Donna Baker5 said:Did you even bother to read what I said was objective? I’m assuming you didn't, because I laid out the objective reasoning behind why this topic even exists in the first place. Look, obviously we weren't all raised the same way—our mindsets vary—and how someone feels is a subjective concept (I mentioned this before, but maybe they skipped the lesson on objectivity vs. subjectivity in your school?). The generalization here is that all women should feel subordinate.
'It's certainly not just one dimension or perspective.' Well, you just proved my point. What exactly are we even arguing about here? Or do you honestly want me to change my mind and say that every woman *needs* to feel subordinate just to stroke your tiny male ego? Besides, what do you know about how a woman should feel?
Social structures, objectifying practices—or even just things that stem from our biological reality—all define the environment where we go about defining ourselves subjectively. Most of the time, we define ourselves in response to those visible forms or established frameworks. That feeling of not being subordinate is also a reaction to certain forms that are unavoidable within a specific cultural circle, even as biological beings. Take something like *Rosemary's Baby* or *Blue* from the *Three Colors* trilogy; they have these recognizable motifs that speak to something universal—we have symbols, contexts, paradigms. So, there isn't really a "should"—in *Blue*, a male (subjugated) ego complicates all those points to such a bizarre degree that any kind of dictate or sense of obligation becomes a completely irrelevant viewpoint. My own little female ego is also a bit of a complicating factor, I suppose, but in this context, it's irrelevant.
Donna Baker5 said:And if I may ask—what exactly did I do to get under your skin? What's got you feeling so offended all of a sudden?🙄 Look, I just wanted to point out that just because one person feels "submissive" during sex, it doesn't mean every woman feels that way—not even close. There isn’t really any objective ground to stand on here—not if we're being honest. At the end of the day, how someone feels is entirely subjective, right?
Look, this is just my objective take. That whole feeling of being "subservient" to men? It really just stems from those deep-seated patriarchal mindsets that have been forced upon women for generations. If we lived in a different kind of society—one that actually functioned differently—our thoughts and feelings would be completely different too.
Let's say this is an objective opinion: that sense of being subordinate stems from patriarchal conditioning imposed on women. If we lived in a different kind of society, our thoughts and feelings would likely be quite different.
So, I suppose the question is whether it’s even possible to have an "objective" conversation about feeling subordinate—and if so, what part is actually subjective versus just a reflection of something objective? If that were the topic—which I don't really see as being the case here—it wouldn't just be one single dimension or perspective, I imagine.
Some people tell me I’m just too sensitive—that I expect far too much from others. Personally, I call it my "Why I Hate Stephanie" complex. Stephanie was this little girl who treated me with such blatant disrespect back when I was just a kid from a working-class family. She actually snatched a piece of food right out of my hands and tossed it onto the filthy floor! And since the floor was mostly covered in old jam, that spot was ruined forever. Years later, I remember reading how Hemingway touches on why buttered toast always seems to land face down. My best friend from my days in Stanleyville was Louis—he eventually moved away to New York City, and honestly, I can’t remember anything about him except his black hair, though that was back when I was maybe four years old. Stephanie was just that dominant, that overwhelming. There was also this other girl in our circle who used to sleep on a mattress on the floor with her mom. That whole apartment building was basically a battlefield, and I managed to leave it with about one and a half people on my side. I actually wrote an essay about Louis when I started school; the teacher expected us girls to write about our female friends, but he was the only one I had. I don't really recall what I wrote, but looking back, I think he had that classic, understated charm that made him such an easy subject for my stories. Maybe it was even something about his hair. As for Stephanie, she probably just leaves a bad taste in your mouth, at best. That's just the kind of person she was.
