The Debate About Sexual Attraction and Transphobia

I love how the Internet just loves to get pissed.  It really does.  The Internet loses its fucking mind every time there is some big thing that they feel they have to get upset about, because they have nothing better to do with their time.  Lately, it’s been Riley J Dennis getting her panties in a bunch because people chose to call out the video that her girlfriend made where she basically says that if you don’t date a trans person who still has the genitals of the sex they were born as, you’re a bigot.

This argument is so dumb for a lot of reasons.  I’ve already talked before in my post about the Fall of Zinnia Jones how this is simply ridiculous.  After all, you’ll like dick if you just give it a try!  What’s what?  That argument sounds just like the ones that straight people said to gay girls?  I know my friend Quinn heard that same argument from the Priest in the church she grew up in when she was younger.  But now we have the regressive left literally taking that EXACT SAME argument and waving it with the banner of it being a good thing.  That just blows my fucking mind.  They’re so desperate to be seen as tolerant that they take the rhetoric of intolerant people and use it as a way of proving how not-intolerant they are.  There’s so much delicious irony.

I am one of the people who says that Riley’s girlfriend was basically making the argument that sexual “preferences” is a choice.  Because you can choose to magically like dick, if you are a girl and don’t.  Just like I can magically choose to like dick on a girl.  Right?  See, here’s something that all these SJW retards don’t want to realize when they make the argument “the last thing I think about is genitals.”  Really?  Then you’ve never have sex.  See, sex is about sexual contact.  To all the SJW guys, here’s a question – you have a girlfriend?  If you get one, and you’re in bed with her, would you wanna suck her cock?  Would you want her fucking you up the ass with it?  Because if she has one, then that’s how sexual contact will go.  You will be fucking her penis.  I wonder if that’s how Steve Shives gets it on.  Maybe he is living proof that you can grow to like it long enough if you take it.

Everyone I see on Twitter and other sites arguing this crap seems to want to totally ignore the fact that if you are making the argument that what you like to feel, sexually, can be changed.  So ladies, you like getting fuck by a big cock?  Great.  These people are telling you that you can not like that, if you just give it a chance.  Do you see how stupid that is?!

It baffles me how we’ve come to this.  Everyone on the far-left is so desperate to not be called a bigot that we’re going to pretend that what you are sexually into can just be fundamentally changed if you just give it enough of a chance.  All the straight guys are gonna magically want to suck cock and all the straight girls are going to want to touch vaginas.  An argument for which there is NO evidence of ANY kind that it is true.  After all, you’re born wanting what you want.  The same argument that the gay community uses equally applies here.

We live in an age where, in order to be seen as “progressive,” there is a fucking purity test.  This bothers me.  This social justice mentality has infected everything.  A lot of people are saying that going after SJWs is tired, but then we see this stupid crap, and I realize that it’s not.  It’s as big now as it has ever been.  And these people don’t see how they’re doing real damage to their own movement.  Because now, instead of wanting to be allies, they’re made to feel guilty about their “preferences.”  Yeah, because what you like to have when you are at the most intimate moments of your life is just something you can choose.  Imbeciles.

I get where all of this is coming from.  For real, I do.  I maintain that I get why Riley said this crap.  It’s because she didn’t want people to be rejected.  Rejection hurts.  But here’s the thing that Riley and all the people who think like her don’t seem to want to accept – rejection is part of life.  Trust me, I’ve gotten a ton of it.  I know what it’s like.  You gotta accept that not everyone is going to be attracted to you.  Some people who see that giant honking Adam’s Apple are going to be put off.  Some people who see that painfully-average penis are going to be put off.  That’s not bigotry.  It’s because they know what they want to have sexual contact with, and that isn’t it.  Hey Riley, would you suck your girlfriend’s cock if she had one?  Would you let her peg you with it?  If that thought provides even a moment’s hesitation for you, then maybe you fucking get it.  And maybe you can see that this isn’t bigotry.  It’s just someone wanting something else in the bedroom than you.  I’m sorry if you or your friends have been hurt before because someone didn’t want you.  But we all have to deal with that.  Saying that a lesbian is a bigot because she doesn’t want a penis inside her is just as disgusting as the aforementioned Priest saying Quinn should just give dick a try and it would grow on her.

I genuinely can’t see the difference between those points of view.

Until next time, a quote,

“I think putting labels on people is just an easy way of marketing something you don’t understand.” – Adam Jones

Peace out,

Maverick

Advertisements

I Disagree with You, and I am Not Part of a “Right-Wing Hate Machine (A response to Salon)

One of the first tactics that the SJW crowd has when arguing with a person who doesn’t agree with them is to paint them as a conservative.  That’s the strawman that they have in their heads of everyone who thinks that they are wrong and doesn’t immediately believe that they are completely and utterly correct.  I’ve always found this interesting.  When Christina Hoff Sommers, aka The Factual Feminist, published videos where she debunked a lot of third-wave feminist talking points, she was immediately labeled as conservative and dismissed.  Never mind that she has been a registered Democrat for over 20 years.  This tactic also has the purpose of being able to get their side of the fence to not even listen to the arguments of those who oppose them.  They’re a conservative, so they are wrong, and we don’t have to listen to what they have to say.  That’s the mindset.  It’s toxic, stupid, juvenile, and what’s more – it’s wrong.

