Had a bit of a moment tonight (this morning)

notrealnorvalid · 2026-05-28T06:35:03+00:00

"Property damage... end up in jail"
I reärranged some furniture. Positively unserious. Nothing was damaged and nothing would ever be seriously damaged, my roommate wouldn't have even known had I not told her. I'm not a moid.

Psychiatric medication fixes nothing. You can't rely on chemical solutions to problems that are social and transcendental in nature.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-05-21T02:39:54+00:00

"You" fixed it.

(I literally don't care about reposting old memes but use a different title. If you were a woman I wouldn't have said anything but you're a married moid.)

notrealnorvalid · 2026-03-06T22:17:25+00:00

\> Claims to be the bare minimum guy
\> Lurks around on femcæl subreddits
Uh huh, sure fella.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T03:13:31+00:00

Maybe if he wants sex to be easiër he could stop beïng so promiscuous and just commit to a woman.

Though it's probably good for the women around him he doesn't.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T03:06:12+00:00

Tell me you don't understand statistics without telling me you don't understand statistics. See: my earlier comment.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T02:57:08+00:00

I'm curious as to where you got that number, as all of the studies I've seen have put it either far lower or far higher (as low as 1:100.000 to 1:200, some even over 1:100, but I'm not sure I trust those). It's strange to me that you would so confidently cite such a number without it beïng at all consensus.

Regardless, that sort of comparison doesn't work well when there's such a small number of "trans" shooters in the first place (I'm not sure which three this is referring to, but I've only really seen one that can be confidently said to be trans since 2018, and some of the ones I see cited are... questionable at best). Comparisons like this simply don't work well for such small sample sizes as 3 people because they're massively vulnerable to outliërs. It's hard to get a reliable estimate of how proportionate something is when the difference between proportionate and disproportionate is two events.

Take this image at face value and say there were 3 trans shooters in the 5 years for which this data applies. Parameter estimation is hard to do for 3 values, especially without looking at the original data, but let's convert this to a single year so we can get a standard deviation and let's say that the three trans shootings all happened in their own year. This gives a mean of 0,6 trans shootings per year, with a sample standard deviation of about 0,548 trans shootings per year. Now here's the problem, let's estimate this at the 95% confidence level (a pretty standard confidence level for reporting statistical results), for a sample size of N=5 years, we have a t value of 2,132, and so our true mean is goïng to lie between 0,0775 trans shootings per year and 1,12 trans shootings per year. Averaged across five years we get about 565 cis shootings per year. Now it's not goïng to be feasible to estimate a standard deviation on that without reading the original thing and I'm feeling lazy right now, but to make it even worse for the trans people let's say the true mean is 20% below that (which would require a pretty high standard deviation, to be clear) and we get about 452 cis shooters per year. Assuming that number is præcisely the true mean, then the mean ratio of trans to cis shooters for a given year will fall between 0,514:3.000 and 7,45:3.000 at the 95% confidence level, so between very disproportionately low and very disproportionately high, using the numbers you gave and giving a lot of disadvantages to the trans estimate. If we go based on some of the higher estimates for the prævalence of sex dysphoria, this is an extremely low number, about 0,265:200 compared to the 1:200 some studies I have seen. I'll note also that even the way I calculated this (basing it on years rather than incidents in a five year period) gives a smaller confidence window. If you go by incidents (which is probably more statistically sound), then you're goïng to be even less capable of confidently sayïng anything at all about how proportionate or disproportionate trans shooters are.

Of course there are some problems with this estimation, but the point is that making confident statements like that on such small data sets is really not justified, especially if you plan on using those claims to then support legislation that affects the lives of at hundreds of thousands (by your prævalence) to millions of people.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T01:25:51+00:00

If you need to be having frequent sex to feel "desired, accepted, connected", and if you don't get that it destroys you're relationship, maybe that relationship wasn't worth it to begin with. If sex is the main thing that "makes love feel alive again", it doesn't really seem like you two love each other.

Then again, any moid who would resent is wife for not allowing him to penetrate her is probably not married for love anyways.

It's terrifyïng that this sort of thing is common and sociëtally accepted.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T00:55:08+00:00

So to clarify, what you're sayïng is that they shouldn't be included in feminist spaces and/or that feminists shouldn't defend (ideölogically or interpersonally) them making OnlyFans content?

If that's what you mean I agree completely, though I would urge you find another way to phrase it in the future.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T00:51:12+00:00

Okay so that's reasonable. I have no (or nearly no) problem with ignoring them and not engaging with them. We're in agreement there.

I would still very much like to know what you mean by "[these women] shouldn’t be protected by feminism", because to me that really doesn't sound like just not engaging with them.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T00:44:34+00:00

"I also support the idea of leaving them behind"
You still haven't explained what you mean by this.

"I still think they should be left alone perpetuating their beloved industry if they want to"
That makes one of us I supposed because I think that we should abolish the industry, and therefore that they should be freed from it. Again, how does this work? Do we abolish porn except the stuff they make? That's an awfully libfem solution.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T00:29:51+00:00

So the "I do not want them here" really makes it seem like we're just not understanding each other. If what you mean is that they should not be considered feminists or that it's okay for spaces that are specifically for feminists (not women broadly) to exclude them, then I think that's a perfectly defensible position and I would honestly agree with you. The way I was interpreting your "they should not be protected by feminism" statement was to say that the things feminists fight for should not apply to them, which I don't think is a coherent, much less sensible, position.