As for me, I’m currently eating watermelon cut into cubes because it’s just more practical that way. I’m not exactly a tech wizard, either. I once had an encounter with a total primitive who bumped into me with his car on a crosswalk; he just stood there cutting the air with his hand and chewing behind the glass while I dealt with the aftermath. Then yesterday, at the bank where the line wasn't moving at all, some guy tried to cut right ahead of everyone. The teller—who works in a place that doesn't even use a number system—called him out on it. He knew perfectly well that people were standing right next to him who had arrived before him; he totally acknowledged it. Meanwhile, the rest of us just stood there waiting for our turn. At one point, he looked at me—I think he actually felt awkward—and I just thought, *please, don't, you're making me feel sick.* Right before him, a woman stormed up to the same window after huffing and puffing in line for ages—her bangs were flying everywhere in the AC vent—and then once she got to the counter, she stayed there for forty-five minutes straight asking "this" and "that." Like, why were you sighing and complaining earlier if you weren't going to care about how long you were usurping a single miserable service window while everyone else behind you is losing their minds? And then people like that actually think they deserve respect. Honestly, I have more respect for a butcher who smells like his job than for people who leave a stench of entitlement on everything they touch.
I suppose I "penetrate" quite frequently—perhaps because I tend to shy away from the idea of manipulating others by being the one who is penetrated. To penetrate feels more transparent—and I’m not necessarily trying to be moralistic here—it’s just more defined; it has a specific shape and stance. It isn't surprising that for centuries, there has been all this talk regarding female "mysticism." While I don't subscribe to the idea of some inherent mystery within women—at least not in the way it has been historically or culturally framed—following the line of thought sketched by Rebecca Scott3—which is essentially the demonization of women—I do believe that mystifying the feminine principle is quite effective. Men often lean on that very mystification when they are trying to pursue a woman they desire. Emphasizing conversation based on the premise of I am male and you are female is also just another version of this shifting game of penetrating and allowing oneself to be penetrated. It's similar to temporary submissiveness, or perhaps pulling back, just to consciously counteract the primary idea of penetration. It might be about allowing someone onto your territory just so the roles can eventually flip, allowing the guest to be penetrated instead. In reality, even though it's historically clear that phallic culture is dominant—and that it has primarily subjugated women politically—all this power play is built around a respect for strength. This starts with reproductive strength and moves into a certain psychological strength generated by a woman's specific biological makeup. That sense of integrity, which truly seems to radiate through penetration, is (perhaps) a reaction to the wholeness and purposefulness of the female biological construct. It reflects our cultural reverence for birth and motherhood, the umbilical cord of every person, and our connection to the world. Still, these are all relatively archaic and archetypal notions. Today, we probably need to deal with simpler principles of attraction and rejection based on physical and social adequacy—almost following economic criteria. Nowadays, everyone seems to be trying to penetrate, because, as some sociologists argue, the battlefield has expanded into the psychological realm (identity). Perhaps the distinction between the penetrator and the penetrated is becoming unnecessary or outdated. Maybe it’s less about penetration now and more about clicking—or mutual clicking. Or perhaps it's about an upgrade (an expansion of integrity?) for both genders, who are both operating within the same system of producing new meanings for goods—both human and other forms of capital.
Over on the LJS forums, there was a discussion started by a male user asking women about the sensation of being penetrated. On the Psychology board, the concept of transgender identity was briefly touched upon. Transgender identity itself isn't particularly interesting to most people (though I find it fascinating in terms of social roles), which is evident from the response to the topic. However, reading what Rebecca Scott3 writes again, maybe this is the ecology of a new discipline for integrating masculine and feminine principles—in the sense of providing an "asexual" support to natural processes.
Jacob Foster11 said:It just isn't possible—the system simply doesn't support something like that.
Editing is a bit problematic—if I'm being honest—mostly because there isn't any real way to track changes. It leaves you in a position where you basically have to take a moderator's word for it when they claim they've altered something, which I guess is a tough spot to be in.
I didn't even go so far as to say the system actually supports it—and as for that last part? No comment.
