AnarchistArtificer

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

"looking for a woman to play out the guy's MFF fantasy"

Sometimes the driving force is a bi-curious woman. What usually happens is that the boyfriend agrees to it because he sees a MDF threesome as being hot, and sapphic love as being less real or serious. Then he freaks out during/after the hookup because of insecurity he feels when seeing his girlfriend enthusiastically making out with a woman. I've learned the unpleasant way that it's no fun to be unicorn hunted.

The worst part is when they try to hide what they're doing. I once only found out a woman had a boyfriend and that they were looking for a MFF threesome on the third date. Trying to hide their intentions is gross because it shows they have some awareness of how people don't like being instrumentalised in this way.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

This isn't really relevant to your question at all, but you reminded me of a (male) friend who is a gynecologist and married to a woman. I expected that the professional context would nullify any potential arousal towards his patients, but what I was curious about was whether this might bleed over into his personal life — i.e. did he still find his partner's vulva arousing, or does it put him into doctor-headspace. Apparently his profession causes no problems whatsoever in his sex life, because the compartmentalisation is so strong.

He said that it feels almost like conceptual homonyms. For example, in the sentence "up past the river bank is the bank where I deposited my money", the word "bank" appears twice but means two very different things. Similarly, a vulva is a vulva no matter the context, but the meaning of it differs so much depending on the context that his brain literally doesn't parse them as being the same.

Like I say, it's not related to your question, but I thought you might find it cool nonetheless. I would expect that firefighters would show a similar ability to compartmentalise, but perhaps the high-stress context of smelling human flesh may cause it to work differently.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

That was a mistake. I rewrote that first sentence a few times and accidentally wrote the opposite of my intended meaning. I have edited it now, but thank you for highlighting the error

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

See, this is a thing that I do not want (and have not even read the article in the linked post due to this). However, I gotta say that your recommendation has me intrigued (over recent years, I have been trying to be more mindful of who is writing the various bits of non-fiction that I enjoy (especially journalists), so your mentioning this person's name sticks out to me)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Sad to hear you've had a rough time, glad to hear that you're back.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Art should ~~not~~ be enjoyed by everyone, not just the wealthy, but devaluing the skilled labour and creativity of artists isn't how we get to that. My beef with generative AI isn't just the impacts on artists, but also the fact that these systems are reinforcing the same upwards flow of wealth to the ultra-rich. That is to say that AI enriches those who are profiting from depriving many of basic enrichment.

Whilst I disagree with the sentiment of your comment, I appreciate your acknowledgement of access to art as "basic enrichment". That much we can agree on.

Edit: struck through a mistake

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Fucking hell, I love these cool people

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wonder if OP means this? I don't recall there being much (if any) verbal abuse, so maybe this isn't what was meant — God knows that there are enough furries in IT that "a cat explains DNS" doesn't narrow it down much

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

I know a guy who channels that energy, and it worked really well as making the C-suite types listen to him (more than they typically would listen to an IT dude).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

I don't disagree, but to lean into your analogy: I worry that we don't have any viable long term solutions here, and I'm very nervous about how that will affect the fallout from a ban. My own stay in a mental health ward comes to mind, because it took years after that point before I was able to get the kind of support that helps someone build wellness long term. The hospital stay did the job, in the sense that I'm still alive, but my mental health was probably worse in the initial aftermath.

(This comment brought to you from the UK, where the Reform party (not nearly as bad as the AfD, but still racist shits) made heavy gains in recent local elections.)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

"But previous attempts at banning them have failed because such an official report was missing."

Man, this is peak modern society, and the absurdity makes me laugh. I don't mean that in a derisive way, more in a "wow, making democracy work is haaard ". Hopefully this will lead to something positive though, even if I'm anxious that banning a party like the AfD may lead to some things worsening.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

The two problems have a decent amount of overlap though. For example, I recently learned that car tyres are a huge contributor to microplastic pollution. This means that improving public transport infrastructure will reduce CO2 emissions and microplastic pollution.

view more: ‹ prev next ›