Effectively advocating unpopular causes

>>63627 >Considering I've been "spamming" about relevant topics for over 15 years now... I'm not so sure about that if you think its this ineffective then why do you do it still, why not change tactics?

>>63631 Anyone else could take some or all of that information from others to which I've been trying to draw attention and use different tactics. One person can be expected to do only so much. Most certainly I've done plenty already.

>>63632 That doesn't really answer the question.

>>63633 I did explain in the past. Let's just say I do not care to explain again right now. Really, though, you're seeking an answer to a question that you shouldn't even be asking in the first place. Nothing about me ultimately matters.

>>63634 >Nothing about me ultimately matters. What a great way to deflect all criticism. "Doesn't matter what I do, because I don't matter." I'm sure people have fuarrrked a lot of asses thinking exactly that.

>>63635 I'm not deflecting criticism. I'm merely stating a fact. Answering your question would merely expose me to more criticism based on past experience. So, I choose not to answer the question at this particular time. >>63632 > Anyone else could take some or all of that information from others to which I've been trying to draw attention and use different tactics. One person can be expected to do only so much. Most certainly I've done plenty already. In particular, they could make use of methods that I myself am unwilling/unsuited/unable to use. At the end of the day, this is volunteer work. How I choose to spend my time, and what methods I choose to use, are solely at my discretion and no one else's. As I stated, I've done plenty already — arguably far more than what should be expected of any single person.

If it's something few about doesnt that also play in your favour as mich as against it? Since people that care will more likely be for that thing rather than against it, wouldn't they?

Seeing yet another thread deleted as spam (to be clear I don't object to this) from a persistent ultra-niche-issue activist the other day got me thinking. If you strongly believe something is true and important, but to everyone else it seems obviously neither and moreover is tedious and uninteresting, what are your options? What methods could be actually effective in getting people to take a closer look? It seems like a hard problem, because we have strong defenses against being exposed to content that isn't interesting. These defenses exist for good reason, but maybe they cause some blind spots.

>>63618 Don't lie. Be sure to not tell your conclusion first but rater try to start from the beginning and tell how you come to the conclusion (and why).

>>63618 The typical answer is you get people interested because you offer people something they want. That's far more easily said than done, however, particularly when you have bad news/want them to perform work. I'm planning to begin advocating for a position I believe will improve humanity in a few months, and my basic plan is to reach out to those who like to debate and talk about society, since my idea, being new, may interest them, and being correct, will let them win debates. I wish I could just market it to those who can implement it, but they have no reason to listen yet. Spamming can be a good idea if it offers your target audience what they want; grafitti may make your idea popular with wanna be rebels, but I think it's generally best to have a plan for what effect your communications will have. Also, would the spammer please link to an archive of your posts? I'm curious.

>>63618 I actually "solved" this problem but I worry that sharing the answer will make others resistant to it.

>>63620 Seems unlikely the message would spread too far, what solution did you come up with?

>>63640 > The typical answer is you get people interested because you offer people something they want. That's far more easily said than done, however, particularly when you have bad news/want them to perform work. The problem with that idea, at least insofar as it applies to my "crusade," is that I may well be offering people something they _will_ want — in the future, in retrospect, in hindsight, after they've first ignored what I and others were trying to tell them. > Also, would the spammer please link to an archive of your posts? I'm curious. I could, but right now I choose to refrain from doing so. I freely admit that sometimes I have, out of frustration, written things that could 1) be considered highly questionable, and 2) open me up to (more, and in some cases valid) criticism. As one major point I'm trying to get across is that ultimately this is not about me, potentially drawing attention especially to me at my worst seems self-defeating. >>63637 Your post is rather unclear. Moreover, and yet again, ultimately this is not about me. Why do people choose to focus on one lone and insignificant person rather than much more important issues that were covered? Sometimes I feel as if I'm on trial. Meanwhile there are many violent people out there, and the subset of them perpetrating especially anorectal violence against one or more others in public pornography is inspiring countless viewers while said perpetrators go unpunished — for decades in some cases. >>63627 > <Insert text covering logically-fallacious diversionary tactics here — I may well post it soon in this thread.> I hope I will not need to post that yet again.

>If you strongly believe something is true and important, but to everyone else it seems obviously neither and moreover is tedious and uninteresting, what are your options? Post it again

Why advocate too strongly for something that society clearly doesn't want or care about? You are better off working for your case on your own than trying to spit it out i to the world without much to show for it. If it's an issue of exposure, you're still better off building a good argument for it than spamming anonymous boards with schizobabble and complaining about censorship. Write a good book with proper research, instead of just antagonizing your potential audience and rambling like a madman when it is clear that people will not care about such erratic behaviour.

well I think the question is partly who your audience is. if you're goal is to spread a message to the people of lainchan, you've not got too many options but here, and if you get labled spam, well anoreckoman has a point. I'm not sure if lainchan is the best or even a good way to reach a particularly wide audience though.

>>63623 >society its here obviously the mods, the mods can create an illusion of consensus but whether thats the true consensus is another matter. and anyway, how do you change consensus without challenging it? The fellow we're talking about probably could improve his messaging and branding but I'm not sure there's anything fundamentally wrong with what he's doing. If I was a mod here, at this point I'd feel I had to shut down these threads just because once you've made a stand you sort of ought to keep to it. And whatever else can be said its now becomming spam. Spam can be a good spread for messages though, once in a while and when well applied.

>>63625 >I'm not sure there's anything fundamentally wrong with what he's doing What people aren't understanding here is that on his first post, it was fine. He was given a warning because his OP was kinda soykafty, mostly just a few dozen links to papers or something. Then he started to sperg out. He pretty quickly destroyed his own thread. Once it was deleted, we spammed, so we derezzed him. You know whats funny? We keep giving him a chance, despite the years of ban evasion, and he still cannot help but complain about past actions, despite doing it to himself. I don't even disagree with the guy's messaging or anything, I have no opinion on the matter. I just want him, and everyone else, to folllow the rules. It's that simple. There are a few guys who I actually fundamentally agree with that I have had to delete/ban because of rules 3 and 4 just constantly being broken, to an absurd extent.

>>63625 > improve his messaging and branding "Branding?" I'm not selling anything. I'm merely a very fed-up agnostic atheist with a weird, but IMO overall beneficial, fetish. > If I was a mod here, at this point I'd feel I had to shut down these threads just because once you've made a stand you sort of ought to keep to it. People are capable of reassessing their decisions and changing their minds. That said, I strongly suspect one or more people involved in Lainchan's administration are purposely trying to prevent people from thinking about and discussing certain issues to which I try to draw attention. Why this is the case is a matter about which anyone outside of said administration can only speculate. > And whatever else can be said its now becomming spam. That's only due to censorship. It's not spam in the strictest sense, i.e. unsolicited commercial material spread for some typically-monetary gain. > Spam can be a good spread for messages though, once in a while and when well applied. Considering I've been "spamming" about relevant topics for over 15 years now... I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me as if few, if any people are actually listening. Certainly no one seems even to be attempting to address those problems I've covered in several English Wikipedia articles. >>63626 > Then he started to sperg out. He pretty quickly destroyed his own thread. Generally I try to archive my own threads on on archive.today and/or archive.org. Can you point to an archive snapshot of said thread? One thing I've learned about Lainchan's administration is that some among them are not above lying, or at least exaggerating. Anyway, as I've pointed out countless times before: Ultimately this is not about me. Please focus on the much more important issues I've covered. <Insert text covering logically-fallacious diversionary tactics here — I may well post it soon in this thread.>

I'm not entirely certain whether you were talking about me, the person who has been called the "Anal Avenger" in the past, in particular. I shall respond as if you were though. >>63623 > Why advocate too strongly for something that society clearly doesn't want or care about? One reason might be the notion that society should care, _especially_ when far too large a percentage of people within any given society does not, despite the matters being quite important on a societal level. > You are better off working for your case on your own That has been done, exhaustively. > trying to spit it out i to the world without much to show for it There is plenty to show for it, such as the massive collection mentioned below. > If it's an issue of exposure It most certainly is, especially when factoring in censorship experienced on quite a few sites. > you're still better off building a good argument for it That has been done, in the form of numerous pastes and summaries that were written along with a massive collection of supporting material that has been gathered. > spamming anonymous boards with schizobabble > rambling like a madman Once again assuming you're talking about me and not somebody else, those are blatant misrepresentations. > antagonizing your potential audience Please elaborate. Also: > You ... your ... your ... you're ... your A red herring is a tangential topic introduced intentionally as a distraction or inadvertently. Trying to create an unrelated discussion about a messenger or claimant (e.g. by introducing alleged personal attributes or asking about unstated opinions) is one _very_ common example.

>>63647 >assuming you're talking about me and not somebody else, >> You ... your ... your ... you're ... your I don't know who the fuarrrk you are, "Splicer"

>>63652 > I don't know who the fuarrrk you are Mmmk then. I pointed out "me, the person who has been called the "Anal Avenger" in the past." Some people around here, even among the site administration, seem unable to separate the message from the messenger, like to ignore what was written especially about logically-fallacious diversionary tactics, and even seem to be trying to make me look bad / engaging in a smear campaign despite my exhaustive repetition of "ultimately this is not about me." Moving on: >>63647 > One reason might be the notion that society should care, _especially_ when far too large a percentage of people within any given society does not, despite the matters being quite important on a societal level. "From around 2008, the availability of internet pornography through mobile technology created the ideal conditions of Cooper’s triple-A engine, namely, that pornography is accessible, affordable and anonymous. It has led to intensified and accelerated online sexual activity. Today pornography is mostly delivered through the device in one’s pocket." "Alongside the rapid spread of internet use, the rate of harms to mental and physical health in frequent users of pornography has been accelerating too. Increasing numbers of users are reporting out of control or problematic pornography use (PPU). The numbers are highly variable and depend heavily on the population described and whether PPU is self-assessed or externally determined. In 2015, data on Spanish university students identified 9% with a risky behaviour profile and pathological use rates of 1.7% in men and 0.1% in women. Within an Australian representative population sample, the number of people reporting negative effects rose from 7% reported in 2007 to 12% in 2018." "PPU not only affects the user but can also influence their behaviour towards others. High levels of PPU affect the way society functions. Over the past decade, a substantial academic literature has developed which indicates clear relationships between the consumption of pornography, particularly violent pornography, and the behaviour of men and children towards women and children. Pornography use, both in legal and illegal forms, can be a contributing factor in crimes such as the possession of indecent images of children or the consumption of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). It can also increase the likelihood and severity of rape, domestic violence, sexual assault, sharing of personal intimate images without consent, cyber flashing, sexual harassment and online harassment." "Problematic Pornography Use: Legal and Health Policy Considerations." Current Addiction Reports. 2021 Dec; 8(4): 556-567. PMC8426110. doi:10.1007/s40429-021-00390-8. Epub 2021 Sep 9.

>>63647 > That has been done, exhaustively. [...] There is plenty to show for it, such as the massive collection mentioned below. Aside from named quote collections (which collectively in a references compilation that has been put together could be said to constitute a massive collection on their own) that some members of the administration here seem quite keen on censoring, there are many more pertinent articles and studies, some of which—such as the article below—have been shared on sites much more accommodating. "Women in the UK are suffering injuries and other health problems as a result of the growing popularity of anal sex among straight couples, two NHS [British National Health Service] surgeons have warned. The consequences include [fecal] incontinence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as pain and bleeding because they have experienced bodily trauma while engaging in the practice, the doctors write in an article in the British Medical Journal. Tabitha Gana and Lesley Hunt also argued that doctors’ reluctance to discuss the risks associated with anal sex was leading to women being harmed by the practice and letting down a generation of women who are not aware of the potential problems." ... "National Survey of Sexual Attitudes research undertaken in Britain has found that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds engaging in heterosexual anal intercourse has risen from 12.5% to 28.5% over recent decades. Similarly, in the US 30% to 45% of both sexes have experienced it. “It is no longer considered an extreme behaviour but increasingly portrayed as a prized and pleasurable experience,” wrote Hunt, a surgeon in Sheffield, and Gana, a trainee colorectal surgeon in Yorkshire." "Many doctors, though, especially GPs and hospital doctors, are reluctant to talk to women about the risks involved, partly because they do not want to seem judgmental or homophobic, they add. “However, with such a high proportion of young women now having anal sex, failure to discuss it when they present with anorectal symptoms exposes women to missed diagnoses, futile treatments and further harm arising from a lack of medical advice,” the surgeons said. NHS patient information about the risks of anal sex is incomplete because it only cites STIs, and makes “no mention of anal trauma, [fecal] incontinence or the psychological aftermath of the coercion young women report in relation to this activity”. Health professionals’ disinclination to discuss the practice openly with patients “may be failing a generation of young women, who are unaware of the risks”." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women Rise in popularity of anal sex has led to health problems for women [The article text was edited slightly to condense it into fewer lines.]

>>63656 >logically-fallacious diversionary tactics, and even seem to be trying to make me look bad To be fair I did sincerely make this thread to discuss a more general question only tangentially related to your cause, not to contradict or dismiss it, and given the context such discussion is not a fallacy or a diversion. Maybe it's naive to think I could mention you without the topic becoming about you or your crusade, but it's still relevant enough, and would be more so if you weren't refusing to discuss why you persist despite apparently not believing your methods are effective. I did that because to me, what causes ideas to spread or sputter out is fun and interesting. What doesn't interest me are ideas themselves when they are bulwarks grinding forward trying to win a war of attrition, because I can't interact with them in any meaningful or enjoyable way, only choose between being ground down or stepping aside and ignoring them. IMO this lain >>63640 is on the right track, that the key is likely to make engagement with the ideas rewarding, to frame them in a way that fulfills some existing psychological need. This should also apply to negative engagement.

>>63664 > To be fair I did sincerely make this thread to discuss a more general question only tangentially related to your cause, not to contradict or dismiss it, and given the context such discussion is not a fallacy or a diversion. That's fair. Perhaps I'm simply too used to being in "battle mode," having far too often been inappropriately focused on by others over more important matters. That could in some cases conceivably be done intentionally as means of distraction and/or smearing; in other cases maybe people simply don't wish to think about certain topics, most especially ones to which I try to draw attention, and so they'd rather discuss one or more other topics instead. > Maybe it's naive to think I could mention you without the topic becoming about you or your crusade, but it's still relevant enough I suppose it is in the context of what was written in the OP. Like I wrote previously, though: "I freely admit that sometimes I have, out of frustration, written things that could 1) be considered highly questionable, and 2) open me up to (more, and in some cases valid) criticism. As one major point I'm trying to get across is that ultimately this is not about me, potentially drawing attention especially to me at my worst seems self-defeating." Considering that I've written plenty of things out of sheer frustration that could come back to haunt me, you might understand my desire not to assist others in building a personal profile on me. I do wish to remain anonymous at least where my "crusade" that has been ongoing for far too long is concerned. > if you weren't refusing to discuss why you persist despite apparently not believing your methods are effective While what I am doing may well be ineffective, I choose to press on until I am satisfied that I have "passed the torch." I do not wish for all those years I spent on this endeavor, and all that I have learned, to be for nothing. One or more other "crusaders" could find some of this information from many others I've gathered most useful, perhaps along with my personal knowledge, and so I continue until I am satisfied that doing so is no longer serving a purpose. Besides, there may be some societal value to willingly thinking about and discussing matters about which far too many others are reticent. >>63632 > Anyone else could take some or all of that information from others to which I've been trying to draw attention and use different tactics. One person can be expected to do only so much. Most certainly I've done plenty already. >>63636 > In particular, they could make use of methods that I myself am unwilling/unsuited/unable to use. > At the end of the day, this is volunteer work. How I choose to spend my time, and what methods I choose to use, are solely at my discretion and no one else's. As I stated, I've done plenty already — arguably far more than what should be expected of any single person.

>>63664 > IMO this lain >>63640 is on the right track, that the key is likely to make engagement with the ideas rewarding, to frame them in a way that fulfills some existing psychological need. This should also apply to negative engagement. I'm open to suggestions. I'm thinking about that, and I have some ideas. I'd prefer to hear from others before sharing them though, especially since I'm already coming up with reasons why my own ideas may not work (they relate to what I've already written previously).