For instance, over on the Psychology boards, we have users who frequently mess up their citations—and they do it in such a way that it triggers this massive chain reaction of misinformation throughout the entire thread. I usually step in to fix things by correcting those quotes, but—if we were strictly adhering to that whole "trust no one" principle—any one of those forum members could just claim that I took liberties and altered the actual content myself. I suppose, though, there is still an expectation of at least some basic mutual decency and integrity between us.
coastalcrane55 said:I don't think you guys really get it, I mean, I resisted him, I didn't want anything to do with him or even have him touch me. I remember fighting back, but I was under the influence of alcohol and he was just way stronger than I was. I guess it doesn't really matter if he was 15 or 35 if I didn't want any contact with him at all. It’s not exactly the same thing to hook up with someone versus being forced into sex, is it? 🤷
I’m seeing a psychiatrist, but I just can't bring myself to talk to her about this. I tried opening up to one person once, but they just spat on me and told me it was totally normal, that I actually wanted it all along. So, I guess that's why I'm posting here anonymously.
Regarding the question in the title—you aren't to blame, though someone else is responsible, and maybe partially yourself too, since you essentially put yourself in the situation where this could happen. But, looking at it from the perspective of being 13, it might not seem like one thing led to another—I'd rather ask who was supposed to be looking out for you and your friend, given that you were both minors. It sounds a bit extreme, but considering that, by American law, you wouldn't have even been allowed to sit in the front seat of a car just a year prior, you were so still "just a kid." There is also responsibility to be found in the upbringing—the kind that fails to warn a child about the dangers of drinking or how to handle certain situations—and obviously, a complete lack of sexual education. So, did you ever tell your mom or anyone else in your family what happened?
I'm seeing a psychiatrist, but I just can't bring myself to talk to her about it. I once opened up to someone, but they just judged me and told me it was normal, that I actually wanted it. That's why I'm posting here, anonymously.
But why can't you talk to your psychiatrist about it?
Generally speaking, an event like this can certainly push a person in one direction or another. For me, a single unpleasant encounter—just that, occurring around the age you were then—where a middle-aged creep forced himself on me (which was really just a form of explicit sexual harassment), shook me deeply, though in a different way, more in terms of anger (and fear, I suppose). I never spoke to that person again, even when we crossed paths, and I never let him get close to me again, even when he tried to provoke me. Sometimes I wonder if that incident triggered some of my later coping mechanisms, reactions, and behavioral patterns. Actually, based on what I've experienced, I think that's often the case; the years you're in now are probably the most formative for creating deep-seated silences or, hopefully, a more complete understanding of yourself and the world.
hollowtrucker77 said:No, I don't think that's necessary—not really. The quality and overall presentation of the posts are really the users' responsibility—not the moderators'. I guess it’s just how things work, but maybe people should take more pride in what they put out there. If a post is just unreadable, I suppose you can go ahead and delete it without any second thoughts—or, honestly, you could just leave it up, since most people on the forum will probably just ignore it anyway. The moderators certainly have the ability to edit posts—they have that power at their fingertips—but I guess it would be better if they kept that to a minimum. It might be worth sticking to the basics whenever possible. Even if we’re only talking about adjusting a few inches—or maybe just fixing a minor grammatical slip—it only takes one person with an axe to grind to start spinning a narrative that some malicious moderator is out to destroy their literary masterpiece. Unfortunately, there were even rumors circulating that a moderator went as far as editing a post just to make it look like an insult—only to then ban the user for it. I guess it's one of those situations where things aren't always what they seem, maybe? So, I suppose it goes to show that having good intentions isn't always enough—it really isn't.
I suppose the original post could always be archived somewhere—perhaps in a private section of the forum. That way, it could be retrieved if someone decides to start playing games with the content. Honestly, anyone posting here should probably realize that if they include something meant to trigger an argument, that specific part might eventually be stripped away just to clean up the thread. I don't quite see why there's such a push for this idea of "post integrity," especially if the reason for editing is clearly stated and the original version is kept on file. Though, I guess you shouldn't really be editing a post and issuing a formal warning at the same time—it feels like it should be one or the other.
coastalcrane55 said:Hey there. I’m curious to see what you guys think about this. When I was 13, I was staying at a friend's place for summer vacation. We met some guys and hung out with them, even though I wasn't really interested in boys or romance back then. One of them definitely showed interest in me, but I just wasn't feeling it. He kept pushing for things like holding hands and trying to make some kind of connection, and eventually, my friend talked me into becoming his girlfriend because she already had boyfriends and thought it would be cool, you know? 🙄 That’s how my first kiss happened, and honestly, I didn't want anything beyond that. We ended up being alone together a few times, and every single time he would touch me and try to get me to touch him, too. I didn't really know how to react since that kind of stuff wasn't even on my radar yet. One time he actually tried to have sex with me, but I started fighting him off, so he stopped.
