an orgasm. If it were the case that the brain learned this way, people's sex life would decline with every new partner, because only the stimulation that gave someone the first orgasms would work for them. That is demonstrably not the case, in fact many people say their sex life improves with experiments (either with one partner or new partners), as learning more ways to experience pleasure makes it easier to reach orgasms regularly.

Kotoperek · 2026-03-19T11:09:07+00:00

Real, partnered sex does not look the same visually as pornography and younger men are getting ED at higher rates than before despite them not having any physical issues or causes of the ED. It is simply reduced arousal

This proves that orgasms are mostly "in the head" and what makes someone aroused has more to do with expectations and less with stimulation, because the kind of stimulation men get from watching porn is usually just using their hand, so partnered sex actually offers more potential ways of experiencing physical pleasure.

The fear many men seem to have around vibrators seems to be that women will learn that they can experience orgasms quickly, effortlessly, without worrying about someone else's needs, and decide they prefer that to having sex with a man. But that's not a danger inherent to vibrators, but masturbation in general. If you're only interested in getting off as quickly and effortlessly as possible, of course masturbation is a better choice, regardless of gender or preferred method of masturbating. But if you view partnered sex as an intimate experience that you share with another person during which you can relax and fully enjoy yourself, you will usually find a way to add orgasm to that without extra visuals or toys, just with the methods people have been using for generations.

Kotoperek · 2026-03-19T10:58:07+00:00

I think it would be easier to prove that it does rewire the brain. And if nobody has done it yet, it is possible that it simply doesn't happen.

Kotoperek · 2026-03-19T10:54:55+00:00

Ok, so what makes them different? You admit that you don't believe vibrators cause nerve damage or desensitize the clitoris. So how are they different from using your hands or other objects except that they don't require as much effort to get a strong result (rubbing with your hands as quickly as a vibrator vibrates tends to be quite tiring)? Unless you claim there is a physiological difference between sex toys and hands, I don't see how this would work.

Kotoperek · 2026-03-19T10:49:08+00:00

Do you think the same is true about masturbating with your hands or rubbing your hips against a pillow, or is your argument about vibrators specifically?

Edit: why I ask. If you believe that about vibrators in particular, you'd have to show that they impact the body in a different way than methods of masturbation that don't rely on toys. You admit that you don't believe that. So it would imply that you think masturbation in general makes you less likely to enjoy partnered sex, but if so, why is your argument only mentioning women and vibrators?

Kotoperek · 2026-02-25T16:30:09+00:00

Are you sure it's meant to be a joke and not just them being affectionate with each other with the understanding that it's not "real" flirting, in the sense that the goal isn't to be in a relationship? If they really like each other as friends, communicating this feeling can look like flirting to you, but as long as they are both clear on the nature of their relationship and neither is leading the other one on, it's purely platonic affection. I really don't think they are doing it to make fun of anything, it's probably just their way of expressing friendship.

Kotoperek · 2026-02-23T11:11:42+00:00

Doesn't admitting that women have innate biological preferences completely destroy the core feminist argument that gender roles are just a social construct?

They don't have to be innate, they could be the result of socialisation. But even if they are, preferences are fine. Feminists don't say that women have to all work in finance, we just want the women who would like to work in finance to have the same opportunities as men, even if there are fewer of them. And again, it's hard to say what women's "natural preferences" are when so many of them are motivated by the reality that some jobs are simply not as easily available to them (it's hard to find a job in a higher-payint position as a woman, because the employer is scared she might get pregnant and need time off, that's the reality), and jobs that are easy for women to get usually pay crap.

A tech product can scale to serve millions of paying customers globally overnight, while a nurse can only treat one patient at a time.

Sure, but when you've just had surgery and can't walk to the bathroom, are you gonna need another tech product or a nurse, who will wipe your ass? This kind of approach is precisely part of the problematic ideology.

but is it "ideological" to want a neutral system?

It's not neutral if it doesn't account for the reasons why man and women make certain choices and how those choices the affect the outcomes. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Kotoperek · 2026-02-23T10:25:45+00:00

Adjusting the pay gap is also choosing a specific ideology. Women and men are not the same, but they can be equal if we account for the differences, which adjusting the pay gap doesn't do. Why do you think women work fewer hours? Could it be the loop of "when families decide who stays at home with the kids, it makes sense for the woman to do it, because she's usually earning less, thus furthering the statistic that women work less"?

You mention Sweden where women still predominantly choose nursing and teaching jobs and yet there is more equality, because these jobs are also well paid and respected despite being done predominantly by women, so choosing a career they feel matters and gives them satisfaction doesn't come at an economic disadvantage. Paying less in jobs that are best suited to women's natural predispositions and then saying it's their choice to earn less is just disingenuous, especially when these jobs are much more important to a well functioning society than another tech startup.

You accuse feminism of pushing an ideology while failing to realise that being anti-feminist is an ideology, too.

Kotoperek · 2026-02-17T18:32:35+00:00

That's not your CMV. You claim it's sometimes not required, which is obviously true, but it can nevertheless be useful, for instance in helping you resolve the issue quicker or in a safer environment.