>>63679 My main thought is you should better encourage contradiction, and mirror your audience in depth and effort. I like debates, and when I see your threads would sometimes think about making an argument against what you are saying, but to do so properly would start with going through your links and questioning their relevance, which is a lot of effort to write a long post no one would be persuaded by and few would care to read. It kind of tracks that you've been going for 15 years, since gish gallops were more in-meta for the internet of the 2000s, as was doing things in an academic way. Now it's all about the bait. Super uphill battle though, Your specific cause is basically an antimeme.

>>63691 > My main thought is you should better encourage contradiction How so? > mirror your audience in depth and effort. My audience, such as it is, tends to be very shallow and low-effort at least in response to material I post. I think emulating shallowness and laziness is a bad idea. > when I see your threads would sometimes think about making an argument against what you are saying, but to do so properly would start with going through your links and questioning their relevance 1. The burden of proof rests on the claimant. 2. Everything I quote in the named quote collections should be (I would say "is," but I am human, and so I can make mistakes — plus this endeavor is essentially a one-man show, although on occasion someone else out there does contribute useful material) present for one or more defensible reasons. For Anorectal Risks 1-3, Anatomy & Trauma, and Prolapse & Incontinence, those reasons include documenting particularly traumatic risks of anoreceptive activities, providing details on relevant conditions that may arise as a consequence of trauma, and covering related anatomy and physiology. For Trends & Associations material is included for reasons including coverage of relevant trends, documentation of associated mental disorders that may be motivating factors of anorectal violence, and potential mental effects especially of violent pornography. > which is a lot of effort to write a long post no one would be persuaded by and few would care to read Well, you'd better write it now if you care to actually prove anything. > gish gallops 1. Again: The burden of proof rests on the claimant. 2. That strikes me as a blatant misrepresentation. I haven't iterated my claims over the course of 15+ years only to come up with weak and/or inaccurate arguments. Sure, I made some mistakes along the way; I addressed them. At this point I am quite confident in what I myself have written. The fact that I have accumulated a vast collection of supporting material over the years does not mean I am trying to overwhelm people with it in order to prop up flawed arguments. > Super uphill battle though, Your specific cause is basically an antimeme. I'll agree with that much.

>>63692 > At this point I am quite confident in what I myself have written. The image is very much relevant. >TAKE ACTION v7.png Plaintext with references: dd bs=1k skip=585 if="TAKE ACTION v7.png" of="TAKE ACTION v7+refs.zip" >>63679 > I'm already coming up with reasons why my own ideas may not work I was thinking that I could place more emphasis on avoidance of pain and problems for potential receptive people. Problems with that argument include, well, fighting against a meme, contradicting widespread misinformation and disinformation sometimes originating from sources both slick and trusted (with trust being misplaced), corporate interests including Hollywood and California's pornography industry pushing anal eroticism very strongly, normalization of coercion, tolerance of willful ignorance, far too many people—including some who ought to know better—downplaying the significance of traumatic risks in particular, etc.

>>63694 >involving a combination of rapid thrusting, considerable girth, and a prolonged duration wait, are you okay with people having anal sex as long as it's just a normal dick, not for too long, with slow and gentle thrusts? cause if so that's like... a _way_ more sympathetic position than I thought. being a user myself I think most of us who aren't straight/cisgendered are at least somewhat aware of the risks there, but with your tone and use of "anorectal violence" I thought you were against all anal in literally any form, which would just be kind of stupid in my opinion.

>>63833 > are you okay with ... As I pointed out many times before: Ultimately this is not about me. What I am "okay with" is irrelevant; people do not need my approval to do anything. While I have included my own judgments in some of my own writings (particularly the "decadence" paste at the top of TAv7 along with the "justice" paste included in other variants), as yet I have not tried to force them on anyone else. I may never attempt to do so either, especially if many people start paying serious attention to material from many others to which I've been trying to draw attention (never mind what I wrote). > I thought you were against all anal in literally any form, which would just be kind of stupid in my opinion. Bearing in mind what I wrote above, I most certainly am not against all forms of anal eroticism; taking such a position would indeed be stupid, or at least irrational (e.g. motivated by religious beliefs). I focus specifically on traumatic risks to the anorectal region for reasons that should be obvious from a careful reading of everything included in TAv7. > people having anal sex as long as it's just a normal dick, not for too long, with slow and gentle thrusts Alright, it's paste time. In the past I wrote material along these lines: "At best, anal intercourse and significant anoreceptive activities accelerate or guarantee the development of anorectal health problems. However, that could in theory be untrue if such activities are done with ridiculously excessive care all the time, every time." "Ridiculously excessive care" was defined as adherence to precautions including—but not limited to—these: ruling out preexisting anorectal conditions (possibly caused by prior erotic trauma), always using lubricant, avoiding lubricants that irritate/damage the rectal lining, avoiding enemas (all enemas, hyperosmolar or otherwise, probably remove the rectum's protective mucus barrier), always using a condom (particularly in the absence of an enema), never thrusting too rapidly ("too rapid" could vary for different people, at least for the anal tissues), never inserting anything too girthy ("too girthy" also could vary), never using numbing agents (pain indicates something is wrong — anally [below the dentate line], but not rectally [above the dentate line]), etc. I then pointed out that in practice using ridiculously excessive care is unrealistic — it'd be more of a chore than a pleasure. Furthermore, both ignorance and misinformation are rampant, pornography sets a very bad example from which some (probably far too many) viewers get ideas, and people with (self-)destructive tendencies are having a field day. > never thrusting too rapidly ("too rapid" could vary for different people, at least for the anal tissues) "At least for the anal tissues:" The perianal skin and anoderm are capable of thickening, becoming tougher. I have seen no evidence that the simple columnar lining above the dentate line has that capability. Furthermore, it lacks somatic innervation, meaning that damage to it elicits no pain sensations (so good luck figuring out what constitutes "too rapid" there; the internal hemorrhoidal cushions also lack somatic innervation).

Honestly, idk, it may be the wording. It really does look like schizo babble, perhaps we get a lot of them around these places, that we promptly dismiss them. If you were to come and just say "anal secs is invasive and violent and most likely harmful" I would agree. Actually I did ponder about that when I first saw your posts. I just didn't care to read all that WoT because who would? Anyway raising awareness is all good and well, but "anorectal violence" is one of many issues all intimately connected to each other in the grander scale of social decadence. I also agree that we are at an all-time moral low for humanity. But I donn't agree with the polbabies and so their use of the word "degeneracy" causes me to disregard anything that follows.

>>63834 > anal intercourse and significant anoreceptive activities By "significant" I mean involving a combination of rapid thrusting, considerable girth, and a prolonged duration. However, it is possible for both considerable girth and rapid thrusting alone to cause anorectal trauma that could directly result in and/or indirectly lead to one or more serious (even life-threatening) / chronic (recurring) / permanent consequences. >>63836 > anal secs is invasive and violent and most likely harmful Violent (and, thus, harmful) forms of anal eroticism are very common, facilitated by widespread apathy, (often willful) ignorance, and misinformation about anorectal anatomy, physiology, and health. Anal intercourse (among other significant anoreceptive activities) often does cause substantial trauma to a receptive person's anorectum; as I pointed out, engaging in it in a manner that would not be significantly traumatic is impractical. If someone is looking for absolutes, though, then they will have to seek them elsewhere. > It really does look like schizo babble, perhaps we get a lot of them around these places 1. Once more, ultimately this is not about me. 2. Please do not casually throw around meaningful terms for which you will never be able to provide solid evidence. For emphasis (from an unquoted portion of the paste quoted below): The burden of proof rests on the claimant. >>63694 > Logically-fallacious diversionary tactics: > • A red herring is a tangential topic introduced intentionally as a distraction or inadvertently. Trying to create an unrelated discussion about a messenger or claimant (e.g. by introducing alleged personal attributes or asking about unstated opinions) is one _very_ common example. > • An ad hominem logical fallacy involves arguing or implying that some supposed attribute(s) of a messenger or source somehow affects the validity of one or more claims presented when any such characteristic is completely irrelevant — and this is nonsensical for cases in which information originates from others. > It is suggestive of a nefarious agenda and/or psychopathy to purposely and repeatedly try to draw attention away from anorectal anatomy and physiology, rampant anorectal violence, associated traumatic risks, and an epidemic of ignorance and misinformation. These topics, plus the voluminous amount of information from others, are far more important than anything about a lone person trying to raise awareness of them. It is very likely that pornography industries utilize psychopaths as deceitful and manipulative "psyop" agents when some pornography companies already make use of them for perpetration of violence against one or more others.

>>63692 >That strikes me as a blatant misrepresentation I didn't mean it literally, the point isn't that what you're saying isn't a valid argument but that it is a style of argument that increases the difficulty of engagement and therefore discourages it. Absence of engagement means an idea will not spread. If people are overwhelmed they are overwhelmed, doesn't matter if it was intentional. >The burden of proof rests on the claimant. That's one way of keeping score, but it only works within the context of a game everyone has agreed to play. If they have not, what good does it do to focus on that? What about metrics directly related to accomplishing your actual objective? People being dissuaded from responding doesn't work in your favor, is what I'm getting at. >My audience, such as it is, tends to be very shallow and low-effort at least in response to material I post. I think emulating shallowness and laziness is a bad idea. Dismissiveness is far from empathy. How can you expect to interact with their thoughts that way? >How so? One way is to intentionally present easy and satisfying openings for responses, ideally that will naturally lead into opportunities to dig deeper into what you have to say. For example if you make a flawed or incomplete argument, intentionally or not, which is easy and obvious to refute, it may be more likely for people to do so. That's a win, because now they are invested in the topic; the amount of stuff they will be willing to read and consider is higher because now it can be made to relate to something they thought and said themselves. Basically I think persuasive writing is about building on top of the thoughts people are already having by giving them easy and emotionally satisfying segues to the ones you want them to consider.

I am beginning to think he's just an perverted autist whos kink is talking to strangers online about butsecs. Not trying too hard to change anything just wants to have a good time.

>>63843 > the point isn't that what you're saying isn't a valid argument That's fair enough then. Also, your clause contains a double negative; that's one thing I try to exclude from my own writings. > it is a style of argument that increases the difficulty of engagement and therefore discourages it. Absence of engagement means an idea will not spread. If people are overwhelmed they are overwhelmed, doesn't matter if it was intentional. That makes sense. If I selectively post a few quotes at a time instead of the rather lengthy quote collections, people might not be so overwhelmed. On the other hand, repeatedly picking and choosing precisely what and whom to quote, and becoming involved in extended back-and-forth conversations/debates is much more time-consuming as well. Worse still, making numerous posts containing quotes from various sources, among other pertinent material, could well give those labeling what I post as "spam" more credence. That just might render any particular thread to which I commit a considerable amount of time and effort more likely to be deleted or otherwise interfered with detrimentally by site administration members believing (and even propagating) such a label. As I've already been going at this for over 15 years, spending _even more time_ making more posts, covering well-trodden ground, and rehashing old arguments is rather unappealing. I'd rather continue as I am, as ineffective as doing so may be, while waiting for one or more others out there to use more effective methods. > People being dissuaded from responding doesn't work in your favor, is what I'm getting at. Well, I myself am dissuaded from responding with anything novel (as opposed to copypasta I've posted many times before) when people apparently ignore what I've written, especially anything I've pointed out over and over again. > Dismissiveness is far from empathy. How can you expect to interact with their thoughts that way? Perhaps you should first consider whether people empathize with me by paying serious attention to what I have written. Actually listening would be nice, as many people quite obviously are not doing. Respect is earned. Treat others how you wish to be treated. If people don't respect me by spending their time carefully reading and genuinely trying to understand what I myself have written at the very least (to say nothing of what many others have written), then why should I spend my time doing anything other than throwing copypasta, repeatedly if necessary, their way and being dismissive? > For example if you make a flawed or incomplete argument, intentionally or not, which is easy and obvious to refute, it may be more likely for people to do so. That's a win, because now they are invested in the topic; the amount of stuff they will be willing to read and consider is higher because now it can be made to relate to something they thought and said themselves. Having spent so many years on this endeavor iterating my writings and increasing my knowledge, I am hardly in the habit of unintentionally making flawed arguments at this point. The thought of doing so purposely (somewhat like Socratic irony?) is very unappealing: it seems manipulative (a trait among some of those I am fighting against) and whimsical (widespread violence and factors facilitating it are hardly laughing matters). As I wrote before in >>63632: Anyone else could take some or all of that information from others to which I've been trying to draw attention and use different tactics.

I have a passion for drug policy or the problem of illegal drugs. Admittedly there's a lot of mainstream interest in drugs and crime but drug policy is not really considered a respectable political issue. The way that drug use is never far removed from anyone anywhere on the planet, that it is all illegal, the amount of countries destroyed, people killed, the amount of crime created, the amount of money laundered... yet it is as if it is not happening, at most only happening at some parties, something fun or funny, not a serious topic. People really believe it can go on forever like this without having serious consequences. I'd bet that just the amount of money flowing through illegal drugs contributes a lot to increasing income inequality. But it is not going to change probably for centuries, so you just have to adapt to it and live with it.

>>63847 I feel like most of this could be solved by having written a somewhat better copypasta sometime in those 15 years of tireless advocacy. A quick and dirty TLDR that hits the big points and gives maybe a link to a pastebin/image in the style of what you have/something that provides all the would you like to know more details. What you do makes you come across as a sperg, and spergs generally aren't that bright, their arguments not terribly worth listening to.

>>63849 cia ran the drug biz in us. They got caught pants down somewhere in 60s cause one of the planes crashed and people noticed whats that white powder? So reporters started digging and found the details. They funded overseas operations with anonymous dollars generated from getting their own people addicted. I would estimate other govs pull similar soykaf. Run underground opreations as illegal for the benefits it brings having a scapegoat officially unrelated to yourself. Not to mention that it gives you easy justification to remove competition and control the entire market.

Honestly I could use some anorectal violence right now.

>>63859 > I feel like most of this could be solved by having written a somewhat better copypasta Feel free to offer suggestions then. > A quick and dirty TLDR that hits the big points I wrote a "recap" paste (bullet points) and a "tl;dr" paste (single paragraph): • Blatantly injurious erotic anorectal violence—anoreceptive activity involving a combination of rapid thrusting, a girthy penis/object, and a prolonged duration—is rampant worldwide. It is impossible for resultant anal and rectal injuries and serious/chronic/permanent health consequences to be uncommon due to anorectal fragility relating to anatomy and neuromuscular physiology. • Widespread (willful) ignorance, apathy, misinformation, and disinformation about anorectal anatomy, physiology, and health are facilitating rampant anorectal violence. • People with (self-)destructive inclinations, some affiliated with pornography companies, are having a field day with anorectal violence and spreading disinformation. This is contributing greatly to societal decay, aka decadence. • Watching violent pornography can have numerous effects on some viewers (including inspiring them to the point of emulation, even using coercion). • Pornography is being used as a substitute for sexual education in many cases. • There are, or most certainly should be, criminal implications for people who perpetrate anorectal violence against one or more others. Furthermore, various factors on their own or combined can in some regions (and anywhere else definitely should) invalidate consent from a legal perspective; these include the possibility or actual result of serious injury, use of a strong mind-altering drug, and the presence of a significant mental disorder such as a severe case of sexual masochism disorder. Generations of people have been, and continue to be, inspired by pervasive violence: namely anorectal violence. Many perpetrators of this violence against one or more others especially in public pornography have not faced severe criminal punishment despite both 1) the high likelihood of anorectal injury to a receptive person due to anorectal fragility, and 2) the significance and potential severity (even lethality) of resultant traumatic consequences. What should easily be considered incriminating evidence worldwide not only proliferates unchecked, but also serves as an example to be copied in far too many cases. This situation is both one of the greatest injustices and one of the greatest contributors to societal decadence in the modern era. Facilitating factors include prevalent (willful) ignorance, apathy, and misinformation about anorectal topics, which are enabling people with (self-)destructive tendencies to have a field day with anorectal violence and to spread disinformation quite effectively. > What you do makes you come across as a sperg Speaking of people not listening...

>>63847 >why should I spend my time doing anything other than throwing copypasta, repeatedly if necessary, their way and being dismissive? To win, of course. >>63849 I think this underscores how the actual power structure and organization of society is at a remove from how it's thought and talked about. Like anal sex, drug use is a punchline exactly because of the taboo, despite being a serious part of how the world is shaped.