One evening, my friend and I were hanging out alone on her patio, found some beer and wine, and decided to drink. (Again, I'll mention that she was the popular one, and I was just this pathetic, easily influenced kid who didn't know how to say no) It was the very first time I'd ever tasted alcohol, and it didn't take much for me to get drunk. I remember that guy just sort of appeared out of nowhere, we laughed, and then we went over to a bench nearby in the dark. Anyway, we had sex. My memory of it is pretty blurry, and I only really figured out what happened from what people told me the next day. The guy was 15 at the time.
I once mentioned this to someone, and they just told me, "Well, it's your own fault." Am I really to blame? Was that abuse?
I struggle with anxiety and depression, and I won't lie, I've been pretty promiscuous. I'm 18 now and I've slept with more than ten people. I've also dealt with bulimia and anorexia. Could these things be consequences of what happened?
I hope someone can find the time to read this and give me some kind of answer. Thanks. 🙂
If you’re dealing with these issues, I assume you have some sort of ongoing connection with professionals outside of this forum. Have you brought this up with your psychiatrist? In principle, your current behavior and certain struggles might be linked to how you—even now, five years later—are processing those past experiences. But, I suppose I don't see what you'll really gain by asking about this here on a message board—it might be better to talk to someone in your actual life who knows you well and whom you can trust not to give you just any random advice. Most importantly, you probably don't need people causing you harm with bad suggestions or just tossing clichés at you. If I were you, I'd look for someone in your real-world circle who truly knows you and whom you trust; and if you are seeing any doctors, therapists, or psychologists, you should definitely reach out to them.
It’s been quite a while since we’ve had such a colorful topic on the board. Honestly, I don't see much of a way forward other than just asking her to pay you back whenever she's able. Given $300, nobody has actually gone broke yet—and look, you did a good thing here, maybe even truly helped out her kids, so perhaps the best move is just to wait. You might even try inviting her out for coffee to see if you can smooth things over regarding your relationship and this whole mess (including the trouble it's caused you). I suppose I wonder if there was anything significant between you two before the whole optical mouse and translation situation—did she ever help you out or treat you fairly in other ways? I assume she did, especially back when you trusted her enough to lend money. Or... was there an unspoken expectation that this loan was more of a stake in something?
Adam Miller46 said:I suppose you must be thrilled that a single word gave you the excuse to wipe my entire post, even though you clearly have no clue that it isn't even used as slang—just as much as giving children royal names doesn't make them racial slurs. That’s how Dennis Bailey2 reacted; he acted as if he had no other way to refute my points. He just pointed his finger like a child, shouting, "Look! I called it racism!" and then tried to act superior, as if he were on some "transcendental" level above me. In reality, he just lacks the capacity to argue against the rest of what I wrote, because this isn't about being right or wrong; it's simply about having fundamentally different views on life.
It is truly wonderful being a moderator and getting to scrub posts that simply don't align with your own personal opinions and logic.... Maybe I missed the mark entirely, or perhaps I completely lost the plot. Even when my writing is blunt, I write in the hope that someone might recognize themselves, or at least find a spark of truth, in my words....
So, let's get back to the author's original point:Am I out of my mind for pointing out something that deviates from the norm?
The section that was removed was only taken out because it was veering into trolling and off-topic territory—not really because of one specific word, but rather due to a persistent and overly broad approach that sort of hijacked the discussion away from what the OP actually asked. Another thing is that the question—and honestly, this whole thread—is pretty narrow in scope, which makes it all too easy to trigger short tempers and turn into a flame war.