When Todd Nickerson wrote his article on Salon.com where he talked about why he is a pedophile and not a monster, and we should feel bad for him and his plight, I made a response where I, in no uncertain terms, said that I didn’t feel bad for him.  I outlined why.  I spoke about articles like his are starting something dangerous.  It’s starting a culture where people are going to justify pedophilic acts on the grounds, “it’s my orientation!”  I’m right.  You know that.  For every pedophile like Todd, who abstains from acting on their urges, there are plenty more who don’t.  Todd made the creepiest statement ever and said that pedophiles feel even worse about that than normal people.  No joke, that’s what he said.  Todd…ew.  But the fact is that if people like Todd work to get this kind of thing accepted as it is, then the truth is that it will be used to justify when a pedophile does go to far.  Because “tolerance” is just one step away from “acceptance.”  And I guarantee you, Todd, that people who do want to act on their urges to have sex with little children (not just grope!) would like nothing better than for that to be the case.

In the name of tolerance, you are opening the door to people who will so obviously exploit it to do harm the children.  I’m sorry, Todd.  Really, I don’t think you’re a terrible person.  You have this idealized view of pedophiles as people who all suffer in silence.  Sure, those people may exist.  But there are those who don’t just suffer in silence.  Those who act on what they want, and ruin the lives of children.  People like the skating coach of my friend, who helped make her terrified of any kind of sexual contact for years.  He would have loved it if he could make the argument that this is his orientation, and we should accept it.  Because if we accept it, then he doesn’t have to pay for what he does.  Or if he does have to pay, it’s in some small way.  Slap on the wrist.

I am a liberal, Todd.  I am a liberal who thinks that your views are wrong, because I see the bigger picture.  I’m sorry that you suffer in silence.  But that’s the price you pay for wanting to have sex with children.  Let’s not idealize what you want.  Brass tax, you want to boink kids.  The fact that you have come out in a new article and condemned people like me shows that not only did you miss the point that people like me were making, but you are unable to see what the problem is.  Here’s a ink to Todd’s newest article, where he paints all his detractors as monsters.  Part of a “right-wing hate machine.”  We need to talk about this, Todd, because I refuse to let myself to sucked into the SJW mentality of just labeling me a conservative and that’s it.

You missed the point, Todd.  Glad to see that you at least saw part of my argument.  You did argue for us to “normalize pedophilia.”  You want your community to be tolerated and accepted by society at large.  For us not to view you as monsters.  While I hate slippery slope arguments as much as the next person, I can’t deny that here there is a reason to fear the worst.  People suck, Todd.  People are disgusting creatures that will use and exploit whoever they can, whenever they can.  Maybe you and the people on your forum are all wholesome and filled with light, but the truth is that as a species, we suck.  So what am I supposed to take away from the argument that, in the name of tolerance, we should embrace pedophiles and not treat their urge to have sex with children as wrong?

If pedophilia becomes just another accepted orientation, then that opens the floodgates to court cases when people can argue that touching or having sex with children isn’t as bad as it seems.  Maybe it won’t keep pedophiles out of jail, but it will most certainly make the law much softer on them.  And that is something I cannot accept.  I’m sorry, Todd, but pedophilia is wrong.  It is wrong to want to have sex with children.  No matter how you paint it, at the end of the day, you want to have sex with a child.  I don’t accept it because I don’t want to start thinking that a child who is the victim of a sex crime isn’t so bad off because pedophiles are part of a protected class of people.  Just another sexual orientation.  “Oh, he was just expressing his sexuality!”  It’s not a slippery slope if it is so obvious what people will do, is it?  Are we just going to forget that humanity sucks?  Is that cool with you, Todd?

When I wrote my original post, I asked how far this tolerance culture is going to go.  How far down this rabbit hole everything would run to, before the madness would grow and consume everything.  I still wonder that, to this day.  We have a person who doesn’t sound like the worst guy in the world, wanting to get something that I will ALWAYS view as a mental disorder classified as a legit sexual orientation.  In doing so, he would open the gates for that designation to be exploited, and god-knows how many children’s victimhood to be ignored.  Maybe Todd can sleep well with that, but I can’t.  As I said, here is my prejudice.  Here is my bigotry.  I am a bigot against pedophiles.  From where I’m sitting, in this case, it’s the safer route to take.

I am a liberal, Todd, and I am 100% against you and what you stand for.  Don’t go letting the SJW mentality twist this around on me.

Until next time, a quote,

“We are selfish, base animals.  We try real hard and occasionally we can aspire to be something less than pure evil.”  -Gregory House, House, M.D.