This thread convinced me. I will only masterbate to penis-in-vagina straight porn from now on and I will never stimulate my prostate again. Thanks OP, you probably saved my life if anorectal fragility is real!

>>63870 >obvious exaggeration Very funny. Anyway: Gentle anal stimulation without rapid thrusting, involving insertion of something not significantly girthy and lacking sharp edges (such as a single finger with trimmed nails), shouldn't be too likely to cause significant anorectal trauma. I do refrain from making absolute claims or guarantees of safety though (such as by saying "it's 100% safe"). That is because not every receptive person's anorectum is the same. For example, it's always possible for someone to have an undiagnosed and undetected preexisting anorectal condition that might render some otherwise likely-safe activity much more dangerous. One possibility relating to that is a localized weakness of the rectal wall making perforation much more likely to occur: "Enemas can be very effective but may cause serious adverse events, such as perforation or metabolic derangement. Hypertonic [aka hyperosmolar] sodium phosphate enemas may cause severe phosphate nephropathy, especially in the elderly with chronic renal failure or in patients treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Cleansing enema adverse events are rarely reported in the literature but may be life threatening. The most frequent cause of perforation in patients who underwent enema has been reported to be the device tip; other causes are related to localized weakness of the rectal wall, obstruction, or the position of the patient when the enema was performed." "Perforation and mortality after cleansing enema for acute constipation are not rare but are preventable." International Journal of General Medicine. 2013; 6: 323-328. PMC3641812. doi:10.2147/IJGM.S44417.

>>63871 its an earnest exaggeration too glitterboy. i mean what do you fuarrrking expect, its framed where even if people agree, so what? even this post im replying to makes it seem like only a small minority of anal porn is even violent. rapid thrusting is dangerous? how rapid is rapid? i think you should address your framing, because is it 100% evil and dangerous or not?

>>63872 > its framed where even if people agree, so what? If people want [near-]absolute positive guarantees concerning safety especially of significant anoreceptive activities, then they will not get them from me. People seeking such guarantees either ignored or misunderstood what I and others wrote. > rapid thrusting is dangerous? how rapid is rapid? i think you should address your framing I did: refer back to what I wrote in >>63834 at the bottom. > because is it 100% evil and dangerous or not? As I wrote in >>63839 -- Violent (and, thus, harmful) forms of anal eroticism are very common, facilitated by widespread apathy, (often willful) ignorance, and misinformation about anorectal anatomy, physiology, and health. Anal intercourse (among other significant anoreceptive activities) often does cause substantial trauma to a receptive person's anorectum; as I pointed out, engaging in it in a manner that would not be significantly traumatic is impractical. If someone is looking for absolutes, though, then they will have to seek them elsewhere. > even this post im replying to makes it seem like only a small minority of anal porn is even violent. 1. You are quite clearly putting words into my mouth, as I posted nothing even remotely suggestive of that. 2. That most certainly is not the case. I pointed out in the "decadence" paste included in TAv7 that erotic anorectal violence is ubiquitous in pornography. I then went on to say that due to its ubiquity in pornography, several generations now have grown up masturbating to, demanding more of, and seeking to emulate violent behavior that should easily be considered severely criminal when more than one person is involved.

>>63874 anal violence is a myth

>>63658 That most certainly is not the case. Furthermore, it is all-too-common. See also: Trends & Associations (image) The article from The Guardian quoted in >>63658 I can provide more material of relevance as well.

>>63876 dude why the fuarrrk would u make that image upload a text file wtf

>>63877 The plaintext of Trends & Associations, along with the text of five other named quote collections comprising a compilation following the TAv7 text, is included in the "TAKE ACTION v7" image as an embedded zip as documented in this post: >>63694 That said, there are some advantages to posting any particular named quote collection as an image. They can be presented as intended for one thing, with clear separation of each distinct side. I may in the future add some obvious indicator of each separation point to the plaintext.

>>63876 >antianal user posting at the same time as CP is posted hmmm

>>63866 > Speaking of people not listening... >>63627 > as I've pointed out countless times before: Ultimately this is not about me. Please focus on the much more important issues I've covered. What will it take for people to actually listen? Sigh. >>63881 >red herring and potential implicit ad hominem Bearing in mind once again that ultimately this is not about me, I will say this much: I am not a pedophile; even when I was underage myself I found attractive adult women, and pornography featuring them, sufficiently stimulating and still do. I have noticed that some pedophiles use public proxies and Tor just as I do, and on some sites I've been affected by one or more bans apparently connected to pedo posting, among other things, in which I never was involved. Also, I do suffer from insomnia fairly often. That should hardly be surprising all things considered. Anyway, I wrote up a lengthy rant shortly after posting >>63878 — I may post said rant here in the near future. It relates, yet again, to people not listening.

>>63892 > I may post said rant here in the near future. YOLO, eh? Here it is: Apparently I need to point out what should be obvious to pretty much every human being past (or, at least... in between) the expected diaper age: The anorectal region's primary function for which it evolved is to deal with processes relating to defecation. Defecation alone, potentially influenced by variables including diet and age, can be responsible for the presence of one or more preexisting anorectal conditions that may well be one or both of undiagnosed and lacking any evident (or at least acknowledged) symptom(s). Consider the above to be a work-in-progress. I may try to include more details, e.g. the anatomy and physiology of the region clearly being unsuited for dealing with anything going in vs. coming out. Even with that being the case, sometimes the processes both of storing and releasing fecal material can be significantly damaging as suggested previously. Then there are additional possibilities to consider, such as pregnancy and obstetric trauma. Essentially what I'm getting at is this: Many anoreceptive activities, barring _ridiculously_ excessive care, are only making things worse for people where anorectal health is concerned. >>63834 > I focus specifically on traumatic risks to the anorectal region for reasons that should be obvious from a careful reading of everything included in TAv7. >>63627 > I'm merely a very fed-up agnostic atheist with a weird, but IMO overall beneficial, fetish. On further consideration perhaps it's not so beneficial after all. What good is obsessive focus on matters about which many people (perhaps/likely the vast majority of humanity) really don't want to think seriously? If it weren't for rampant anorectal violence that so often constitutes anus mutilation (not that any externally-visible aesthetic change(s) arising from erotic trauma among other potential causes and/or resultant sequelae are objectively significant in light of other aspects), I might be able to fap happily instead. Yeah, my strongest fetish might be soykaf (pun intended), but at least I'm uninterested in poo. Uh, maybe that last part wasn't worded the best? Oh well, I'm rolling with it. Let the poo-flinging begin, you lousy over-evolved apes. Rant over.

>>63875 > anal violence is a myth That is demonstrably false. In addition to material already posted in this thread, the images are related, as is this paste: >Reddit /r/painal Other subreddits which obviously violate Reddit's policy* regarding violent content yet strangely still [as of 2022/11/05] persist nonetheless: /r/Roughanal /r/DegradingHoles /r/analfisting * "Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual (including oneself) or a group of people" https://web.archive.org/web/20220918033407/https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151 (Notable addition made in September of 2021: "Note that health misinformation, namely falsifiable health information that encourages or poses a significant risk of physical harm to the reader, also violates the Rule.")

>>63920 Okay my guy, so let me get this straight: You've been posting warning people of the "dangers" of anal sex for 15 years and wondering why people ignore you, so you made this thread asking a sociological question about how you can convince people that a cause is important, specifically so you can then use those tactics to convince people to listen to you preach on about the potential fragility of your rectum? Yeah, no I'm sorry there is no way to make people care about this. At the end of the day most people have an understanding that you're probably not meant to have anal sex all that much at least, and while it would be good if people had a more concrete understanding of what the risks were, people do know they're risking something and still doing it. This isn't actually that uncommon at all, I've done drugs before knowing full well the risks and still did it anyway because the potential benefits outweighed the risks. For gay people in particular, it's practically the only way to have penetrative sex so I'd imagine the benefits outweigh the risks all in all. Anal sex is a messy business, but most people aren't just monkeying around with their rectums like you seem to assume, so your attempts at raising awareness are seen as bugging unnecessarily. Some folks opting for a backdoor option isn't the most important issue penetrating the social fabric right now.

>>63924 > the "dangers" of anal sex You shouldn't put that in scare quotes. The traumatic risks to a receptive person most certainly are very real and potentially can be quite significant. Ignorance especially of those risks is far too prevalent. All of those points should be obvious from material I've posted previously in this thread. > you made this thread This is not my thread. Someone else made it. > the potential fragility of your rectum That is rather the actual, documented fragility of every human's (ano)rectum. > At the end of the day most people have an understanding that you're probably not meant to have anal sex all that much at least That is easily disproven by material already posted in this thread, which apparently you didn't even bother to look through before you came into it to waste my and others' time. > people do know they're risking something and still doing it They may know they're risking something, but most certainly many receptive people are unaware of all of the risks involved. As I pointed out previously: Widespread (willful) ignorance, apathy, misinformation, and disinformation about anorectal anatomy, physiology, and health are facilitating rampant anorectal violence. > For gay people in particular, it's practically the only way to have penetrative sex 1. Homosexual/bisexual biological females can have a functioning and healthy vagina. 2. Homosexual/bisexual biological males can engage in erotic practices not involving the anorectal region, such as oral eroticism and "frotting." > most people aren't just monkeying around with their rectums like you seem to assume That is no assumption. See Trends & Associations among other material already posted in this thread. > Some folks opting for a backdoor option isn't the most important issue penetrating the social fabric right now. It is _an_ important issue, and arguably a much more important one than many people believe. As I _also_ pointed out previously: Widespread apathy, (often willful) ignorance, and misinformation about anorectal anatomy, physiology, and health are enabling people with (self-)destructive tendencies to have a field day with [anorectal] violence and to effectively spread disinformation. That unrestrained hedonism is contributing greatly to societal decay.

>>63928 I'm going to continue giving and receiving anal sex and you can't stop me

this thread is getting derailed, please stop just talking about butt secks and talk instead about strategies and approaches for discussing these strange and unpopular causes with 'the masses'.

>>63928 > The traumatic risks to a receptive person most certainly are very real and potentially can be quite significant. Which most people know. I agree that they don't know what the specific issue is in that case. > This is not my thread. Someone else made it. Then why are you hijacking it? Make your own thread. > They may know they're risking something, but most certainly many receptive people are unaware of all of the risks involved. You don't have to state what I already stated. > 1. Homosexual/bisexual biological females can have a functioning and healthy vagina. 2. Homosexual/bisexual biological males can engage in erotic practices not involving the anorectal region, such as oral eroticism and "frotting." Bro imagine typing "functioning and healthy vagina" without dying from laughter. Who even talks like this. Nobody cares. Go bang a cute trans girl and understand why people still have anal sex all the time. It's the soykaf. > It is _an_ important issue, and arguably a much more important one than many people believe. Nah. We are on the verge of societal collapse and that's a little more important than a little anal prolapse

>>63933 > Which most people know. No, many—probably even most—receptive people are not aware of all of the risks involved, particularly the traumatic risks to themselves. As I pointed out numerous times over the years with varying wording, there wouldn't be so many people engaging in clearly destructive anoreceptive acts if they were aware of all of the risks involved to themselves — most especially the traumatic risks. >>63658 > "Women in the UK are suffering injuries and other health problems as a result of the growing popularity of anal sex among straight couples, two NHS [British National Health Service] surgeons have warned. The consequences include [fecal] incontinence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as pain and bleeding because they have experienced bodily trauma while engaging in the practice, the doctors write in an article in the British Medical Journal. Tabitha Gana and Lesley Hunt also argued that doctors’ reluctance to discuss the risks associated with anal sex was leading to women being harmed by the practice and letting down a generation of women who are not aware of the potential problems." > ... "National Survey of Sexual Attitudes research undertaken in Britain has found that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds engaging in heterosexual anal intercourse has risen from 12.5% to 28.5% over recent decades. Similarly, in the US 30% to 45% of both sexes have experienced it. “It is no longer considered an extreme behaviour but increasingly portrayed as a prized and pleasurable experience,” wrote Hunt, a surgeon in Sheffield, and Gana, a trainee colorectal surgeon in Yorkshire." > "Many doctors, though, especially GPs and hospital doctors, are reluctant to talk to women about the risks involved, partly because they do not want to seem judgmental or homophobic, they add. “However, with such a high proportion of young women now having anal sex, failure to discuss it when they present with anorectal symptoms exposes women to missed diagnoses, futile treatments and further harm arising from a lack of medical advice,” the surgeons said. NHS patient information about the risks of anal sex is incomplete because it only cites STIs, and makes “no mention of anal trauma, [fecal] incontinence or the psychological aftermath of the coercion young women report in relation to this activity”. Health professionals’ disinclination to discuss the practice openly with patients “may be failing a generation of young women, who are unaware of the risks”." > https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women Again, see also material included in Trends & Associations. >>63933 > You don't have to state what I already stated. I didn't. You stated "people do know they're risking something and still doing it." I responded by pointing out that many receptive people are unaware of all of the risks involved. > We are on the verge of societal collapse 1. The burden of proof rests on the claimant. 2. The matters over which I have been crusading for far too long most certainly could be related to that. The text at the top of TAv7 isn't called my "decadence" paste for no reason. > trans Speaking of societal collapse and related factors...

>>63932 > this thread is getting derailed Agreed > please stop just talking about butt secks Perhaps I'll try once again to start my own thread on the topics I've covered. I'm kind of expecting the censorship to begin anew if I do that, though. > and talk instead about strategies and approaches for discussing these strange and unpopular causes with 'the masses'. It may be a bit difficult to talk about any particular unpopular cause without delving into details on subjects relating to it. Such causes are not all the same, after all, and so different approaches could be warranted depending on numerous variables of relevance. I will grant that going into at least exhaustive detail might work better in a dedicated thread. >>63618 > If you strongly believe something is true and important, but to everyone else it seems obviously neither and moreover is tedious and uninteresting, what are your options? What methods could be actually effective in getting people to take a closer look? In the case of my particular cause, I always have in the back of my mind the thought that it may be necessary to "fight fire with fire." One or more people doing just that (and likely throwing their lives away in the process) might manage to get societies worldwide, and many people within them, to actually notice and pay serious attention to these matters. I am not yet ready to throw my life away. Perhaps I never shall be. So, I keep on seemingly-ineffectually screaming into the void. At least I'm _trying to_ do far more to help humanity than many others out there, all for this laughable fetish. Humans. Ha. (Personally I hope there really are some LGM out there having a good laugh about all of this too. There certainly is plenty of [dark] humor to be found in humanity's foolishness and many failings.) >>63849 > But it [recreational misuse of powerful and dangerous drugs] is not going to change probably for centuries, so you just have to adapt to it and live with it. That is a very bitter pill to swallow, but learning to live with rampant insanity (by every definition of the word) may be necessary. We are humans, after all, and most certainly humanity has many glaring faults. Perhaps we shall not even survive the consequences of our own stupidity in the long run (due, for example, to climate change with potential for catastrophic outcomes being insufficiently addressed, plastic micro- and nano-particles polluting the surface and atmosphere of the entire planet, mass extinctions, biodiversity loss, potential worldwide nuclear war, ...).

>>63934 >Speaking of societal collapse and related factors... Charming. So you're just anti-LGBT and all this soykaf is cover. Like clockwork.

>>63935 For someone so anti-anal sex you sure like getting assblasted over nothing

>>63627 > as I've pointed out countless times before: Ultimately this is not about me. Please focus on the much more important issues I've covered. >>63939 > So you're just anti-LGBT 1. As I pointed out above and countless times before, ultimately this is not about me. It would not matter even if I were anti-LGBT; there are much greater matters about which many people ought to be concerned and to which I have for far too long been trying to draw their attention. 2. I am not anti-LGB. Those are merely sexual preferences. T (transgenderism) is much more than that, and many LGB people just might come to deeply regret their association with it. • Nearly two years ago someone on this very board posted a collection of studies and wrote this: "The amount of evidence against transgenderism being anything other than a severe mental illness is staggering." https://web.archive.org/web/20201221072749/https://lainchan.org/hum/res/36961.html#37158 • Camille Paglia also had some interesting things to say about transgenderism and decadence: https://youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ — I wrote a transcript in my own now-abandoned nanochan thread about hedonism here: https://archive.today/TX6Gz#post31803 > all this soykaf is cover It most certainly is not. Some people keep on trying to talk about me despite my repeatedly pointing out what I wrote in logically-fallacious diversionary tactics among other things that I wrote, so I figured that I would indulge them for a change and talk about myself a bit. I can't win either way, can I? Damned if I do; damned if I don't. Perhaps the last paragraph of the paste covering logically-fallacious diversionary tactics is spot on. There most certainly does seem to be a smear campaign at work. >>63940 I would hardly call the many very significant matters to which I have been trying to draw people's attention "nothing." As for the term "assblasted," that is an idiotic term just like "butthurt." It's typically used to downplay and/or make light of anorectal issues that can be one or more of highly unpleasant, embarrassing, serious (even fatal), chronic, and permanent. >>63641 > Sometimes I feel as if I'm on trial. Meanwhile there are many violent people out there, and the subset of them perpetrating especially anorectal violence against one or more others in public pornography is inspiring countless viewers while said perpetrators go unpunished — for decades in some cases.