I was reading an article in Time where Boris Orešić put together some sort of psycho-profiles of these attackers—or rather, socio-psychological profiles from a journalistic standpoint. I’ve been thinking, perhaps there should be a distinction made between aggressors from urban areas versus those from rural or provincial settings. There seems to be some potential for interpretation there. On one hand, you have the issues of consumerist culture, stress, and the economic downturn, which clearly disrupt family dynamics and upbringing. Then, more generally, there is the issue of uneducated parents who pass their own frustrations—their inability to articulate or deal with problems, combined with a teenager's skewed view of society and psychology—directly onto their children.
Even if we strip away some of the sensationalism and the tendency to appeal to the readers' baser instincts found in that article, a few good illustrations of the aforementioned problem remain. One attacker was allegedly the son of someone who apparently "built three houses in Lourdes" by making wreaths, and whose business provides extra income for several neighbors. Within that family, everyone is supposedly "peaceful," yet the son is an alcoholic and aggressive. Another attacker is described as generally "calm," withdrawn, and socially awkward—which he obviously compensates for by hanging out with the first guy and developing this persona of a crude idiot who catcalls women. This, I think, is where the black hole of provincial psychology begins. How do we prevent uneducated idiots—who truly don't understand basic factual questions in their private lives, let alone ethics or anything more sophisticated—from endangering the lives of others? I actually encountered a similar example just in the last few days, so I know exactly what kind of lack of integrity and worldview we are dealing with.
There is also the issue regarding the psychology of these "quiet" neighborhoods and their people. "Quiet neighborhoods" usually just mean a lot of silence surrounding things that a civilized society would actually discuss. The main principle there is minding your own business. What percentage of the US territory is made up of such places? Back when Kursar, a professor from FPZ, was attacked in Washington, D.C., quite a few active, urban student groups rose up and put pressure on the Police Academy. But what kind of forces exist in a tiny village where part of the local economy relies on the business of a violent family? If there is a local aggressor who harasses other people's kids in cafes and streets on Sunday nights, who is going to speak up and say the problem exists and take action? That’s the issue—usually, there is neither the courage nor the means to stand up to people like that.
Offtopic: If we really want to test whether the moderators are truly independent, we probably need to move beyond just demanding specific actions. In light of that... ...I would simply ask that, when we engage in a speculative or phenomenological look at this case, we try to be as concise, plausible, and practical as possible. Also, I should mention that I’ve cleared out a few posts along the lines of "shoot the perpetrators in the head"—and I realize they weren't meant seriously—but mostly because they don't really add anything to the discussion.
It seems we have already identified the relevant variables worth discussing here—personally, I find myself most interested in the following: who, or what, actually serves as the agency for raising the youth; how micro-social peer climates or sub-climates produce and direct aggression, and how other sub-climates (like regional ones—given the mention of provincialism) influence that process; and whether a surveillance system itself creates a need to regain a sense of control through aggressive behavior.
The population of a forum isn't a perfect mirror of the general public—generally speaking, any localized or defined population is easier to control or "re-educate," if that is indeed the goal, compared to fluid groups or those still in the process of forming (or perhaps even hidden groups that we haven't had the chance to "field research" or properly identify yet). Therefore, the question posed in the title might be better phrased as: is prediction even possible when studying behavior and social trends? Why is it relatively easy to predict consumer behavior, yet so difficult to predict local urban aggressors? Is it perhaps because these latter cases are still, for now, somewhat sporadic?
Matthew Grant9 said:@rustydrifter10...honestly, I don't think that would be a great move, and we should probably steer clear of that specific angle entirely! Instead, let's put all our energy into convincing the higher-ups and the decision-makers that this new corner of the site is actually a necessity.
I’m feeling a little lost here and could really use some clarification—feel free to shoot me a DM if that's easier—because I have this nagging feeling we're drifting away from the core issue, and I'd hate for that to negatively impact how the admin team views our proposal for the new sub-forum. I'm just not quite sure if you're suggesting I start a thread for the purpose of: a.) "Recruiting members" to join the new sub-forum. b.) Conducting a general analysis of whether we can actually hold truly reasoned debates on Reddit without people bringing gender, nationality, or other identities into it. (By that, I mean those instances where such comments are totally irrelevant to the topic. Of course, there are topics where those factors matter, and we shouldn't ignore them there!) c.) Taking a purely psychological approach to the whole problem. d.) A mix of the options above. e.) Something else entirely.
