Never said they couldn't.

Never said I couldn't.

"Feels a little misogynistic" is all I said, jeez. 🙄

And yet it's usually the woman in memes like this that's behaving inappropriately and usually the woman that's acting boring in the memes comparing boys and girls.

When did I say otherwise? I even specifically mentioned most of the time in my comment, acknowledging that it's not universal.

*in The Sims

*in Crusader Kings

I may be mistaken, but I thought Twitter still granted it to some people without paying? Or maybe they fully moved it to "check = subscription".

This isn't about The Matrix, this is about an earlier scene in this hypothetical episode of Seinfeld. In this hypothetical episode one may deduce from the dialogue that Jerry was not offered water. But yes, in The Matrix, Neo had water.

Personally I just send ChatGPT the 👏 emoji.

Shame on The Guardian for using a term for a kink when the article itself even mentions a term for the specific form of sexual assault. Why call this anything ralted to gooning when it's tagging/sharking/cum-sharking?

This may seem minor to folks, but it's actually extremely concerning. I'll be very clear though, this behavior was disgusting. I'm not saying people engaging in sexual assault aren't pieces of shit or that they're just engaging in a harmless kink. The problem is that the article also uses a term for a kink/people engaging in a kink and labels it onto people engaging in sexual assault.

It even came with its own specialized vocabulary. Masturbating in public and surreptitiously ejaculating on random women was known as “tagging” or “sharking” – or even “cum-sharking”. Online forums praised perpetrators for being “low inhibition” or “low inhib”, and users contributing to the discussion said they wished they could summon the same fearlessness in themselves.

[...]

Almost immediately, the lawyers stumbled on another weird dimension to the cases they were developing: an online subculture of lonely, disaffected men, known as “gooners”, who bond with one other over their shared fascination with obsessive masturbation and compete with each other to see who can keep going for hours or even days at a time.

While most appear to pursue their self-pleasure in private “goon caves” and are not criminals, some gooners, the lawyers found, took pride in public acts of masturbation. In fact, some were committing sharking assaults at Dollar Tree stores and posting the footage online.

[...]

Another gooner, who was caught filming himself while masturbating at a Dollar Tree in Fern Park, Florida, told police that he did this regularly “in different locations” and uploaded the videos to an OnlyFans page, according to his arrest report.

[...]

Long before it developed an association with criminal acts, “gooning” was understood as a pornography-fueled compulsion, sometimes involving multiple screens at once, that can become a substitute for intimate relationships with others. It also tends to come with a heavy dose of self-loathing. Experts say that online forums and video content aimed at gooners often send the message that obsessive masturbation – whether alone or in public – is as much as men like them can aspire to in life. Webster described it as a “disavowed manic state of triumph over something hideous”.

One common trope of the pornography that these gooners consume has men ejaculating over women’s bodies, faces and hair – acts that, Lankford said, have no basis in evolutionary biology and are difficult to interpret as anything other than demeaning to the women.

As a small aside, I think the last paragraph really shows out weirdly out of touch some of this article is. Does something sexual have to be based on "evolutionary psychology" for it to be considered acceptable? As long as consensual for all parties involved, why does it matter? Just because something makes you personally uncomfortable doesn't mean it's something that's inherently wrong. Kinks can be explored in a consensusal, safe, and healthy way. Conversely, would that suddenly mean other niche kinks that are based in more biological topics are considered acceptable? Does knotting get a pass but facials don't?? Like, this paragraph is just so weird. Anyways, back to the main point.

This is really concerning to me. It's the Overton window shifting to demonize porn instead of the actual issue at hand: sexual assault.

For folks who might not understand why I think this is concerning, consider this hypothetical alternative scenario.

Alcoholic sexually assaults woman

A local woman was attacked in public. During the assault, the assailant's words were slurred and his breath smelled of hard liquor. He was detained and found to be a part of a community that attacks women and posts videos of it online. They call themselves rapists.

Almost immediately, the lawyers stumbled on another weird dimension to the cases they were developing: a disturbing trend amongst people to engage in drinking alcohol. These alcoholics bond with others over their shared interest in alcohol.

While most alcoholics are content to self indulge at home or in bars, many also drink at parties, or large get togethers of many people. At these parties many people drink alcohol. A concerning trend amongst party goers is to have sex. Many of these alcoholics rape women at these parties.

We consulted a biologist and they informed us that alcohol is actually poisonous to the body and there is no reason one should ever consume it.

In case it's not clear, instead of calling the person a rapist they're called an alcoholic, ignores that the person is in a group called "rapists", and then tries to make a connection between alcohol and rape.

What if the article was about finding a kidnapping victim who was tied up and the article attributed it to shibari? It's just so weird to me. I find it disgusting. I hope that others here aren't so puritanical that they can see the problem I'm illustrating.