No I said I didn’t know what you meant by OVER corrections. im ending this now bye

alright i’m done. have a good one

Yah, youre right if we lived in a society with roles reverse discrimination against men would be sexism. but we don’t so its not.

Sorry for making a completely unserious remark after you very seriously called me stupid and intolerant and crazy multiple times. But go ahead... I’M the one with a superiority complex.

I am simply calling attention the implicit and underlying assumptions/logics of your comment.

I didnt accuse you of being an MRA nor do I think you are... so.... also I loved Chuck too.... in high school.

MRAs are just sexist. I don’t think feminism created sexism, so no..... calling the beliefs of the MRA anything but deeply sexist is ridiculous.

Nope. You said sexism is sexism despite the group or person being marginalized. That is the logical foundation of your argument. You cant have it both ways.

No, you made the comparison the minute you stated that it is now socially acceptable to use “sex robots.” Your comment did two things implicitly:

How have I been cornered in a “debate.” My point remains valid: vibrators/dildos are not sex robots and claiming that they objectify men has more to do with sexist and heternormative norms than anything else. If you don’t think that sex toys such as dildos and vibrators are not imagined/understood as stand-ins for…

My point is that policing the sexual behaviors of other women is not rooted in some natural or biological truth. It is a behavior produced by unequal social relations.

Sexism describes a systemic inequality that structures a multitude of social realities, including interpersonal relations. This is why people who outwardly “hate” or “discriminate” against men may be guilty of many things- but not sexism- as there is no systemic inequality structuring, facilitating, or rewarding that…

Where did I say that power wasn’t a natural and unaboidable part of any relationship, be it sexual or otherwise? I simply said that “power” is not “natural” as in rooted in some kind of empirically true essence. As in, the argument that women derive power from sexual desirability must explicitly acknowledge “power” as…

True. Yeah I am not sure why I get myself so involved in these comments when it never leads to anything more productive than my being entertained during commuting.... its not really worth it though when “being entertained” quickly turns into annoyance/frustration/hopelessness. Oy. anyway, thanks.

your false equivocation isn’t working here give it up.

I am not sure the issue of consent is what of utmost importance here, at least not in the way we are currently going about it. Regardless, comparing a chair to an anatomically correct, artificially intelligent, robot is like comparing apples and oranges. Which is to say that, while appearing to make sense, it actually…

I am not sure where to begin, which is probably a sign I shouldn’t respond at all so I’ll keep this short:

derailing tactic /having no response 101 = critique someones grammar/spelling

Firstly, I agree the gender of the sex robots were only discussed by the group opposing them in the article above but that is neither here nor there for the purposes of what I said. My comment was explicitly addressing the comments people made which compared vibrators/dildos to sex robots. I argued that this was a…

I think multiple conversations are happening here which is what a lot of the confusion is about. I didn’t broach the topic of consent here, nor did I address my feelings on sex robots. I meant to address people (men) claiming that resistance to sex robots is sexist toward them and unfair considering the fact that we…