Just a quick side note: unfortunately, I'm really reluctant to go with option c. I mentioned before that I usually only start threads when I'm genuinely stumped, and since about 80% of my own family graduated from two different departments at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (specifically psychology and sociology), my natural curiosity combined with that upbringing makes the whole psychological aspect of this issue feel... well, pretty obvious to me. 😬
(...) because he's essentially illustrating the work that still needs to be done regarding this topic—specifically, the willingness to fully commit to a concept and put everything on the line to make it happen.
I have to ask... (yes, yes, I know I'm being a bit much, but at least I'm being polite about it!) ...is this advice coming from an administrative standpoint or just as a fellow user? I'm only asking because I'd love to hear what the administration thinks, and I'm sure others would too... just give us a sign that you've noticed us or that our ideas are actually being considered!
Well, more for testing out parts of your concept, I suppose. It might be useful just to see how an idea actually plays out in a live discussion—mostly for your own benefit, really. I can't exactly pinpoint which specific idea you have in mind, since I can't read your thoughts, obviously. I’m just offering this as a potential approach; it isn't strictly tied to how we set up this sub-forum, though it could certainly be helpful.
Well, I suppose jokes aside, we really are reworking things that have been bothering us for a while—so drawing parallels to other subreddits, while framing it as a vision for a higher quality space that might overcome the supposed flaws of current sections, definitely belongs in this conversation. Even if those "flaws" are just basic introductory stereotypes or mere teasers. Redmarlin3 (Herpov 😍) off-topic isn't actually what it seems, because it illustrates the real work still needed here—specifically, the willingness to fully commit to a certain concept and put everything on the line to make it happen.
Nina, I’d suggest you try an experiment: maybe open a thread over in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences that would, in your opinion, capture the exact tone and content we’d want to see on a future subforum like that—just to see if the idea actually holds water.
Look, I’m asking you nicely—please start following the standard procedure used by any decent community on Reddit: just click the little triangle on a post like that and explain why you're reporting it. No, you don't need to monitor the state of this sub every single minute, and no, that isn't how things work here. Everything you wanted to say has been noted. Please, let's try not to act like a teenager about this.
briskpuma23 said:Lisa Hernandez3, I’m just starting the conversation here. Honestly, I’m surprised no one else—especially someone from the LGBTQ+ community on Reddit—has brought this up yet.
When I started this thread, I didn't sit down and map out exactly how a subforum like this should function.
Besides, I don't really feel like it's my place to judge or force my own vision on everyone.
I actually like the direction you and Matthew Grant9 are taking with it, so I'm following your lead. We'll just have to see what this place eventually turns into.
Of course you have that right, and honestly, it makes sense to think things through completely—or at least toward the end. Edit: removing that part; sorry if the tone came off wrong.
Matthew Grant9 said:I guess I was just being general! It honestly feels like I have to explain myself three times over sometimes. 😁 Though, unless I've had a really bad day, I usually mean exactly what I write down.😁
Theoretically, she could moderate just by being motivated, even though we aren't actually talking about that right now.
Oh, I wouldn't want to, believe me! I'm just not on Reddit often enough, and honestly, I don't think there's any chance I'd ever actually ban anyone.
Let's bring the concept out into the light. If anyone has any compliments, feel free to share them! Just please, no bashing.
I'm actually working on it right this second! It might take a little while, though, because I'm trying my absolute best to make sure everything turns out perfect.😁
This sounds great. I’m looking forward to reading more—though I do want to gently ask briskpuma23 not to dodge his moral responsibility to help us brainstorm this party. I mean, I’m only asking nicely.
Matthew Grant9 said:Hey everyone, is anybody actually out there reading these posts? 😠
Who are you asking? I suppose she could theoretically step into a moderator role just by being motivated—though, honestly, we aren't really discussing that right now. Let's just take a moment to enjoy the sunshine instead. If anyone feels like sharing a compliment, feel free... as long as it isn't just someone being shut out.