>>63942 >As I pointed out above and countless times before, ultimately this is not about me. It would not matter even if I were anti-LGBT; there are much greater matters about which many people ought to be concerned and to which I have for far too long been trying to draw their attention. Ah yes, risks of anal sex are "greater matters" than human rights. I'm not sure if you're a chud or just autistic honestly. > I am not anti-LGB. Those are merely sexual preferences. Not preferences, sexuality, it is inherent. > T (transgenderism) is much more than that, and many LGB people just might come to deeply regret their association with it. It's just inherent gender identity that's out of alignment with body's sex. If DSDs can be expressed as physical deformations, then why can't there be mental ones as well? We can't alter the brain because we do not understand it, so we alter the body, and it works near perfectly in both adults and kids. T is what started the LGBT movement, along with Drag Queens and Transvestites. While gay people lived in sham marriages in fear, transes were out there beating up the police in LA after cross-dressing was made illegal, some 10 years before stonewall at Cooper Do-nuts. It's Ts who chose to leave the ladder behind them for LGBs to organize, not the other way around. > Camille Paglia also had some interesting things to say She's also a Global Warming denier. Anyway most of that video is trivially debunked nonsense. The very implication that it's "recent" or a current "mania" is wrong. Trans people are older than her, older than you and older than the language we use to communicate. "Oh look, a fairly rare occurring mental disorder makes someone look unusual! Oh the decadence! How will we ever recover?" > There most certainly does seem to be a smear campaign at work. You've done a pretty good job of that yourself my guy. I wasn't even in total disagreement with you but just a slight poke at your motivations reveals a lot of the underlying crazy that's giving you the dedication to continue. > As for the term "assblasted," that is an idiotic term just like "butthurt." It's typically used to downplay and/or make light of anorectal issues American mental healthcare system really doesn't work huh?

>>63942 >https://web.archive.org/web/20201221072749/https://lainchan.org/hum/res/36961.html#37158 Most of those studies are widely flawed and/or are based on debunked ideas such as autogynephilia. Not to mention that the original question in that post is entirely arbitrary. Being trans is not a mental illness in and of itself, but Gender Dysphoria is definitely at least a form of neurodivergence that causes distress and can be treated. The treatment is transition, and it works. I can't post all of the sources and the info here because of flood protection and because there is so much evidence, but here's a pastebin: https://pastebin.com/9Xp1dDxe

>>63942 >T (transgenderism) Wrong. T = transexism A transgender person would be the tomboy. They adopt the mannerisms of the opposite gender without a superficial fixation on mutilating the body to resemble the opposite sex. A transgender person would be the gentle giant. They adopt the mannerisms of the opposite gender without a superficial fixation on mutilating the body to resemble the opposite sex. >>63945 >We can't alter the brain because we do not understand it Sure you can, it's called a lobotomy. And it's a sick thing to do to somebody. >so we alter the body, and it works near perfectly in both adults and kids. Sterilizing somebody is a lobotomy. And it's a sick thing to do to somebody. >>63947 >The treatment is transition, and it works. "The treatment to depression is pills and euthanasia, and it works." Works for the state, yes. Works for the patient, no.

>>63945 > risks of anal sex are "greater matters" than human rights. You are putting words into my mouth; no such suggestion was made. Rather, I was pointing out that there are much greater matters at issue here than _anything_ about myself. > Not preferences, sexuality, it is inherent. Again, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. > It's just inherent gender identity that's out of alignment with body's sex. If I believe that I really am a rabbit inside, should I be encouraged to transition to a bunny? More seriously, detransitioning is a thing. At least some people who attempt to become more in alignment with their "inherent gender identity" later regret that choice. > She's also a Global Warming denier. How is that relevant except as an implicit ad hominem argument? > Anyway most of that video is trivially debunked nonsense. Yet again, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. > The very implication that it's "recent" or a current "mania" is wrong. Trans people are older than her, older than you and older than the language we use to communicate. That is a straw man argument so far as I can tell. What Camille talked about, at least in the segment for which I wrote a transcript (below), is androgyny. She mentioned that, throughout history, the movement toward it "occurs in late phases of culture as a civilization is starting to unravel." > You've done a pretty good job of that yourself my guy. Even if I have, once again I shall reiterate that ultimately this is not about me. Many people just might learn that lesson the hard way, _after_ they have ignored what I and others were trying to tell them and come to regret doing so. > your motivations If you think my motives for pursuing this "crusade" are crazy, then that is absolutely fine. You are welcome to your own opinion. All things considered, an aesthetic anus fetish isn't all that strange compared to some other attractions out there. Besides, I have increased my knowledge greatly thanks to it being my strongest fetish, possibly among other factors (e.g. the matters over which I've been crusading for so long; perhaps the impetus to learn so much wouldn't have been there without e.g. rampant anorectal violence being a factor). > American mental healthcare system really doesn't work huh? That is a non-sequitur; I wrote about "common prejudices against and denigration of the anus" in one of my pastes included in TAv7. Use of terms such as "butthurt" and "assblasted" with their typical connotations serves only to reinforce said prejudices and downplay the significance of anorectal issues. "Historically, the movement toward androgyny occurs in late phases of culture as a civilization is starting to unravel. You find it again, and again, and again, through history. In the Greek art you can see it happening. All of a sudden there's a kind of...the sculptures of handsome, new young men, athletes that used to be very robust in the Archaic Period suddenly begin to seem like a wet noodle toward the end. The people who live in such periods — the late phase of culture — whether it's the Hellenistic era, whether it's the Roman Empire, whether it's the Mauve Decade of Oscar Wilde in the 1890s, whether it's in Weimar Germany — people who live in such times, they feel that they're very sophisticated, they're very cosmopolitan: homosexuality, heterosexuality, so what, anything goes and so on. From the perspective of historical distance you can see that it's a culture that no longer believes in itself, and then what you invariably get are people who are convinced of the power of heroic masculinity on the edges — whether they're the Vandals and the Huns, or whether they're the barbarians of ISIS, you see them starting to mass on the outsides of the culture, and that's what we have right now. There is a tremendous and rather terrifying disconnect between the infatuation with the transgender movement in our own culture and what's going on out there. I'm concerned; it's ominous. I question whether the transgender choice is indeed genuine in every single case, but again, what concerns me is when the well-meaning adults believe that they are helping people by making it easier — some permanent change in the body from which there is no going back. For example, Brown University, one of the elite ivy-league schools in the United States put sex-reassignment surgery on its student insurance program so that they can get a sex change in college."

>>63947 > Most of those studies are widely flawed and/or are based on debunked ideas such as autogynephilia. The burden of proof rests on the claimant. > Being trans is not a mental illness in and of itself, but Gender Dysphoria is definitely at least a form of neurodivergence that causes distress and can be treated. The treatment is transition, and it works. This really isn't my area of focus, but I may spend some time reading through relevant material (including the studies referenced in that old Lainchan thread minus 10.1016/j.endinu.2020.03.008, as Sci-hub currently does not have it) to come up with one or more defensible viewpoints. My general opinion right now is that transitioning is the the wrong treatment, and that people pushing for it especially for children are dangerously wrongheaded. >>63961 > Wrong. T = transexism Hmm. I think you might be arguing over minor semantics here. But I shall consider carefully my own use of transgender vs. transsexual going forward. It does make sense to do so when sex and gender have different, possibly subtle differences in meaning. Making a distinction may be a lost cause though; "transgender" seems to be generally accepted as referring to transsexuality regardless.

>>63968 Emphasizing a distinction between sex and gender is ultimately conceeding the framing of the problem to those who advocate tranny worldview. Gender and sex are effectively interchangeable, though usually we don't talk about german or romantic nouns having sexes, ahaha.

Have you asked yourself what does altruism truly stand for? My answer to that would be quite simple — an effective behavioural pattern/reaction. Most, if not all, outright self-sacrificial people, when being asked about what made them do it(throw themselves into a burning house to save someone for example), have but one answer: 'I didn't think, it happened automatically'. In my eyes, that's the case with altruism in general — people think they express their free and good will, but in reality(as it seems to me) they're just following the impulse that's been around since the first biological interaction took place. Animals, for example, can be altruistic while not being capable of even processing the idea. I bet most people would think differently of a dog saving a person from the fire as compared to a person doing it, the former case would probably be seen as an expression of good, but all-around animalistic and instinctive, dog will plus the beast's good training, while the latter would most likely be treated as a miracle, a virtue, god's direct involvement even. Biologically those two are the same behavioural patterns meant to benefit the organism in action, the self-sacrificial part might be a little bit confusing at first, but considering that social animals learn the context of when and how to act, it makes sense. Sometimes the context of an altruistic act might be stabbing someone in the back or gassing a particular subset of the world's population. In the end, there's little difference. It might sound like I advocate against all good, but all I'm saying is that the driving force behind the so called good has nothing to deal with it and thus the concept of altruism in reality is all about power or pleasure. Realising that doing good is egoistic does not make you any less good, pretending it is not does. I think this post also belongs to the 'fault' thread to some extend, but I ain't duplicating it. Sometimes it feels like all of the active threads(in general, not those present right now) are just discussing one and the same thing.

>>63973 Wrong thread, sorry. By the way, trannyism is a made-up problem(as well as anorectal violence, my dude) to sell the people the solution they don't need. By the way, what's it all about to *you*, the one 'drawing the attention to the issue of great importance'? I'm not asking what is in there you don't like or dislike specifically, but rather what makes you spend so much time posting about assfuck and not cancer or sexual deviations for example? You are clearly selling us a solution to a problem we were not aware of prior, thus it makes sense to question you on your motivations. What is it to *you* to make the world quit the assfucking business?

Dude, it's easy. Instead of actually arguing your points, just strawman the hell out of the opposition. Don't tell people why your ideology is good, just show people why everyone against you is a big dum stupid doodoo butt. By which I mean just nutpicking your opposition and only responding with epic clapbacks to the most retarded arguments against you, never bothering to refute any of their strong arguments.

>>63968 >seems to be generally accepted Passive voice is a clue you're being lied to. Ironically, I just used passive voice. However at least I intend to describe who is lying to you in the following paragraph. At a broad level, who invented the word transgender? Traditionally-minded social conservatives? No, obviously. Traditionally-minded social conservatives (TMSC) invented the word tranny. It is expected that TMSC would sloppily and reductively group every possible phenomena into a catch-all grouping. The moron TMSC >>63969 doesn't even recognize the distinction between sex and gender, between mind and body. It's fine, it's natural, that's the expected nature of the TMSC, like the scorpion. Completely unremarkable. But for Progressives, there is a different expectation. A different standard. A different caliber of understanding. Progressives recognize the finer distinctions between many types and sub-types of gender. But more fundamentally, Progressives recognize the basic distinction between sex and gender in the first place. Indeed, Progressives are the ones that invented/discovered that distinction. Even the TMSC >>63969 recognizes that as the fundamental "framing of the problem of the Progressive worldview". And so when Progressives, who will devote themselves to the most fine-grained and insane [no offense intended] divisions of gender imaginable; Suddenly, and for no apparent reason, refuse to recognize the relatively basic and coarse-grained division between transsex and transgender, it violates expectation. It is a renunciation of their own loud and nagging [no offense intended] standard. VERY remarkable. Such a thing does not happen by accident. It was not an organic development of the Progressive lexicon. Progressives were told - nay, ordered - to misuse the word transgender in that way, and they obeyed. And, since they would never have accepted such an order from a TMSC, the order must have come from someone posing as a Progressive. In short, they were betrayed. The motive? To intentionally misdiagnose people. To deny a transgender person transgender treatment, instead gaslighting them into receiving a mismatched treatment intended for a transsex person. For example, to take a feminine-gender male-sex person, who doesn't really feel like playing on the football team, and instead of telling them "gee that's okay you don't have to play on the football team, you're free to participate in any hobby you choose regardless of its gender in our Progressive society", to instead tell them "gee you don't feel like playing on the football team? that means you're going to feel terrible your entire life and nothing can ever fix it, luckily we have a cure, we're going to castrate you!" And why? Because the control of sexuality is how the State makes loyal soldiers. The Chinese/Ottomans/Romans castrated their court eunuchs, farmers castrate their bulls/pets, and eusocial ants/bees have perfected the process such that most of their drones are simply born castrated.

>>63980 >doesn't even recognize the distinction between sex and gender, between mind and body This is some half-decent word-twisting you're working with (by monkeys). The rejection of soma vs nous is an inherently liberal worldview thing (by monkeys). The rejection of "sex vs gender" is a rejection of the liberal worldview based vocabulary word (by monkeys). I'm reiterating what you are saying, but if you haven't noticed, I'm saying YOUR worldview showed up, it was not always here unlike the "traditional" (By monkeys). The subset of what I'm saying is: Take your "dialectic" bullshit and shove it (by monkeys) >capital P progressive You must be very devout (by monkeys) >to take a feminine-gender male-sex person, who doesn't really feel like playing on the football team What does "how they feel" have to do with football (by monkeys)? Are you suggesting that football is a masculine sport, as opposed to a feminine sport (by monkeys)? Wouldn't this be a binary sentiment (by monkeys)? >Passive voice is a clue you're being lied to. >Ironically, I just used passive voice More dialectics again. Marxists are insufferable. Did you know this strategy is also called pilpul? Did you know that we can effectively "prove" everything and anything using it? That means it is unreliable. What does this have to do with anything? I'm pointing out the foundational difference in this arguement between the two parties involved: Either/Or Vs. Both/And, which is why the two parties will never agree on this logical-starting point. The "both/and" marxists/liberals tend to use superficial sentiments to bootstrap "why its good": "Why have EITHER tacos OR burgers? Have BOTH tacos AND burgers!" for example, is a propaganda tactic that works on the... well, to put it bluntly: dumb. Being able to use words in a sentence does not prove its usefulness in in proving nor disproving. This is why we do not have the ability to properly discuss this. I can understand your worldview but you do not want to understand mine. Well, either way, I look forward to the bloodshed.

>>63866 >Feel free to offer suggestions then. stop using the word "anorectal"

>>63977 Ah yes, the "Twitter". While impossible to deny the popularity of this strategy, I think it has some flaws for very niche ideas. The only persuasive effect will be on people initially neutral to the idea, who already hate the chosen opposition group. But because what they care about is putting people they don't like in their place, not your idea, and because you have been catering to that and not explaining it, you have zero defense against corruptive forces. Someone thinks of an especially epic clapback that completely mangles the actual message? It's going viral and you can't stop it from becoming the new face of the movement. Something in your idea contradicts the dogma of mainstream binary politics? They will gaslight everyone by pretending that part doesn't exist (eg. "defund the police doesn't mean defund the police"). Basically it only seems suitable for an ideology with an already strong and clear message, that is naturally embedded within existing battle lines. Anything going against the grain is getting wiped away with this method.