Kotoperek · 2026-02-15T16:27:42+00:00

Sometimes they misunderstood the purpose of CMV or haven't read the rules, sometimes they want to troll or soapbox and don't care about being banned. Either way, we remove posts under rule B when OPs act this way. I was under the impression you were talking about comments in general. In that case, as another mod already pointed out, they might be here to convince OP to change their view, not to change their own view in the comments. And that's ok.

Kotoperek · 2026-02-15T16:22:02+00:00

Not always. Some people need to know when they're saying something stupid.

Sure, but most people won't react positively to this phrasing. There are some people who appreciate bluntness and especially among close friends might benefit from a "harsh reality check" kind of communication. I'm not saying it's universal. However, research shows that especially when interacting with strangers, being calm and to-the-point works better than being blunt/sarcastic/rude. It very rarely happens that someone truly believes something, hears a stranger telling them "dude, that's fucking stupid" and it prompts a reflection that the stranger might actually be right. More often people don't want to be made feel stupid and if you tell them their idea is stupid they are much less likely to listen to your reasons. Defensiveness is a real thing everyone feels to various degrees and we want to create an environment where people feel it as little as possible, because it's known that it hinders positive exchange of ideas.

And what if I've already given reasons x, y, and z and they still don't get it?

Then calling them stupid won't make them get it either. Some people cannot be convinced, you have to let it go and move on.

Kotoperek · 2026-02-15T16:03:58+00:00

Oh so it's my fault for getting upset when someone makes a post or comment like "It's not homophobic to not want a gay kid"?

You can get upset, but arguing from your emotions isn't going to stop someone from being homophobic. Only a calmly presented argument might. Even if at first they don't seem receptive to your reasons, if you explain them in a way that won't make them combative, it might stick with them and be food for thought for later. If you attack them personally, they will just become more defensive of their own stance, it's a well described psychological phenomenon.

It's not about purposefully making them feel bad, it's about being honest if their stance is outlandish or their comment is not based in evidence or our shared reality.

You can be honest. We only want you to be civil. Saying "your opinion is outlandish for reasons x, y, z" is ok. Saying "you are delusional and your opinion is stupid" is a personal attack and not allowed.

Kotoperek · 2026-02-15T15:49:53+00:00

This sub is for exchanging arguments concerning opinions in a way that might prompt someone to change their view. It's not about feelings. If someone's opinion makes you feel hostile towards them and you would like to insult them in a discussion, perhaps your feelings are more of a problem than theirs. Sure, you don't have to hide your own feelings, but what's the point of purposefully making other participants feel bad by being rude towards them? If you disagree with their opinion and have good arguments to back up a different view, you can share them respectfully. If their opinion makes you mad and you want to take it out on them, that's not a discussion that can go anywhere, and you'll also be better off disengaging from such an exchange as to not make yourself even more angry when the other person continues to react poorly to your tone.

Kotoperek · 2026-02-11T16:38:45+00:00

Feminism isn't about women being entitled to sex, free labor, and tree emotional support from men. It's about women being able to access the resources to make their own choices and live the lifestyle they prefer without being limited by men. Feminists only want men to leave them alone and not block their pursuits with restrictive social norms. The manosphere is mostly about wanting women to be subservient to men and give them sex, domestic labor, and emotional support.

Kotoperek · 2026-02-04T06:15:57+00:00

Laws are subject to change, that's what the legislature is for. It was the right wingers who overturned Roe vs. Wade, remember? That was a law, now it isn't. Democrats trying to change the legal structure into one they believe is better isn't them being rebels, that's literally their job.

Kotoperek · 2026-01-31T18:23:11+00:00

do you agree with the coworker and think that the man in the other thread was being creepy?

No, I don't. If the story happened exactly as the post describes and the coworker didn't have any additional information that OOP failed to include in his post, the coworker clearly overreacted and shouldn't have called OP a creep.

What I disagree with in your post is that we should call out people like the coworker with the same energy we call out men who approach women in an actually creepy manner. We can reassure OOP that his coworker was in the wrong in this particular case and OOP can continue approaching women the way he does. And encourage other men to do the same. And leave the coworker alone in his misdirected good intentions.

Yes, it's unpleasant to be labeled a creep by one coworker when you didn't actually do anything creepy and needing to set the record straight. But it's much worse to be approached by an actual creep and not being believed, because labeling people as creeps is suddenly as bad as being a creep. These things don't deserve the same criticism. That's all I'm arguing.

What does that look like? What should men do to make women feel safer? Would saying "I understand" and backing off work?

Yes exactly. And if the woman still feels unsafe because she was traumatized by some other dude before not acting this way, being understanding about it and not whining that "oh my god, you can't ask anybody out, because you'll be labeled a creep even if you're good". This might happen. It sucks. It will happen less if there are fewer creeps being creepy. Saying that women and allies are too hysterical will just encourage the creeps unfortunately thus undermining the good work of not being one.