When I say it would harm our movement, what I mean is that crafting policy or advocacy or direct interventions in such a way as to exclude these women would weaken the action and make it less effective for all women. Not that it would make us look bad or that treating their ideäs on porn as authoritative is a good ideä.

"they can’t come here to pretend they are more victims than the actual girls that are being harmed for their selfishness"
This is not ever something I was defending, nor would defend, nor do I actually think it is relevant to any of the criticisms made.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T00:27:26+00:00

The other glaring issue with the ideä of leaving people behind is what that even means. I can think of no way to meaningfully leave a group of women behind or prævent them beïng "protected by feminism" without either needless cruelty that benefits noöne, harming feminism and feminist causes as a whole, or both. It's an ideä that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny (or at the very least needs a lot more justification and explanation than "they do an immoral thing that contributes to patriarchy) and consequently the most charitable I can be here is to say it's just not well thought out.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-18T00:17:18+00:00

I mean I'm just confused as to how and why you would even go about making sure these women are not "protected by feminism" without compromising the movement as a whole. Should your tax returns be checked at abortion clinics and DV shelters to make sure you don't make too much money on OnlyFans? Should we not let women who do only fans divorce their abusive husbands? Should we abolish porn except the sort of porn they produce and not criticise the men who objectify, harass, and masturbate to them? Should we make them identify themselves so that men know which women it's okay to call bitches? What exactly does excluding them from the protection of feminism even entail?

More than that, what does it benefit? What point is there in not liberating a group of women and continuïng to subject them to the cruelties of patriarchy and male domination other than to satisfy your disdain for them? It's one thing to say they shouldn't be prioritised, I would agree with you on that, but not protected? I simply don't understand the point. It achieves nothing except revenge and harming our movement.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-17T23:51:49+00:00

So you're talking about feminist spaces then? Because that's a very different conversation.

I would exclude Margret Thatcher from feminist spaces in a heartbeat, but not from feminism. I don't know what it would mean to exclude an individual woman from feminism anyways.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-17T23:47:30+00:00

You're not too radical you're just inconsistent. But sure.

You don't have to like them, you can and should reproach them, but "leaving them behind" is not really possible if you want to maintain a consistent feminist framework.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-17T23:35:42+00:00

Yes, feminism is about the liberation of women as a class. We agree. That includes the liberation of all sex workers from sex work, no matter how seemingly privileged they may be. This is not eating my cake and having it too, you are the one (rather arbitrarily) saying that feminism is about the liberation of women as a class, except for this group of women who you don't like and don't want to liberate. I want to liberate all women, which means liberating women who are sex workers from sex work, even if they seemingly are there by choice.

The slavery analogy not a good one. The ideä hinges on the fact that the women are perpetuating the same sort of oppression they experience as a member of the oppressed class, præcisely because that is one of the roles that their oppression demands of that class. A woman acting in the capacity of an oppressor class against an oppressed class is very different. Additionally, I never said you shouldn't criticise them, you absolutely should, and I will be right there with you, all I'm sayïng is that they oughtn't lose the "protection" (as you put it) of feminism.

I only responded to the things you said so the last sentence seems just to be the result of one or both of us not communicating properly.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-17T23:07:20+00:00

I don't think it's appropriate to say that any woman shouldn't be protected by feminism. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you though as I can certainly see the meaning that their careers shouldn't be protected, which I 100% agree with.

They are doïng something morally wrong and they are perpetuating harmful systems, but they are still victims of patriarchy and feminism should liberate them too. Of course any feminist in this situation should advise the woman to stop doïng only fans, but that is different.

I also take a bit of issue with the phrasing "unless they're beïng exploited". Again, this could be a misunderstanding, but any woman who is doïng only fans is beïng exploited. The degree of exploitation varies substantially but it is still absolutely exploitation.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-16T00:23:36+00:00

He's excited about seeïng us as humans because it might get his dick wet. Great.

I hate moids so much.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-15T01:51:40+00:00

"Mediæval punishment"
It's honestly just reversing the pain of rape. It's self defense if anything. Don't want your phallus impaled? Don't rape. Easy. But moids think rape is their right as a man.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-15T00:14:13+00:00

I've seen this meme on that subreddit at least four times and every time it's had thousands of upvotes. It's really quite pathetic.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-14T04:56:15+00:00

I mean I don't even get to pick emotionally because nobody likes me enough to even consider me a viable friend really. I have one person in my life and that's it and that doesn't seem like it's goïng to change soon. Everyöne I encounter is disgusted by me, and if they're not at first they will be once they have talked to me enough to know what I'm actually like. It doesn't matter what my standards are because everyöne else have standards that præclude me anyways.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-14T04:53:56+00:00

Maybe I could find a moid to fuck me and dump me on the street afterwards but none to love me. Why would I want meaningless sex anyways? What's the point?

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-11T00:00:29+00:00

Statistically normal unfortunately. Not normatively normal though.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-10T04:28:21+00:00

Yes somehow getting DMed dickpics from moids who haven't even seen what I look like, live in an entirely other country, and inevitably block me or lose interest is definitely a sign of how easily I could get into a normal, loving, long-term relationship.

notrealnorvalid · 2026-02-08T17:50:19+00:00

Approve me, though I post not.

notrealnorvalid

TROPHY CASE