>>63982 >I can understand your worldview but you do not want to understand mine. Your worldview is easy to understand. It is called Tribalism. When presented with a fact, you do not say that the fact is wrong, you say that the fact is part of the Other Tribe. This is because true facts must be suppressed if they support the Other Tribe. Conversely, wrong facts must be promoted if they support your Tribe. Example: Sidestepping that a fact is true by calling it part of the Racist Tribe. I quote you: >Emphasizing a distinction between sex and gender is ultimately conceeding the framing of the problem to those who advocate tranny worldview You didn't say that the distinction between sex and gender is wrong, because you know it's true. You say only that the distinction belongs to the Tranny Tribe, and true things that belong to the Tranny Tribe must be rejected out of spite, as self-destructive as you cutting off your nose to spite your face. >The rejection of soma vs nous is an inherently liberal worldview thing (by monkeys). Are you saying you acknowledge the distinction between soma and nous? Then how can you fail to acknowledge the distinction between masculine soma and masculine nous? And the distinction between feminine soma and feminine nous? You can't. >The rejection of "sex vs gender" is a rejection of the liberal worldview based vocabulary word (by monkeys). Except by saying that the "Liberal" Tribe believes it, which apparently trumps such trivial minutiae as it actually being true. - >Did you know this strategy is also called pilpul? By monkeys, yes. >Did you know that we can effectively "prove" everything and anything using it? Language can be used to say false things as well as true things, I acknowledge that. There's just one problem - I used language to say true things. So I really don't care that some other person who isn't even here used language to say false things. Not. My. Problem. >>capital P progressive > You must be very devout (by monkeys) Grammar lesson: Proper Nouns are capitalized. Why? To make clear to the reader that those nouns have a specific meaning in the story. A wheel is a wheel in any story. But Harry in Dirty Harry is a completely different character than Harry in Harry Potter. My post was a contrast between two (egregore) characters. Spoiler: Also a Binary. Lacking better names, I choose to name these two (egregore) characters TMSC and Progressives. Both Proper Nouns were capitalized. > Are you suggesting that football is a masculine sport, as opposed to a feminine sport (by monkeys)? Yes. > Wouldn't this be a Binary sentiment (by monkeys)? Yes. Like all Binaries, it is a model. Always a lie, sometimes useful. For example, keeping with the theme of last post's cartoon on gender and chemistry, we can divide the chemical elements into metals and non-metals. Always a lie, sometimes useful.

>>63988 >I quote you: no, you quote ME. >>63982 is someone else. >you say this because you know its true but you wish to deny it. words are subtle and twisty things, difficult sometimes to pin down. The world is full of categories, to which we map words to explain things, but because of the vast complexity of the world, and the maleability of language, there's a significant attention that must be payed to where we draw lines for words. Perhaps I comment that it it snowing, and someone else will correct me that rather its sleeting. There is a difference between the two, but if I am from a place where it never gets that cold anyway that difference is academic. Nevertheless, there is a difference. A line drawn between two things that someone else might group into the same category. Some arctic tribe of innuits might have many more classifications, their lines drawn in different places. Ultimately, to me its all snow. All these lines may be based in reality, but there is a question of relevance. Likewise perhaps some random fella thinks he's a woman (does he really? well suppose he does), and dresses up in skirts and pees in the lady's toilet. These may be all true behaviors, but in a normal definition of things, they're all irrelevant. Ultimately, to me its a man.

>>63974 > trannyism is a made-up problem That most certainly is not the case. > (as well as anorectal violence, my dude) That is very easily refuted by pointing to any one item among the large amount of evidence to the contrary posted in this thread. Moreover, there are some interesting parallels for anoreceptive violence and sex reassignment surgery for example: Both could be argued to constitute mutilation for one thing. For another, both quite possibly are being pushed by the same interests (e.g. leftists, Hollywood, and people with (self-)destructive tendencies). It could further be argued that the [increasing] prevalence and/or tolerance of both (I'm unsatisfied with this phrasing, but it'll have to suffice for now) is caused by societal decadence and is contributing back to it in a positive feedback loop. I may try to expand on this line of thought in the future. In the mean time I suggest reading through my old nanochan thread about hedonism referenced previously; I did clarify that _unrestrained_ hedonism is a problem (especially when it's widespread on a societal level) and not necessarily hedonism on its own. > to sell the people the solution they don't need. For anorectal violence at least, what solution precisely is that? As I pointed out previously, I'm not selling anything. In fact it could be argued that I'm trying to save people money and pain by eliminating any need for various medical treatments that may be necessitated by erotic anorectal trauma and/or potential sequelae. Even without engaging in significant anoreceptive activities many people might need anorectal treatments regardless later on in life (due to issues potentially arising from defecation processes, pregnancy, obstetric trauma, etc.); why hasten the need for them and potentially be required to spend (much) more money on them and live through much more unpleasantness because of them than might otherwise be necessary? >>63986 > stop using the word "anorectal" Why? It's a bona-fide word used to refer to both the anal region and the rectal region with one term, which makes sense when they're close together and when the anal canal (and therefore the rectum as well) has numerous definitions lengthwise. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anorectal >>63968 > I think you might be arguing over minor semantics here. It appears that this thread has largely devolved into a massive argument over semantics. Blah. >>63935 > Perhaps I'll try once again to start my own thread on the topics I've covered. I'm kind of expecting the censorship to begin anew if I do that, though. I may get around to doing that in the near future. I'll try to make the thread more interesting than previous threads, and to pose one or more thought-provoking questions.

Thread theme: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=vB23m0VxClk >>63987 Well said. Comedy is generally only appreciated by those who feel like winners from it. I'd guess it's an evolutionary instinct to improve social status by pulling others down. Hell, look at the lives of comedians, they're all terrible people. I think part of the problem with unpopular causes is often the public *has* considered the issue, and logically decided it's in their interest not to support you, even if your success would be good for them. IE too much personal risk, or they're taking advantage of you, and don't WANT to change. Only achievable goals should be pursued, and only actions which can be expected to fulfill them taken. If people are happier/in less pain not helping you, you might convince them for a time, but they'll betray the cause soon enough. Thus, you should only try to convince people who seem likely to be happier with your suggestion. In the song, in theory the townspeople would be better off stopping the rock, but they are less happy considering the issue, and don't want the hastle and stress of dealing with it, so they deny it. The protagonist might have chipped off a big chunk to fall on the town, so the pain it causes outweighs the hastle. He might have contacted a different demographic like bored firemen looking to be heroes, or an insurance agent who covers the town, and takes his duties seriously. Advocating to people who are worse off in their view helping you, may be the mistake in the first place. I'd say start off by figuring out who will be happier under your system, and finding a way to offer them a littlr of that happiness from your suggestion so they learn to fight for it.

>>63834 >"Ridiculously excessive care" was defined as adherence to precautions including—but not limited to—these: ruling out preexisting anorectal conditions (possibly caused by prior erotic trauma), always using lubricant, avoiding lubricants that irritate/damage the rectal lining, avoiding enemas (all enemas, hyperosmolar or otherwise, probably remove the rectum's protective mucus barrier), always using a condom (particularly in the absence of an enema), never thrusting too rapidly ("too rapid" could vary for different people, at least for the anal tissues), never inserting anything too girthy ("too girthy" also could vary), never using numbing agents (pain indicates something is wrong — anally [below the dentate line], but not rectally [above the dentate line]), etc. > >I then pointed out that in practice using ridiculously excessive care is unrealistic — it'd be more of a chore than a pleasure. This is all normal care expected for anal play. I don't think there is anything ridiculous, out of the norm, or chore-like about these practices. I do all of this (and more) when I engage in anal play and it certainly doesn't make it any less enjoyable - the opposite, in fact, adhering to common sense safety practices makes the experience much better. If you paste this again, I'd recommend including limiting the length of insertions, keeping the occurrences relatively infrequent, taking hot baths or showers before the anal penatration to naturally loosen the muscles (but avoiding muscle relaxation medication), avoiding anal play (or at least limiting it to light, gentle play) when inebriated (as drugs an alcohol both dull your ability to feel pain and make anal play feel much better, making you more likely to engage in rough anal play), and using latex gloves or some sort of barrier for fingering (condoms work and should be readily available). There are more, but I have to go for now.

>>63967 >things considered, an aesthetic anus fetish isn't all that strange compared to some other attractions out there. Besides, I have increased my knowledge greatly thanks to it being my strongest fetish, possibly among other factors (e.g. the matters over which I've been crusading for so long; perhaps the impetus to learn so much wouldn't have been there without e.g. rampant anorectal violence being a factor). Wait, so this 15 year long dedication to spamming about the dangers of anal penetration is really just because you want more pretty buttholes in the world? I thought it was some crazy schizo soykaf about stopping Hollywood/Wikipedia elites from corrupting everyone into society ending decadence.

>>64233 > This is all normal care expected for anal play. I wrote specifically about "anal intercourse and significant anoreceptive activities" in the paste covering ridiculously excessive care. Furthermore: The term "anal play" lends an air of lightheartedness and insignificance to activities that can have very serious, significant, and persistent/permanent health consequences, at least for receptive people. 1. Setting aside the points that the burden of proof rests on the claimant, and that you provided no references whatsoever: Ruling out a potential receptive person's preexisting anorectal conditions _every time_ is "normal" and "expected" care? I did not call it _ridiculously excessive_ care for nothing. That also applies for determining precisely what constitutes "too rapid" when, merely a few centimeters beyond the anal opening, there are viscerally innervated tissues not producing pain sensations when damaged. That includes the internal hemorr hoidal cushions, which—at least when they're present and healthy—as I noted become engorged with blood when voluntary muscles in the region, particularly the external anal sphincter and the pubo rectalis, are relaxing; such engorgement makes for a tighter fit: precisely what should be avoided where shear ing aka frictional sliding is concerned (a tighter fit = a much higher chance of causing significant trauma especially without pain indicating damage is occurring). 2. An excessive amount of evidence I've gathered suggests otherwise. For starters, see the articles and some of the studies included in Trends & Associations on the left "trends" side along with the article from The Guardian pasted previously in this thread. See also the "reddit bullshit & omission" collection posted previously; I can point out many examples of content along similar lines (i.e., they contain blatant, and in many cases dangerous-healthwise, falsehoods and/or omit important details of relevance).

>>64233 > I do all of this (and more) when I engage in anal play Leaving aside its high improbability (especially when you didn't even seem to fully understand just _how_ ridiculous and excessive said care is based on what I needed to reiterate above), your claim constitutes anecdotal evidence. Many people provably are nowhere near as careful as they should be (and, again, sufficient precautions to prevent significant anorectal trauma are impractical and unrealistic). Widespread (willful) ignorance plays a role, as do rampant misinformation and disinformation — all of which have been documented by material I posted. > I'd recommend including limiting the length of insertions, keeping the occurrences relatively infrequent Those are good suggestions, especially the first one where potential for colorectal perforation is concerned. I shall consider including them if I decide to create a new paste based on my old writing but dropping "In the past I wrote material along these lines..." > taking hot baths or showers before the anal penatration to naturally loosen the muscles (but avoiding muscle relaxation medication) Feel free to provide references that doing so helps at least with voluntary muscles in the region. Regardless, I doubt it facilitates relaxation of an involuntary muscle such as the internal anal sphincter. > avoiding anal play (or at least limiting it to light, gentle play) when inebriated (as drugs an alcohol both dull your ability to feel pain and make anal play feel much better, making you more likely to engage in rough anal play) That is a good suggestion as well. However, as I pointed out, significant damage can occur with no pain sensations whatsoever. >>64253 > Wait, so this 15 year long dedication to spamming about the dangers of anal penetration is really just because you want more pretty buttholes in the world? 15+, and essentially yes so far as attractive biological women's are concerned. However, as I've pointed out countless times before: Ultimately this is not about me. Please focus on the much more important issues I've covered.

>>63618 Most causes are unpopular not because they are controversial or unbelievable, but because nobody gives a soykaf, the NPCs weren't programmed to recognize the issue as a problem, you can't change their point of view if they don't have any

>>63834 > While I have included my own judgments in some of my own writings (particularly the "decadence" paste at the top of TAv7 along with the "justice" paste included in other variants), as yet I have not tried to force them on anyone else. I may never attempt to do so either, especially if many people start paying serious attention to material from many others to which I've been trying to draw attention (never mind what I wrote). On my todo list: Maybe reframe my opinions and judgments (e.g. "should" and "must") as rationales, especially with an eye toward societal effects & decadence: If something is not done, then ... [Looked at objectively:] If perpetrators of significant anorectal violence against one or more others—especially those whose violence inspires countless viewers—are not severely punished, then ... Suggestions are welcome. I'm thinking about going with something along these lines: "Rampant anorectal violence probably shall neither end nor cease inspiring countless people—including some to the point of emulation—unless it is demonstrated that perpetrators of such violence against one or more others _will_ face severe, life-altering or even life-ending consequences — just as any receptive person involved may (and many likely do) experience healthwise." The entirety of the current "justice" paste is below. Pornography industries worldwide have normalized violence that has inspired generations. Blatantly injurious erotic anorectal violence—anoreceptive activity involving a combination of rapid thrusting, considerable girth, and a prolonged duration—is rampant in pornography and far too common outside of it as well, facilitated by widespread (willful) ignorance, apathy, and misinformation. It is impossible for resultant anorectal injuries and serious/chronic/permanent health consequences to be uncommon due to anorectal fragility relating to anatomy and neuromuscular physiology [References: Anorectal Risks 1-3]. Violent pornography can have numerous effects on a substantial proportion of viewers. Those include inspiring them to emulate what they see, even using coercion; conditioning them to be aroused by suffering; and promoting development of related (self-)destructive mental pathologies including sexual sadism and sexual masochism disorders [References: Trends & Associations]. People with such inclinations are having a field day spreading disinformation and engaging particularly in anorectal violence: unrestrained hedonism contributing greatly to societal decadence. This is occurring because the vast majority of humanity likely never will highly value the good health of another person's anus at least; far too many people do not wish to think seriously about anorectal matters despite the anus being one of our most important body parts. Erotic anoreceptive activities should therefore be universally discouraged. Furthermore, perpetrators of anorectal violence against another person—especially those who inspire countless others—must face justice by any means necessary. Justice has not been served in far too many cases, and may be out of governments' hands after too much time has passed; people worldwide who were/are in a government position with jurisdiction to uphold it yet failed (e.g. current & former California politicians) also must be held accountable.

>>64329 what about fur user pornography? does it encourage zoophilia why do furries IRL (specifically the far right ones) tend to be very sociopathic? and from my observations weebs dont get this cancerous compared to their fandom should it be necessary to ban furry porn? if so what effect will it have on gen-z kids ive also noticed that furries tend to be very wasteful on their money in general and how can we fix this **inb4 troll**

>>64271 >Most causes are unpopular not because they are controversial or unbelievable, but because nobody gives a soykaf That if your failure for not explaining how this cause affects the person you are trying to convince. This is sales 101, you don't say "buy this thing because I want your money", you say "buy this thing because it will improve your life somehow". >the NPCs weren't programmed to recognize the issue as a problem, you can't change their point of view if they don't have any Again this is your failure for not understanding the other person's implicit incentive structure. The NPC is not conscious of why they believe what they believe, but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason.

The most important thing is to have good faith on the discussion. Things like not bringing your message where it clearly isn't welcome, not be an annoying sealion when your unpopular idea is attacked and so on With this in mind not only you can find people willing to listen to your cause, you also don't waste time on emotional pointless wars and get to actually develop a better foundation to defend or revise your ideas

>>64337 > what about fur user pornography? 1. In the text covering logically-fallacious diversionary tactics I wrote about the red herring: a tangential topic introduced intentionally as a distraction or inadvertently. 2. Even _if_ furry pornography is a concern on a societal level, it's not my area of focus. There is a plethora of significant problems in the world; one lone person shouldn't be expected to tackle a great number of them. We as a species came up with and put into practice concepts such as specialization and delegation for very good reasons. Personal interest also plays a role: even for any particular considerable problem that ought to be addressed, people may be unwilling to do so if they're plainly uninterested in learning more about related topics. That reluctance to learn more is a major problem for my own "crusade." It could be argued however that with anorectal eroticism being so common, there is a need for many people to think seriously about topics relating to it: If so many people wish to remain ignorant, then there most certainly should not be so many of them [fantasizing about] engaging in it. And, yes, pornography plays a huge role here in numerous ways — although it is not the only factor to consider. >>64357 > not bringing your message where it clearly isn't welcome Sometimes, though, people who don't want to hear certain things need to hear them — especially those things in particular. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the subject of filter bubbles. > not be an annoying sealion when your unpopular idea is attacked 1. I may be "an annoying sealion" when people are inappropriately/inexplicably hostile (generally that applies only for site administration members; hostility from others I am quite capable of ignoring, or at least responding to with copypasta rather than anger and taking out my frustration), when they fail to read/understand/acknowledge what I've written (particularly material pertaining to logically-fallacious diversionary tactics) and/or evidence I've—sometimes repeatedly—pointed out, etc. 2. Yet again, ultimately this is not about me. >>63847 > Respect is earned. Treat others how you wish to be treated. If people don't respect me by spending their time carefully reading and genuinely trying to understand what I myself have written at the very least (to say nothing of what many others have written), then why should I spend my time doing anything other than throwing copypasta, repeatedly if necessary, their way and being dismissive?