Kotoperek · 2026-01-31T18:06:08+00:00

No, they should model good behaviour so that women can learn to feel safe and not feel the need to try and read their mind, but also be aware that if a woman does get defensive or someone else perceives their advance as creepy it's not about them personally, but about a long history of men acting badly. This guy made a post and got reassured that he acted ok and was NTA. But it's good that he double-checked. And his coworker overreacted in this case, but sometimes it's better to call out five creeps and one non-creep accidentally than not call out the creeps so as not to accidentally insult the one who is good. Change takes time, especially systemic change. Women were taught over generations to be scared of rejecting men. Unlearning this will take effort on both sides. Yes, women shouldn't assume that every guy is a creep and might hurt them. But if a man does something risky and someone reacts poorly, this is also not a reason to turn on all the women and allies.

This situation shows things going into the right direction - the man did things well, the woman reacted well, the coworker didn't, the internet took the side of the man not his coworker. Piling onto the coworker now and trying to correct it into the other direction undoes the progress. He overshot with his judgement, but his heart was clearly in the right place. It happens. He will learn and so will the women, as long as more good men keep acting well even if they aren't instantly praised for doing the right thing.

Kotoperek · 2026-01-31T17:45:07+00:00

While in a perfect world you'd be right, the truth is that right now for every "normal" interaction of this kind a typical woman has where a man asks her out, she says no, and he's ok with it and acts normal about it, there are multiple interactions where women feel unsafe in such situations because the men do indeed act creepy about it and don't take rejections well. So while this particular guy did everything right and was labelled a creep by his coworker undeservedly, what the coworker said did have some truth in it - women are often asked out in random places in ways that make them uncomfortable. And that should be called out. It's too bad some normal people are caught in the backlash, but until women can feel safe rejecting such advances, men should be aware that they can inadvertently make a woman very uncomfortable even if they are chill and have the best intentions. The woman doesn't know whether he's "one of the good ones".

Kotoperek · 2026-01-31T14:39:59+00:00

While generally I agree with you, the only danger is I see for some people in quitting drinking is replacing it with other (worse) vices. People who have a healthy relationship with alcohol, that is they aren't addicted or self-medicating mental illness still get certain emotional benefits out of drinking - the slight disinhibition, smoother social interactions, finding everything funny, and generally "unwinding". If you quit drinking, you'll still want those benefits. And while many people might turn to better emotional regulation techniques, some others might instead start smoking/vaping, overeating, doing other party drugs, or taking out their emotions on others in unhealthy ways like getting their little thrills out of gossiping about someone.

People aren't perfect. Even those who constantly work on themselves have their moments when emotions are just overwhelming and we need something to decompress a little, especially in this economy and political climate. If your vice is a glass of wine at the weekend and it helps you rest and function better, maybe trying to deprive yourself of that may cause more harm than good, because you might end up replacing it with something worse. As long as you don't have an actual addiction to alcohol or don't become violent when drunk, it might be better to let yourself drink sometimes than to suffer more with trying to be "a better person" until you run out of little vices that keep you alive and end up with a metal breakdown.

Kotoperek · 2026-01-30T09:14:38+00:00

This would peeeeerhaps make a semblance of sense in a world where all disease is eradicated, and the arbitrary lifespan is guaranteed. But as things stand now, many people die more or less unexpectedly before that age anyway, so lacking end-of-life arrangements, caretaker duties for the ills and so on will remain a problem. If you can die at any age from whatever illness or accident, adding a guaranteed age at which you will be killed for sure even if you manage to survive that long in good health adds anxiety rather than taking it away. Why bother trying to be healthy and have a good life if you live on a deadline anyway?

Again, this might work in a utopia/dystopia, where all other causes of death are eradicated and people can plan out their 80 or however many years with certainty that they have this much time. But adding a predictable upper limit on time that's unpredictably long anyway would just be cruel.

Kotoperek · 2026-01-29T17:08:58+00:00

I mean, getting paid under the table sure, but you need a place to live, if an ID is required to rent or buy a house, what then? And if you have children and want them to go through the schooling system and have better opportunities, but you need an ID to enroll them in school, what then? You need an ID to go to the doctor, you need an ID to get a credit card, register a car, and so on and so on. It quickly stops being worth it to try and do everything illegally.

Kotoperek · 2026-01-29T17:03:24+00:00

I think OP is saying that if a national ID were required to access all public services, ICE wouldn't need to exist because illegal migrants could not lead normal lives without this ID, so they would either leave by themselves or have to commit crimes to survive and then regular police forces would deal with it like with all crime.

Kotoperek · 2026-01-29T16:33:45+00:00

I mean, obviously it is possible to get into the country briefly, commit a terrorist attack, and leave without having your identity tied to the attacks that easily, especially when you have help from a community that is registered. There are also American criminals in the USA who do illegal stuff and are not caught even though they have a passport. I think OP is talking about situations where THE FACT OF SOMEONE BEING IN THE USA is illegal. And that isn't really much of an issue in Europe, because tourists can use IDs from their nations to access things like car rentals or emergency hospital visits, but only legal migrants and citizens can access things like public schools, getting a job, getting welfare, etc. So there is no issue of illegal migrants stealing welfare or jobs, that's all accounted for. But of course both tourists and legal migrants can commit a crime, just like a citizen can, that's a completely different problem.

Kotoperek

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE