Report comment

Report comment

Can you provide evidence that this is at all common?

You implicitly admitted that it happens, and if one male can do it, there is a critical mass of women doing it, and if one woman can do it, there is a critical mass of men doing it.

Report comment

we see straight men claiming to be homosexuals, indeed “gold star” homosexuals, no less, because they only have sex with women claiming to be men.

Can you provide evidence that this is at all common?

Report comment

> radicals can credibly talk about oppression of stranger sexualities by the combined gay-and-straight bloc.

And conservatives can credibly talk about oppression of straights by homosexuals in certain environments. Observe that in those environments, just as we see white people claiming to black or American Indian, we see straight men claiming to be homosexuals, indeed “gold star” homosexuals, no less, because they only have sex with women claiming to be men.

Report comment

Meanwhile a lot of people seem to be mocked, but nothing worse, for saying things like “I accept homosexuality, but I don’t think I should be forced to believe in it.”

Report comment

“Deciding who is in the “pack” is complicated and tricky business governed more by politics, advocacy and convenience than by careful and consistent application of moral principles. The principles usually are usually post hoc justifications for the moral judgements one has already made up his/her mind about.”

You also seem to have understood me and the above restatement of the general principle is excellent.

Report comment

An example that seems to fit the pattern you propose has been the successful and by now several centuries long push to make marriages between older men and younger women less acceptable and practical.

The Christian Progressive feminist anti-vice movement of 19th century America wanted to raise the age of consent as much as possible, not only to protect women but to make sure those poor angels weren’t tricked into consenting to sex with men of means. It seems to have been energized by attempts by practical minded doctors to regulate prostitution and institute check ups to stem the spread of venerel diseases. The movement was anti-prostitution, again fits the Puritan ancestor. The people and organizations where also behind other pushes like giving women the vote and banning liquor.

It is interesting to note that the age of consent they wanted to institute was *21*, 18 being their more modest fallback goal. Another historical accident in the making of the rules most moderns seem to think very non-arbitrary it seems!

If we could travel to alternative universes one of the funner things would be exposing alternative 21st century Americas to each other and see what arguments each elite would make for being the most holy.

A modern source for the movement in question:
http://www.cardozolawandgender.com/uploads/2/7/7/6/2776881/15-2_ehrlich.pdf

The fascinating thing about it is that reading the quotes it seems like common evolutionary ancestor of both modern “fundamentalist” Christian (virginity in men is important! Shrieking against prostitution and pornography. etc.) and mainstream Progressive sexual morality.

Report comment

The bravery debate part was directed at suntzu not you. The semantics debate part was directed at everyone on this thread.

I didn’t address your comment because it seems plausible to me at first glance, and if your data checks out I might come to agree with you. If I may paraphrase/alter your position a bit:

Deciding who is in the “pack” is complicated and tricky business governed more by politics, advocacy and convenience than by careful and consistent application of moral principles. The principles usually are usually post hoc justifications for the moral judgements one has already made up his/her mind about.

That sounds fairly likely to me.

Report comment

Some seem to want to have simplified it and are engaging the comment as if I just said “Pedophilia is not bad, transsexuals are bad.” This isn’t what I was saying, nor was it something I wasn’t saying.

What you said was that incorporating transexuals in the left coalition and casting pedophiles out of the coalition was an accident of left politics.

Trans are now high status super victims. Transsexuals higher status than homosexuals, homosexuals higher status than women, and women higher status than men, with the peculiar result that we see heterosexual males and heterosexual women having sex with each other but claiming to be homosexual men having sex with trans men, much as there seem to a remarkably large number of lily white blacks and lily white native Americans.

Pedophiles, on the other hand, become ever more evil, and the minimum age for sex to be pedophilic grows every older.

But, it could have equally well been the other way around. Not very long ago, pedophiles were not that evil, and the lefter you were, the less evil they were.

What I think really drove the change was the puritan feeling that white heterosexual males should never have any fun, hence marital rape, date rape, etc. If all the pedophiles had been gay, they probably would be in the coalition today.

Report comment