Peace out,

Maverick

Pedophilia is Cool Now?! (A response to Salon Magazine)

I don’t even know where to start.  How do you begin to talk about this?  There’s a lot of mixed-up emotions in my head about this.  I won’t be doing a typical response where I have bits of the article and I respond to each of them.  I will have a link to the article, because I believe that you all should be able to see it for yourself and judge what you see and get your own ideas.  That’s something I believe very strongly in – a free exchange of ideas.  However, I have thoughts about this, and as Lewis Black said, that can really fuck in the faith thing.  And this feels like a faith thing.  I am arguing with a religion.  It has brought up a lot of ugly emotions, and I guess I found where my line is.  Here’s a link to Salon’s article.  Now let’s talk about…one of the most disgusting ideas that could actually come to flourish.

Does anyone remember a time, back when the debates for gay marriage were a much newer thing?  When only one or two states had legalized it?  I remember hearing conservative America talking about how, “just you wait!  Next they’ll say that it’s okay to marry children too!”  We all rolled our eyes and groaned when we heard stuff like that.  It’s so much bullshit, right?  I mean, how could we possibly choose to accept pedophilia as an acceptable sexual orientation.  It’s wanting to have sex with children.  That’s sick!  That would never happen.

But here we are!  Years later, and here we are, reading an article that actually is trying to make the argument that being a pedophile is totally cool.  “Pedosexual,” Buzzfeed Justice calls it.  Oh yeah, it’s a totally cool sexual orientation!  Because “Fck H8,” am I right?  All the conservatives who pandered that line are vindicated, and I fucking hate that!  I hate that we have a group of people who are out there, arguing that being a pedophile is totally alright!  It’s infuriating!  And all on the ground of being “tolerant.”

I have made no secret of my belief that if two people are able and do consent to an act, what they do beyond that is their business.  However rough or kinky they want to go, if all parties involved in something consent, then that’s where the argument ends, for me.  But now, I am being asked to accept the sexuality of someone who wants to have sex with a person who can’t consent.  And I can already hear the argument –

But Lucien, the guy in the article says that he never acted on it!  That he never will!  He talks about how tortured he is to want something that he can’t have.

You know what, I guess I’ve found my intolerance.  I’ve finally found it.  Here is the line that I draw.  For all the SJWs who want to call me out for being a bigot, here you go.  Here’s my bigotry, for all to see.  I don’t fucking care if this man suffers.  I really don’t.  He wants to have sex with children.  That is the the FACT of this.  If he is sexually attracted to children, then he actually does physically desire them.  He wants to be with them, on a level that they cannot consent to.  That is the person that they want me to be totally okay with?  Someone who wants to boink a kid?  No, I won’t accept this person.  I won’t do that.  He can be as miserable as he fucking likes!  Yeah, this guy has his head on straight.  I’ve give him that much.

But then you look at the countless people who have done this.  Look at the Catholic church, and the mechanisms they have to defend pedophiles.  I hear the testimonies of survivors of being sexually abused by priests, and I’m horrified.  This poor fucking people.  Some of them carried that pain with them their entire lives.  That episode of FRONTLINE where they get into the corruption of the Vatican (linked here) and you see grown man being broken down to tears because of years of sexual abuse by not only a priest, but his father.

I’ve told this story before, but I had a friend who was molested by her skating coach, when she was 14 years old.  The girl is naturally shy and submissive, so she carried that secret with her for years.  It was one of the reasons that she was so terrified of intimacy, when she got older.  She never went to the police.  She sent an anonymous letter to the man’s wife, telling her everything.  I don’t know whatever became of that man.  But she said that at least the truth was out there, and while the wife may deny it, she’ll always have that suspicion in the back of her mind.  That was justice enough for my friend.  I think about her, and how horrible she felt.  She was confused, blamed herself, didn’t know what to do.  A kid who trusted this authority figure, and had to carry that burden for a long time.  She still has it, in a way.

This guy who wrote that article, may be the nicest guy in the world.  But he is asking me to cross a bridge that I cannot.  I cannot, and will not, accept that a pedophile and their sexual desires deserve the same respect as other people.  What’s more, I can already hear the counterarguments to my way of thinking –

But Lucien, people used to say that being gay was wrong!

Gay people can consent!  A child cannot!  Ever!  This man wants the same respect as everyone else for wanting to have sex with children.  I tell you now – the answer is no.  I will not give you that respect, sir.  You will not have it.  Not in my mind.  Not ever.  Because for every person like you, sir, who doesn’t touch children, I can already see those who do falling back on the arguments you make.  They will claim that they have a sexual orientation and that they should be respected for it.

Where does this end?!  Where does the quest to make sure that no one can even vaguely be construed as “intolerant” end?  When we excuse rape?  After all, that could be construed as an orientation too.  Hell, these people are making an argument for acceptance of an orientation with people who can’t consent.  Let’s add one more.  At least with necrophiliacs, no one is getting hurt.  Where does this insane roller-coaster of social justice end?

You will never have my respect.  I guess I am intolerant.  Finally, the SJWs have me.  I cannot accept this.  This is a line too far.  So be it.  I’m a bigot.  A bigot against pedophiles.  You got me.  Do with that whatever you will.

Until next time, a quote,

“The goodness you speak of must be forever building.  It must have strength!”  -Captain Nemo, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

Peace out,

Maverick