>>64340 The npc reward structure is build upon following established authority and the reason is over a decade of implicit indoctrination due education system drilling obey and repeat after authority or get punished. You can salvage some of them but it should be obvious you cant fix a decade of training into npc behavior with a witty post. Some are also plainly too stupid. Arguing with statistics when they don't understand math cant work. Think of that mcdonalds episode where advertisement failed because they didnt expect how many people cant even use fractions correctly in murrica.

>>64329 Additional points that may be covered by a revised "justice" paste: • Both Wikipedia and Reddit are being used to spread anorectal misinformation/disinformation facilitating anorectal violence. • Reddit also is being used to glorify and perhaps encourage/incite anorectal violence. Unlike Wikipedia (apparently), Reddit currently has policies in place forbidding the posting of both "health misinformation, namely falsifiable health information that encourages or poses a significant risk of physical harm to the reader" and "content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual (including oneself) or a group of people." The content in question ostensibly is user-submitted. However, as Reddit presently has applicable policies clearly going unenforced, it could be argued that people at high levels of Reddit ought to be held accountable for failing to uphold them, eliminate them, or change them such that they no longer apply to material posted e.g on those subreddits I mentioned. It could further be argued that regardless of site policy, people involved with any site being used to disseminate large amounts of health-harmful misinformation+disinformation and/or glorify real-world (as opposed to drawn, CG, etc.) violence, most pertinently anorectal violence, should bear some sort of responsibility at least when there is potential for many people to be affected in significant and detrimental ways. That relates chiefly to popularity: Reddit and Wikipedia both undeniably are popular, and that tends to confer undeserved trust among far too many people. In Reddit's case as least, policy is relevant as well: Officially forbidding the very material that is proliferating may lead some to believe erroneously that it is largely absent and/or what is present doesn't (significantly) constitute forbidden material. > perpetrators of anorectal violence against another person—especially those who inspire countless others—must face justice by any means necessary. Justice has not been served in far too many cases, and may be out of governments' hands after too much time has passed; people worldwide who were/are in a government position with jurisdiction to uphold it yet failed (e.g. current & former California politicians) also must be held accountable. I may try to reword/expand this: The clock is ticking as people and governments worldwide continue failing to address these matters. The number of perpetrators especially of anorectal violence against one or more others who can be punished only by violent means now probably is quite large and continues to grow year after year, e.g. due to relocation. That means no matter what, or how many, non-violent actions people take, bloodshed will remain necessary for justice to be served — barring _extremely unlikely_ occurrences, such as every government worldwide agreeing to prosecute certain people.

The masses are brainwashed to believe the popular thing anyway. All that matters is destroying the oppressive power structure that opposes your cause. The history of revolution is about one minority overthrowing another. And only after gaining power you can begin brainwashing the masses into thinking your cause has been popular all along. (contrary to some worldviews there are no ideologies that are exempt from this rule, you must accept it if you are to be successful) Activism is a last ditch effort for those who still think you can win over the masses with a good cause alone. Because the process of revolution is a very dirty business that few are willing to accept. <antispam break> I think most people here agrees that FOSS is superior to proprietary software. Yet we are a minority to the rest of society. Because of this society often forces us to use proprietary software. Whether it be your boss making you install some corporate spyware to make sure you are productive or a friend group making you install a proprietary chat application. It's nearly impossible to function within society without installing some form of proprietary software, that is in essence to forfeit some control of your device over to the software owners. If you refuse, you're always putting yourself at a disadvantage and will be left behind in society. Understanding all of this, it should be obvious to the most hardened advocates of Free and Open Source Software that all proprietary software must be destroyed by any means necessary. You live and you act your philosophy. You must become the ultimate keyboard warrior and exact vengeance against the nonbelievers! HAIL RICHARD STALLMAN! ps. Nobody take this little mini-manifesto seriously. Software isn't cause for revolution. lol

>>64523 >The masses are brainwashed to believe the popular thing anyway Not brainwashed. It's in their biology the need to conform for survival. We all engage in one form or other of groupthink; we've all been indoctrinated in some way. Your example of the FOSS advocates is a good one. Most of them do so in order to belong to a community. >the most hardened advocates of Free and Open Source Software that all proprietary software must be destroyed by any means necessary. If you're this seriously against proprietary software, you are also against many of the ills of society that make this kind of software necessary. So you have to alienate yourself from the social forces that coerce you into having to use that software, or find ways to compromise, for example, having a dedicated spyware computer which you can use to mislead the powers that be, subverting every possible communication to the Big Brother by reverse engineering their software and making it send what you want them to get.

>>64528 I'm not saying groupthink is necessarily bad. People lie because they're trying to get something out of you. This happens both on an individual level and a group level so there is no need to differentiate. Those in power will lie to all of society in order to stay in power and continue exploiting the masses. Going back to the point of my original post. When you're a part of an extreme minority like OP suggests, all of society is working against you. No amount of protesting, activism or sperging out will change that. They will not leave you alone until you conform. So the only option left for those who truly believe in the cause is revolution.

>>64531 Revolution generally refers to a popular uprising. An extreme minority taking control of a coup and then implementing unpopular policies is called a coup and then a dictatorship.

>>64532 EVERY revolution is fought by an extreme minority. Only after they gain power they convince the masses that it was popular all along. Generally the masses conform, those loyal to the old system form counter-revolutionary forces. You might call it a "dictatorship" if you're loyal to the old system, that's just the business of revolution. This can be seen from the Soviets to the Taliban. Even the American revolution was fought by a minority when most Americans wanted to remain under the protection of the British commonwealth.

>>64532 ah, but if that extreme minority instead opts to poke prode pinch (perhaps parole?, or promise to pay) pester and generally provoke that populace (partially) into a so called general revolt it ceases to become a coup and becomes a bona fied popular uprising. How neat.

>>64534 >EVERY revolution is fought by an extreme minority. Fought, sure. It's simply not possible for the entire population to actually fight all at the same time. But it's not really a "revolution" unless there is popular support. If you mean to imply that nobody has ever deposed a government with popular support, then you're just plain wrong. >>64535 Yes, you've just described what it means to agitate for revolution.

>>64523 >Understanding all of this, it should be obvious to the most hardened advocates of Free and Open Source Software that all proprietary software must be destroyed by any means necessary. >You live and you act your philosophy. You must become the ultimate keyboard warrior and exact vengeance against the nonbelievers! HAIL RICHARD STALLMAN! >ps. Nobody take this little mini-manifesto seriously. Software isn't cause for revolution. lol And yet open source continues to gain traction despite a near total absence of blood and iron type power grabs, simply by being in many respects more desirable and useful than non-free, non-extensible bloatware dragged down by dysfunctional corporate bureaucracies. Everyone uses tools derived from open source even if they don't realize it. Couldn't this be seen as a model example? I think for the most part ideas are not centrally dictated directly, because this demands enormous expenditure of political capital. Ideas and practices benefit from having strengths of their own, from being palatable to accept and helpful for the people asked to adopt them.

>>64531 >So the only option left for those who truly believe in the cause is revolution. No that's a soykaf way to push the cause because such insurrection is just a way to get a priviledged position and it's done when the powers start to show signs of weakness. The best thing to do is alienation.

>>64370 >The npc reward structure is build upon following established authority and the reason is over a decade of implicit indoctrination due education system drilling obey and repeat after authority or get punished. NPCs believe whatever the social group they are trying to gain acceptance from believes. >Some are also plainly too stupid. Arguing with statistics when they don't understand math cant work. It doesn't matter how smart a person is, if their entire social life and sex life depends on his chruch group, then rationally explaining to him why god isn't real will never work.

>>64542 How is that soykaf? There's already a privileged minority exploiting the masses. Our cause is righteous so its only natural that those most devoted to the cause should lead the masses.

>>63676 > While what I am doing may well be ineffective, I choose to press on until I am satisfied that I have "passed the torch." Yeah, fuarrrk that. Let medical doctors talk about this crap (pun intended). If there's even a need. Maybe this is just part of some evolutionary thing: humans needs a more durable anorectum for funtimes. > I do not wish for all those years I spent on this endeavor, and all that I have learned, to be for nothing. One or more other "crusaders" could find some of this information from many others I've gathered most useful, perhaps along with my personal knowledge, and so I continue until I am satisfied that doing so is no longer serving a purpose. Besides, there may be some societal value to willingly thinking about and discussing matters about which far too many others are reticent. I'm done. My knowledge about this stuff doesn't matter. I'm not a medical doctor. I'm probably wrong about everything. 15+ years of my life, wasted. Happy Analmas, I guess. Assfuck your family & friends for me, folks. Tell 'em Jesus told ya to do it. ;^)

>>64946 I know this is just someone doing a specialized version of "DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS" but it kind of makes me sad to think about a day when anorectal violence guy's will has been worn down. I mean I disagree with the whole "justice" through punishment, bloodshed, and banning sodomy and the spammy approach to message spreading as much as anyone else, but if anorectal violence guy's most sacred conviction can be broken, how do any of our convictions stand a chance? >Analmas Anal is more of a new years thing to me

>>64946 >medical doctors hearty laugh fuarrrkers go with what keeps them healthy employed and will peddle unnecessary crap to make more money.

From my notes: > The crusade has been shelved indefinitely as of 2022/12/19. I indicated as much with a post in Lainchan /hum/'s "unpopular causes" thread. > The post may or may not have been archived. Maybe check eventually for archival and replies. Against my better judgment, I am now doing that. >>64952 Your post exemplifies precisely why my "crusade" has been a completely and utterly pointless waste of time for far too many years of my life: 1. No one else points out the blatant misrepresentations, the fact that you have obviously and likely intentionally ignored what I wrote, etc. 2. No one else even tries to support/defend anything I've posted: neither what I wrote myself nor the vast collection of information from others to which I was trying to draw attention and on which I based much of my own writings. I guess that's because doing so would require both actually reading what was written and understanding portions of it to a significant degree... That brings me back to my points made previously about far too many quite obviously not listening, not caring, etc. I expect that they'll need a catalyst. > sodomy Misrepresentation #1, and I have a paste for that: "Sodomy" has religious connotations and can be ambiguous (technically it also includes oral erotic activities and even bestiality). I try to refrain from using the term myself. > banning sodomy Misrepresentation #2: Nowhere did I suggest banning anything. I wrote this in the decadence paste: "As the vast majority of humanity likely never will care much at least about another person's anus, discouraging anoreceptive activities entirely is the only realistic solution." > anorectal violence guy Yet again, ultimately this is not about me.

One of your options is to consider you may be wrong, or that you arent wrong but there is something bigger that everyones too focused on to even get to the issue you are talking about. The world pretty big, so often times there is room for your cause. There is plenty of groups to join or donate or promote to say, for stopping unecessary circumsisions (just to pick a niche cause ive seen someone on this board talking about). Even that though, again if you really want to make a change you probably have to work with a group who can make a more concentrated effort to essentially propagandize. Not in a bad way, from someone on the inside itd just be disseminating truth. The reason I say propagandize is cause you have to convince people in this case a problem of "being circumcized" is not only an issue but its a more pressing issue than whatever they are currently giving their time too. And that effort may not be true, that might be a lie. Thats why you should think about that first for yourself. In addition theres a bit of a bad habit people have gotten recently, one that I dont think needs its own call to action but will pass with time, where if say you are out there shouting "give us back our foreskins" someone will be quick to go "You sure are quick to talk about that but ive never seen you talk about x y z", its a bit of a fallacy but its not coming from nowhere. Often these niche causes in an attempt to do what I said earlier, will connect their issue to any number of things that run contradictory to most peoples experience to make it seem bigger. People pick up on this and it often sounds at worse insane and at best insensitive. "The reason you have a bad relationship with women is cause you are circumsized" or if talking to the other crowd "The reason men have treated you poorly is cause of circumsision", there is simply no evidence for these things and it runs contradictory to numerous peoples experience. And you have to consider the political climate too, many MRA types will also push ths circumsision issue. If you are genuinely considered about how circumsision affects a childs psychology, you are best not to simultaneously push it with other agendas even if that is where your allegiances fall. Its best not to assume this one issue you care about connects and explains an entire philosophy. Talk about actual studied maybe done on the stress babies experience during a circumsision or whatever, or studies about how stress and pain as a baby can lead to shortages of certain receptors. But dont jump to an assumption, or worse multiple assumptions that represent something far beyond the scope of the problem you identified. Im using this circumsision thing as an analogy but lets talk about the elephant in the room, and what you may be referencing, "anorectal violence". Its basically a meme here at this point. If you are him, I talked to you once years ago and you explained to me that despite my concerns you were in fact not pushing some anti-gay agenda, not some puritanical agenda, you were solely concerned that people were engaging in I cant remember your exact words but something like "with sufficient roughness, speed and girth to cause trauma". Im not sure if anythings changed but I felt you were relatively sane, and you werent making a bad point. In fact it was one that was impossible to dispute really. Of course I bothered to ask you a series of questions, which I did because the matter of anal sex pertains to my life. I have had both times where it was fun, and times where it was traumatic. But you know even saying that here, most would have like 5 slurs to call me. And even in real life, average people are shocked when its revealed thats something ive done and used to do quite a bit. So thats one part of the issue with that, despite what might seem like this great normalization of anal play, Id suspect over 50% have not ever tried it. Id suspect way more than that have not tried it more than once. And because you are presenting it on a chan of all places, and with no real clear indicatof of your intention, it appears as if you are due to religious or political motives on a campaign against "sodomy" and that if pressed for details you will eventually deevolve into a homophobic rant I have heard before. And lets pretend when I say "I" am not me but one of two camps: someone who isnt homophobic, has heard it before, and is not interested in more or being insulted and berated, of I am homophobic and im not interested in your nuances of defining anal sex and I think its all an abomination. Again unless I was deceived in the conversation with you, anorectal violence man, what you were preaching was in fact sex education. Had it been formulated like this, it likely wouldnt have been accepted here but might be elsewhere. You wanted to establish that anal sex is in fact not such a casual act and is rather hardcore, and can quickly be dangerous. The other primary issue is the thing I mentioned earlier though, the nuances of "anal sex is actually risky/dangerous/traumatic more often than yoj know it can be" is not someones top issue. We are not at a point where most want to dedicate the time to have "grey areas" on anal sex. They want to say its either safe when done right or its atrocious. Most in that area where it would be applicable, are again in sex education ot safety. And they have a larger overall problem of "sex is too often traumatic or dangerous regardless of method, how can we change that". Hope this all makes sense and helps at all.

>>66004 Sorry just to clarify, by "heard before" I dont mean from you. I just mean these are rants people have heard before many times that prime them to get a bit defensive.

>>66006 >>65960 Sorry to now triple post but I read this post and now see I was right to assume you were here and wanted to add something. I think going off what I said going into some kind of sex sducation would be your best bet for this. I know you might think sex education is all just telling people anal is okay, but the real thing is they realize people will do it regardless if they tell them not to or discourage it. People were doing it even when it was "sodomy" and illegal, if you want to educate people and explain its a lot more dangerous thanyou might think you know, I would suggest that route. Using language thats clear you arent condemning. In the same way most groups talking about STDs main message is "You might think you are fine but you are not, its always a risk, assume you know less than you think you do".

