Search Results
7/19/2025, 8:33:11 PM
6/20/2025, 11:55:30 PM
6/15/2025, 8:12:12 PM
> Well that would mean that most interactions women have with men are de facto intimidating considering the differences in muscle and bone density alone.
We are specifically talking about coercion in regards to consent.
If a man repeatedly will not take no for an answer, then it's a rational assessment that repeated refusal may lead to violent escalation. (Any self protection instructor or rape counsellor will tell you that too.) So a human response to perceived threat can be fawn and freeze.
You keep trying to shift context.
>Well if we're not dealing with objective ethics, what does any of it matter? I could be a political lesbian that defines all hetero sex as de facto rape. As a matter of fact the crux of that stance hinges on the fact that men are statistically stronger then women and thus inherently intimidating.
You do the same trick that Christian and Muslims do.
Whenever you try talking to them about a specific area of ethics they try to shift to meta-ethics, and say exactly what you say.
I always suspect it's a way to get away from the discussion, because meta-ethics is a separate and lengthy debate and it literally alway overtakes the conversation if engaged with and helps them to avoid speaking about the specific ethical issue.
You're already said your lawyer agrees that non-violent coercion is a real thing.
You avoided answering my thought experiment. (Which is your right to do so.)
Nothing more to say, because I see your tactic of constantly trying to divert and change context.
Also, I can't figure out of you gross misinterpretations and non-sequiturs are intentional or unintentional.
I'm gone from the thread; gonna have a walk, do some language learning and then jerk to some porn (maybe crossdresser porn, I haven't decided. Maybe Amber Blank and Kim.).
We are specifically talking about coercion in regards to consent.
If a man repeatedly will not take no for an answer, then it's a rational assessment that repeated refusal may lead to violent escalation. (Any self protection instructor or rape counsellor will tell you that too.) So a human response to perceived threat can be fawn and freeze.
You keep trying to shift context.
>Well if we're not dealing with objective ethics, what does any of it matter? I could be a political lesbian that defines all hetero sex as de facto rape. As a matter of fact the crux of that stance hinges on the fact that men are statistically stronger then women and thus inherently intimidating.
You do the same trick that Christian and Muslims do.
Whenever you try talking to them about a specific area of ethics they try to shift to meta-ethics, and say exactly what you say.
I always suspect it's a way to get away from the discussion, because meta-ethics is a separate and lengthy debate and it literally alway overtakes the conversation if engaged with and helps them to avoid speaking about the specific ethical issue.
You're already said your lawyer agrees that non-violent coercion is a real thing.
You avoided answering my thought experiment. (Which is your right to do so.)
Nothing more to say, because I see your tactic of constantly trying to divert and change context.
Also, I can't figure out of you gross misinterpretations and non-sequiturs are intentional or unintentional.
I'm gone from the thread; gonna have a walk, do some language learning and then jerk to some porn (maybe crossdresser porn, I haven't decided. Maybe Amber Blank and Kim.).
Page 1