>>66004 > One of your options is to consider you may be wrong As I pointed out in the past: "This is not merely a matter of my being right or wrong when I quoted many others" (post 63292 in /hum/ thread 63291, archived). > there is something bigger that everyone[']s too focused on to even get to the issue you are talking about That may be so, but the issues I and others have covered are quite important in the context of humanity in general. Sure, there may be more important issues we as a species are facing. The ones about which I and others wrote are important nonetheless — especially when, as I also pointed out previously (decadence paste): Erotic anorectal violence—anoreceptive activity involving a combination of rapid thrusting, considerable girth, and a prolonged duration—is both rampant and one of the greatest contributors to societal decadence today. Assuming that we as a species survive our own stupidity and (self-)destructiveness, and don't manage to kill ourselves off or otherwise bring ourselves back to the Stone Age or somewhere thereabouts progress-wise, these issues will need to be addressed seriously and effectively by many humans worldwide at some point. > The world pretty big, so often times there is room for your cause. Perhaps so, but a major part of the problem is that far too many people really do not wish to think seriously about anorectal topics in particular. > sex education This "crusade" is chiefly about truth (to which education relates) and justice. There are other aspects as well which can be gleaned from previous posts, but they're rather insignificant by comparison. > anal sex I try to avoid using that term: Some people include a variety of anoreceptive activities in their definitions of it, such as anilingus for example, and so it can be vague. I'll assume that you meant anal intercourse in particular, or at least significant anoreceptive activities. > We are not at a point where most want to dedicate the time to have "grey areas" on anal sex. They want to say its either safe when done right or its atrocious. Sometimes things are not black-and-white, which is why I myself refrain from making absolute claims or guarantees of safety as noted in >>63871. Additional material of relevance posted previously in this thread: >>63834 — particularly the point that using ridiculously excessive care all the time, every time is both impractical and an unrealistic expectation. There are more points of relevance in >>63918. >>66007 See >>63632 and >>64329.

For whatever reason, I keep finding myself in situations where I'm interacting with trans people. My college roommate (mtf) and a mutual friend of ours (ftm) started transitioning during our last year of college. I then dated a transgirl for a few months before I had to leave college. I didn't pick up on her flirting until she asked me out. On a whim I said yes, and we did a lot of cuddling and anime watching. I would probably still be dating her if I didn't have to leave. I became online friends with another transgirl and ended up moving to her city for my first job. Lots of bdsm and snuggling. Through her, I was suddenly immersed deep into the LGBT community. That's how I met my current roommate and her (also trans) girlfriend, who is now moving in. What you learn after interacting with these people is that they're just people. Yes, many of them are traumatized and have mental health issues. The solution is to befriend and validate them, and let them feel like they have a place in society, not to demonize them for some abstract nonsense like societal collapse. That's pretty obviously just more abuse. Telling people that they're not valid human beings is also not a great way to get them to listen to you. Now that I've been living with lgbt people for a while, I don't think that the new understanding of gender is going away. It's also nothing particularly earth-shattering. People just date whoever they want, are called whatever they want, and don't worry about labels too much, and it's natural. While this is a departure from modern tradition, it's a return to ancient tradition. In ancient Greece and Rome, fuarrrking another dude was the most manly thing that you could do, and "female" mostly just meant "wears female clothing and gets fuarrrked." There are many, many sculptures of lifted palla with dicks underneath still around, and we know what all that olive oil was for. The same sort of sentiments echo across many cultures in many parts of the world. Given historical context I'm honestly not sure why people think that transsexuality or being gay is novel or surprising, and I'm not sure what people fear so much. What did the greeks and romans in was not demographic collapse due to gayness. The rest of this thread is really confusing to me. If I thought that anal was violence, I wouldn't partake. I've done it quite a few times with experienced bottoms (most of the transgirls mentioned above) at their request, and never really had problems. No doubt because of that experience. I wouldn't have agreed to it if I didn't think it was safe and that they could keep the situation under control. Use gloves and a condom, never go from back to front, warm up with bigger and bigger plugs beforehand, go slow, use way more lube than you think you need, all the standard advice. But most importantly, listen to your partner, and keep an open line of communication. Watch their face, look them in the eyes if possible, and make them tell you when something feels painful, uncomfortable, or wrong. If it does feel that way, you can always fall back to fingering (reduce the girth and the force). The point is the intimacy, and enjoying spending time together, so no need to rush it or feel pressured to finish. The same advice about intimacy and communication applies to all other sorts of play as well. So long as there's informed and continuous negotiation of consent, both parties know the risks and are taking steps to mitigate them, and the general advice is followed, I'm not sure how it could become violence. In the case of people pressuring their partner into trying it, not understanding/negotiating/mitigating the risks, then sure. That's bad, and a genuine problem. But I'm really not sure where the idea comes from that this has broader societal implications. I'm also not sure what this violence has to do with lgbt issues, as those people tend to be experienced and have the situation under control. >>63961 Trans healthcare is expensive, but the going rate for bottom surgery in the US is 30-40k USD, or 15-20k in Thailand. Hormones are about 150 USD/month if you want to buy them on the black market, otherwise insurance generally pays for it. For a lot of people that's a lot of money, but I think it's an irrelevant sum to medical and pharmaceutical companies. For them, cancer treatments are the big bucks. Cancer is a leading cause of death, patients are willing to pay everything that they have to not die, and all the pharmaceutical companies are competing against each other to keep the patient alive for just a little longer to keep billing them. Nothing is more lucrative than cancer treatments.

>very interesting topic >Looks inside thread >oh god its that guy again lmao >mfw (Good thread nonetheless) >>66075 >For them, cancer treatments are the big bucks. Not reply, but also like to add, if transitioning really was where the big money is, access for hormones wouldn't be so difficult, hence the prevelant black market for the drugs.

>>66079 >very interesting topic >Looks inside thread >oh god its that guy again lmao >mfw My exact reaction first time opening this thread :D

>>66075 forbes had a article how trans is bigger business than the movie industry because they make a lot of money for every customer they can catch. After smoking got deleted you now get sold trans as the next hipster product for social outcasts to feel special and part of a group. Its the same scam for the same type of loser. Also ancient tradition was fuarrrking kids not men of same age. They considered boys closer to women than men and that's what made it okay to fuarrrk them.

>>65960 >Sodomy" has religious connotations and can be ambiguous (technically it also includes oral erotic activities and even bestiality). I try to refrain from using the term myself. I didn't realize sodomy included oral activity or bestiality. I was only taught that it was anal. Sorry for using it and penetrative anal interchangeable. I didn't mean to imply a religious connotation. You have mentioned banning it: >The clock is ticking as people and governments worldwide continue failing to address these matters. The number of perpetrators especially of anorectal violence against one or more others who can be punished only by violent means now probably is quite large and continues to grow year after year, e.g. due to relocation. That means no matter what, or how many, non-violent actions people take, bloodshed will remain necessary for justice to be served — barring _extremely unlikely_ occurrences, such as every government worldwide agreeing to prosecute certain people. Saying the every government should prosecute it and that if they don't, violence and bloodshed must befall the participants is a call to ban it. Discouraging it and making the risks and mitigations known for it, I agree with you with. >Yet again, ultimately this is not about me. Your cause may not be about you, but this thread is about how people go about advocating unpopular causes. You're an advocate of an unpopular-ish cause whose been doing it for 15 years and are reportedly now losing steam. The thread topic is about people like you, what keeps you going, what makes you stop, and what techniques you employ.

>>66080 >1. open the same topic topic >2. "ugh fuarrrk this autistic retarded sperg !!!!" (me) >3. write an absolutely genius high iq response >4. forget I made the post >5. goto: 1

>>66027 >Assuming that we as a species survive our own stupidity and (self-)destructiveness, and don't manage to kill ourselves off or otherwise bring ourselves back to the Stone Age or somewhere thereabouts progress-wise, these issues will need to be addressed seriously and effectively by many humans worldwide at some point. I a hundred percent agree. Another reason beyond just engaging in anal sex that I can understand your points is that I think much the same about many things. What isnt addressed now will inevitably need to be, but when your thinking like that you start thinking at timescales of multiple lifetimes. I couldnt tell you whether I have a reasonable patience or laziness that allows me to not become restless about these issues. Some things are definitely not black and white. I think you are correct in a total holistic sense. As the author of that initial post and the two following I am convinced you are right. If someone were to ask me my opinions on the safety of anal sex I would likely say now "It can be done safely, but more often than not even people thinking they are practicing safely are still causing harm". I actually just had an interaction with someone who wanted me to use a toy on them (anally), I felt at multiple points I may have been hurting them. I asked frequently "Am I hurting you?" and they said no but I think thats very easy to do when in the moment you are focused on "getting off" so to speak. Ive kind of shown your posts partly in jest to two of my friends I talk to everything about and even though it waskind of shown in the tone of "this guys still going at it" we all agreed nothing you were saying was wrong. One of my friends even said he thought sex in general was too often violent becauss of some things I mentioned in my original post and in this one. Both parties at the time are highly motivated towards pleasure. Another friend I talked to who is gay and has had many instances of what you would call anorectal violence in the past (but now has a boyfriend of multiple years), mentioned to me that without a doubt there is far more risks inherently involved with anal penetration. Far more possibility for various micro tearing and intense discomfort. It is hard to "intimately know" someone elses internals like that or even your own. If theres anything I might disagree with you on, I might think the discovering of how all that works, in which mistakes are inevitable, is less traumatic than you do. But of course I may only think that becauss there is so many other traumas, and when those (hopefully) are all figured out I may or may have seen it the same as you.

>>66107 >assuming we as a species survive the near future without nuclear war/climate apocalypse/birthrate collapse/wwiii/whodafugnoeswut destroying all civilization, all the nations of the Earth will need to unite to solve the Greatest Remaining Challenges facing Humankind. Chief among them: buttsex You're overblowing the centrality of this issue. The bigger problems are the prominence of hedonistic and deliberately (and successfully so) non procreative sex, and the tolerance of the biggest buttsex demographics' antics. Solve those problems (whose effect is far bigger than the scope of interest of Mister Buttsecksman) and this problem just goes away. Mister Buttsecksman could try to approach it from this angle and would probably have a better shot at doing some good but I don't think he can/will because he's a fuarrrking glitterboy and his blinders are on tight. This cause isn't unpopular despite its altruism. It has no altruism; its simply one mans desire to look at many healthy and unwounded butts.

>>66112 Why is non-procreative sex bad? Why is hedomism bad as an ideology?

>>66123 "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" Imho, every ideology is too strict, too narrow minded to apply it to whole life. I think of ideologies more like a representation of some meaningful, to some extend, ideal. If you try to apply any ideology to everything, it starts crumble. Every ideology, same refers to scientific theories, has natural limits of applicability. Ideologies rise on the basis of some set of patterns anyway. And even more than that since ideologies\ideas has a tendency to work dialectical. You can't apply static logic and hope it'll work for anything thus your idea starts to develop, in doing so it eventually becomes something new, which generalise broader set of patterns.

Is lain really asking why hedonism is bad? >>66125 Sounds like you've only encountered soykaf ideologies.

>>66123 >Why is hedomism bad as an ideology? Because if you're not completely braindead, you get regrets afterward. Because true happiness isn't something you can reach by simply seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Because nothing of value was ever built on hedonism, so enjoy your art and culture (often hedonism fuel) not giving any more. Hedonism is only okay as a defence/fallback mechanism when living in today's soykafty decadence. Basically a symptom that precedes the real hard fall.

>>66125 >"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" Which is an absolute, you pop "culture" filled philistine. The only theories that have a chance to be reality are simply quite general; for example, I think stoicism (virtue is the only objective good and "virtue" means this) works well. By the way, you just sound like someone justifying his lack of real conviction, even if that may not be the case.

>>66130 >Because nothing of value was ever built on hedonism, so enjoy your art and culture (often hedonism fuel) not giving any more. Wasn't hedonism the dominant philosophy of singers and artists in the 60s and 70s? I quite like the grateful dead.

Even the original hedonists would tell you that what passes for "hedonism" today is a terrible, disgusting thing. Hedonism was about discipline. To be able to face the indignities and obscenities of life face-on without having them corrupt you. Read Aristippus.

>>66132 >Which is an absolute depends on definitions >The only theories that have a chance to be reality are simply quite general theories are built on the limited set of ideas which means they turned upside down if something doesn't fit this set. >I think stoicism (virtue is the only objective good and "virtue" means this) works well The fact that there were different systems of stoicism is more than enough to describe it's limited.

Wait is this what this whole thread is about? Is hedonism the "unpopular cause"? Thank God he didn't take my advice and kick off a hedonistic revolution lmao, that's the opposite of what we need.

>>66134 I think it was more a matter of getting fuarrrked by the producer and then coping with hedonism. I remember early internet websites talking about hollywood starts coming out saying you didn't get in without getting dicked. Simple consequence of 100 people for 1 role so only the ones going extra mile get taken.

>>66175 Maybe? Hollywood and the music industry are pretty different, you definitely have to sell your soul to a record company to get big but record companies usually just found existing talent and then coaxed them with money, sex, etc. Hollywood had people begging every producer to make them famous. And the grateful dead in particular, had a very different business model focused on LSD sales.

>>66083 > Saying [that] every government should prosecute it and that if they don't, violence and bloodshed must befall the participants is a call to ban it. That is yet another misrepresentation: I did not argue that every government should prosecute anything. Such an occurrence is, as I wrote, _extremely unlikely_. Rather, I stated that "barring _extremely unlikely_ occurrences, such as every government worldwide agreeing to prosecute certain people," "bloodshed will remain necessary for justice to be served." I stand by that viewpoint. Context is in >>64329 (in which I discussed reframing my own opinions and judgments as rationales) pasted below that I pointed out previously: I'm thinking about going with something along these lines: "Rampant anorectal violence probably shall neither end nor cease inspiring countless people—including some to the point of emulation—unless it is demonstrated that perpetrators of such violence against one or more others _will_ face severe, life-altering or even life-ending consequences — just as any receptive person involved may (and many likely do) experience healthwise." > Your cause may not be about you, but this thread is about how people go about advocating unpopular causes. You're an advocate of an unpopular-ish cause whose been doing it for 15 years and are reportedly now losing steam. That much is true, although it might be more accurate to say _causes_ (plural). > The thread topic is about people like you, what keeps you going, what makes you stop, and what techniques you employ. Perhaps so, but the causes in question are what matter. Anything about me in particular is only an irrelevant distraction. As I keep on pointing out, ultimately this is not about me. I do so for very good reason: some people intentionally wish to distract attention away from things that matter, and trying to metaphorically "shoot the messenger" can be a very effective means of doing that. >>66112 1. See what I wrote immediately above. 2. I did cover various broader factors that are contributing to rampant anorectal violence e.g. in the "decadence" paste: Widespread apathy, (often willful) ignorance, and misinformation about anorectal anatomy, physiology, and health. I also wrote about _unrestrained_ hedonism in that same paste and even made a thread about hedonism on nanochan and referenced an archive snapshot of it in >>63942. >>63996 > In the mean time I suggest reading through my old nanochan thread about hedonism referenced previously; I did clarify that _unrestrained_ hedonism is a problem (especially when it's widespread on a societal level) and not necessarily hedonism on its own.

>>64329 > perpetrators of anorectal violence against another person—especially those who inspire countless others—must face justice by any means necessary. Justice has not been served in far too many cases, and may be out of governments' hands after too much time has passed; people worldwide who were/are in a government position with jurisdiction to uphold it yet failed (e.g. current & former California politicians) also must be held accountable. >>64512 > I may try to reword/expand this: The clock is ticking as people and governments worldwide continue failing to address these matters. The number of perpetrators especially of anorectal violence against one or more others who can be punished only by violent means now probably is quite large and continues to grow year after year, e.g. due to relocation. That means no matter what, or how many, non-violent actions people take, bloodshed will remain necessary for justice to be served — barring _extremely unlikely_ occurrences, such as every government worldwide agreeing to prosecute certain people. The top quote from >>64329 originates from my "justice" paste. As a realist I am aware that justice probably never will be served in the vast majority of cases of someone perpetrating anorectal violence against one or more others, even for those cases that serve as inspiration for far too many people, and even concerning serial perpetrators with a reputation. That is precisely why I have waffled on-and-off over the years about shelving the "justice" paste entirely along with its call for justice by any means necessary. Perhaps the punishment wouldn't fit the supposed crime anyway. Of course, some victims of anorectal violence at the hands of one or more others may disagree with that assessment. But those victims can do as they please.

Unrestrained hedonism is essentially the pursuit of pleasure without restraint by reason, a conscience, law enforcement, etc. Psychopathy along with pathological sadism and pathological masochism (note that the "sexual" qualifier was omitted intentionally, because there may be aspects beyond eroticism — e.g. "schadenfreude") are some, but perhaps not all possible, motivating factors. Examples of unrestrained hedonism are manifold in this day and age. Rampant anorectal violence is but one manifestation of it going unchecked on a societal level worldwide and consequently contributing greatly to societal decadence. Commonalities can be identified by looking at factors that appeal to individuals with antisocial and/or (self-)destructive inclinations mentioned above. For psychopathy those include deceit, manipulation, and recognizing no boundaries. For sadism and masochism, a desire for suffering (which can take many forms) is the pivotal hallmark. People lacking a conscience who also have a desire for suffering are the truly dangerous individuals. "Also known as psychopathy, sociopathy or dyssocial personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder (APD) [or ASPD] is a diagnosis applied to persons who routinely behave with little or no regard for the rights, safety or feelings of others. This pattern of behavior is seen in children or young adolescents and persists into adulthood." ... "People diagnosed with APD in prison populations act as if they have no conscience. They move through society as predators, paying little attention to the consequences of their actions. They cannot understand feelings of guilt or remorse. Deceit and manipulation characterize their interpersonal relationships." https://web.archive.org/web/20220701221204/http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Antisocial-personality-disorder.html "Sexual sadism is particularly dangerous when associated with antisocial personality disorder. This combination of disorders is particularly recalcitrant to any form of psychiatric treatment." https://web.archive.org/web/20221123231553/https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/paraphilic-disorders/sexual-sadism-disorder

>>66239 How many hedonists have you actually talked to? I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me, my dom, and the friends that we make at bdsm/sex dungeons around Chicago. I don't think that the people you're afraid of actually exist. Or at least, you're pointing at the wrong people. Most people who live this lifestyle are just normal people by almost every other metric. We work day jobs, we think and plan for our long term happiness (as any true hedonist should), and we try not to make uninitiated people uncomfortable. We just enjoy a bit of consensual suffering and buttsex on the side. The love of suffering and buttsex does not imply moral degradation. To the contrary, we hold ourselves to a much higher moral standard for consent than regular folk. Since the usual framework for consent (agree/disagree) is inadequate for what we're doing, we've had to develop our own. Safewords are a way to express agree/disagree, but are not nearly enough. The new understanding is that consent is a continuous negotiation process, mostly through body language. It's your sacred duty as the top to protect the bottom. You need the empathy to know them better than they know themselves, and anticipate their emotions and needs. As the bottom it's in your interest to express your emotions/needs/limits to your top. Vanilla folk do not understand this. The public's understanding of consent is far, far behind. Both parties agree, penis goes in and out of the vagina, and that's what sex is. End of story right? The hole (if any) doesn't really matter. What is happening to that hole (if any) doesn't matter either. What matters is the way that it makes the parties involved feel. If it makes you feel close, like you can feel each other's emotions coming though, then it's a beautiful thing. It doesn't matter if there's a penis in a vagina, or an anus, or none of the above. Unless you want to make babies, in which case you have to use a penis and a vagina I guess. I am curious, under this interpretation of sex being about the feeling of closeness rather than the act, what your response is.

>>66379 "We're just like you" - how all degenerate soykaf gets normalized. No, you're not. You're a clown and a freak. People like you need to be mocked and laughed at.

>>66379 Its kinda funny that you reply to him "as a hedonist" then proceed to "its good cause i like it" which is the hedonism reasoning but then forget hedonism is just one out of many frameworks. Most moral frameworks don't care about your opinion. They define good/bad and tell you to adapt to it if you want to be moral. Another thought worth mentioning is higher standard doesn't equal better - genital mutilation came from the "you cant enjoy it" idea which is obviously a higher standard than "we dont care if you have fun". As for an objective reason why fuarrrking the wrong hole is bad: std transmission risk is much higher. Literally backdooring immune system *ba dum tss *

>>66384 Imagine literally, unironically, putting your penis in a butthole. Where poop comes out. And you're like "yeah, that's the one."

>>66239 > I don't think that the people you're afraid of actually exist. 1. How many times must I point out that ultimately this is not about me? 2. I wrote nothing about being afraid of anyone. You are putting words into my mouth, i.e. introducing (sigh) yet another misrepresentation. As for the existence bit — from >>66239: "Examples of unrestrained hedonism are manifold in this day and age. Rampant anorectal violence is but one manifestation of it going unchecked on a societal level worldwide and consequently contributing greatly to societal decadence." See also: >>63920 What I wrote many years ago elsewhere (https://web.archive.org/web/201704/http://desuarchive.org/gif/thread/9488931/#9518466) is relevant as well: "Behaviors that psychologists and psychiatrists attribute to sexual sadism, sexual masochism, and antisocial personality disorder (aka psychopathy/sociopathy; antisocial interpreted literally means "against society" -- sometimes people confuse antisocial with asocial) provably exist as observable and persistent traits in some humans. People for whom those behaviors are a repeated pattern should be causes for concern, especially when significant physical harm is involved." > Or at least, you're pointing at the wrong people. That most certainly is not the case. > The love of suffering and buttsex does not imply moral degradation. 1. You are attacking a straw man. I wrote nothing about "moral degradation." 2. Concerning BDSM in particular, here is something else I wrote on another site (https://archive.today/4BHvO#post2376): "[people within the BDSM community] _claim to_ adhere to the "safe, sane, and consensual" policy which theoretically would exclude people who are pathologically masochistic, pathologically sadistic, and psychopathic (because anyone involved would stop short of infliction of actual harm and therefore deriving pleasure from it wouldn't be a possibility). In practice, of course, I doubt that the BDSM community is as careful as they would like everyone else to believe." > The hole (if any) doesn't really matter. What is happening to that hole (if any) doesn't matter either. Yes, they do both matter for numerous reasons I and others provided. The image contains some pertinent material, as does this post: >>63876. > I am curious, under this interpretation of sex being about the feeling of closeness rather than the act, what your response is. "The feeling of closeness" should not excuse behavior that is violent and/or insane (going by every definition of the word).

>>63694 > I was thinking that I could place more emphasis on avoidance of pain and problems for potential receptive people. Problems with that argument include, well, fighting against a meme, contradicting widespread misinformation and disinformation sometimes originating from sources both slick and trusted (with trust being misplaced), corporate interests including Hollywood and California's pornography industry pushing anal eroticism very strongly, normalization of coercion, tolerance of willful ignorance, far too many people—including some who ought to know better—downplaying the significance of traumatic risks in particular, etc. >>66384 > As for an objective reason why fuarrrking the wrong hole is bad: std transmission risk is much higher. In the context of significant anoreceptive activities, and speaking of people "downplaying the significance of traumatic risks in particular:" There are numerous objective reasons not involving STIs whatsoever. Many of those reasons were mentioned in previous posts and writings of mine, which I may point out specifically if necessary. They relate to traumatic risks owing to anorectal fragility arising from the region's anatomy and physiology. The image is related.

>>66382 I let my freak flag fly. Life is too short. >>66384 I didn't really mean to defend hedonism as an ideaology. My point was only that I don't think the there's anything wrong with hedonists existing in society, or buttsex, and that whatever satanic cabal that the public imagines is fictional. Because I feel that someone is going to try to call me on if if I don't point it out, "satanic cabal" was hyperbole. The moral framework that's strongest in the bdsm community is "how do my actions affect others?" As a default, I think it's a good framework. Covers most bases. As for the genital mutilation example, I'm very confused and can't tell what point you're trying to make. >>66388 >I wrote nothing about being afraid of anyone I use afraid to mean concerned. >You are attacking a straw man If so, I only constructed it accidentally. Almost all of my friends are practicing sadists, masochists, or both. Right now I am covered in (painful but harmless and fun) bruises and hickeys. I figure that if there's anybody you're talking about, it's probably me and my friends. I'm biased, but I would say there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing. By hurting people who want to be hurt, in the way that they want to be hurt, in the context that they want to be hurt, with their consent, I am not hurting anybody else. Suppose that it isn't me that you're talking about, it's only people who cannot control themself and actively want to cause harm to people. How many of those people do you really think that there are? We bdsm lovers are a very small percentage of the population. There are substantially less who are demented enough to meet your criteria. We've been trying to normalize sadism and masochism for the longest time, and with the exception of one botched twilight fanfiction (which we resent), we have been wholly unsuccessful. I sincerely doubt that a significantly smaller group than ours could have such an effect on society as you claim. There might be "examples" to point to, but I don't see why it's worth going to this level of effort.

>>66388 The first quote mistakenly referenced my own post, 66239, when the quoted material originated from someone else in >>66379. Anyway: >>66391 > I don't think the there's anything wrong with hedonists existing in society, or buttsex, and that whatever satanic cabal that the public imagines is fictional. You are welcome to your own opinion. > The moral framework that's strongest in the bdsm community is "how do my actions affect others?" As a default, I think it's a good framework. Covers most bases. "Moral," huh? Anyway, to emphasize what I wrote previously: I doubt that the BDSM community is as careful as they would like everyone else to believe. > I use afraid to mean concerned. I'm not sure they're semantically equivalent in common parlance ("afraid" implies involvement of fear, whereas "concern" may not), but whatever. I don't wish to argue over semantics. > Almost all of my friends are practicing sadists, masochists, or both. Right now I am covered in (painful but harmless and fun) bruises and hickeys. I figure that if there's anybody you're talking about, it's probably me and my friends. In >>66239 I wrote about, and clearly defined, unrestrained hedonism. It is an umbrella term for many activities, both erotic and otherwise. I then wrote this: Examples of unrestrained hedonism are manifold in this day and age. Rampant anorectal violence is but one manifestation of it going unchecked on a societal level worldwide and consequently contributing greatly to societal decadence. > I'm biased, but I would say there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing. That, too, is your own opinion. Others may disagree, and more importantly there are legal concepts which may (and, arguably, should) apply when we're talking about one or more people inflicting physical harm on another with potential for—and maybe an actual result of—serious injury. I included the "criminal justice" image in >>66388 for a reason.

>>66388 > By hurting people who want to be hurt, in the way that they want to be hurt, in the context that they want to be hurt, with their consent, I am not hurting anybody else. That is not necessarily true. Word of mouth, for example, may inspire others to emulate your actions. Another possibility is that you and/or anyone else involved may record what happened and then upload it online for others to watch, inspiring them that way. > We bdsm lovers are a very small percentage of the population. The burden of proof rests on the claimant (and good luck proving that one for an activity that may be "underground"). > There are substantially less who are demented enough to meet your criteria. 1. The burden of proof rests on the claimant. 2. As I wrote in the "justice" paste: "Pornography industries worldwide have normalized violence that has inspired generations. Blatantly injurious erotic anorectal violence—anoreceptive activity involving a combination of rapid thrusting, considerable girth, and a prolonged duration—is rampant in pornography and far too common outside of it as well, facilitated by widespread (willful) ignorance, apathy, and misinformation. It is impossible for resultant anorectal injuries and serious/chronic/permanent health consequences to be uncommon due to anorectal fragility relating to anatomy and neuromuscular physiology [References: Anorectal Risks 1-3]." Again, see also >>63920. > We've been trying to normalize sadism and masochism for the longest time, and with the exception of one botched twilight fanfiction (which we resent), we have been wholly unsuccessful. 1. I wrote specifically about pathological sadism and pathological masochism, i.e. sexual sadism disorder and sexual masochism disorder. You are trying to normalize pathological behavior? (I should point out that I was unclear in my old 4chan post, and neglected to add [disorder] brackets after sexual sadism/masochism when I quoted it in >>66388 this time.) 2. As I pointed out in the "decadence" paste: >>63694 > Erotic anorectal violence—anoreceptive activity involving a combination of rapid thrusting, considerable girth, and a prolonged duration—is both rampant and one of the greatest contributors to societal decadence today > Widespread apathy, (often willful) ignorance, and misinformation about anorectal anatomy, physiology, and health are enabling people with (self-)destructive tendencies to have a field day with such violence and to effectively spread disinformation. That unrestrained hedonism is contributing greatly to societal decay. See also the Wikipedia critique included in TAv7 >>63694. I see that all of those issues I've covered still exist, as they have (minus a few minor interruptions that were reverted) for far too many years now. How anyone can take anything on that site seriously is beyond me. Perhaps I should start calling it "Shittypedia" instead.

>>66393 >Word of mouth, for example, may inspire others to emulate your actions. Another possibility is that you and/or anyone else involved may record what happened and then upload it online for others to watch, inspiring them that way. So other people would also not be hurting anybody? Or do you mean to say that other people would *not* emulate me and would in fact do something different?

>>66393 ... And there I go again, quoting 66391 while attributing it to my own post 66388. Grr. I take a break from posting on chans for a few weeks and this is the result. >>66394 > So other people would also not be hurting anybody? That doesn't follow. You claimed that "By hurting people who want to be hurt, in the way that they want to be hurt, in the context that they want to be hurt, with their consent, I am not hurting anybody else." I responded with "That is not necessarily true." I then provided a few reasons as to why. > Or do you mean to say that other people would *not* emulate me and would in fact do something different? No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Anyway, I'm done for now. I may be back at some later point.

>>66391 Life is short and you want to waste it on cooming? I would tell you to keep it behind closed doors but the fact you're advocating it in the first place shows I can't expect that from people like you.

>>66398 >the fact that you post anonymously on an imageboard about something means you're not "keeping it behind closed doors" I understand literally not having sex in a public place, but you're advocating not even *talking* about it, which is blatant suppression. Again, literally nobody is really being hurt (in the sense that their personal autonomy is violated), so the only reason to suppress it is because of a desire to control others -- in fact, to violate their personal autonomy.

>>66399 Weren't you just talking about how BDSM is about "being considerate of others"? You're trying to normalize it without telling people know the consequences, you're essentially lying to everyone or you're ignorant. I hate liars more than anything else in the world. But sure, go ahead and do what you want. Just don't bitch when it comes back around to bite you in the ass. You chose this path.

>>66391 > We bdsm lovers are a very small percentage of the population. 1. Not all people with cases of sexual sadism disorder (with or without comorbid psychopathy [comorbid meaning present with another condition]) and sexual masochism disorder may identify as members of some nebulous community, whether that is "BSDM lovers," "the BDSM community," or anything else. 2. This study is quoted in Trends & Associations >>63876 (quote trimmed to emphasize material of relevance): "Sexual masochism disorder is considered the most prevalent paraphilia among women." "Is There a Relationship Between Borderline Personality Disorder and Sexual Masochism in Women?" Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2017 Apr; 46(3): 747-754. PMID 27600835. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0834-z. Based on both the prevalence and the popularity of anorectal violence at the very least especially in pornography, I would say sexual sadism disorder seems to be quite common as well, along with sexual masochism disorder on the part of many receptive people. As I wrote in the "justice" paste: >>64329 > Violent pornography can have numerous effects on a substantial proportion of viewers. Those include inspiring them to emulate what they see, even using coercion; conditioning them to be aroused by suffering; and promoting development of related (self-)destructive mental pathologies including sexual sadism and sexual masochism disorders [References: Trends & Associations]. People with such inclinations are having a field day spreading disinformation and engaging particularly in anorectal violence: unrestrained hedonism contributing greatly to societal decadence. >>63920 > Other subreddits [in addition to /r/painal] which obviously violate Reddit's policy* regarding violent content yet strangely still [as of 2022/11/05] persist nonetheless: /r/Roughanal /r/DegradingHoles /r/analfisting I checked again recently, and those subreddits still persist (and seem to be far too popular to boot). I continue to wonder whether people involved at high levels of Reddit ought to be held accountable... >>64512 > The content in question ostensibly is user-submitted. However, as Reddit presently has applicable policies clearly going unenforced, it could be argued that people at high levels of Reddit ought to be held accountable for failing to uphold them, eliminate them, or change them such that they no longer apply to material posted e.g on those subreddits I mentioned. It could further be argued that regardless of site policy, people involved with any site being used to disseminate large amounts of health-harmful misinformation+disinformation and/or glorify real-world (as opposed to drawn, CG, etc.) violence, most pertinently anorectal violence, should bear some sort of responsibility at least when there is potential for many people to be affected in significant and detrimental ways.

>>66421 "There are probably a lot more of us that just don't realize it yet" - normalization of degenerate soykaf stage 2 Still all while disclaiming the consequences

>>66400 >Weren't you just talking about how BDSM is about "being considerate of others"? Yes, and I fail to see why that is at all incompatible with my desire to talk about BSDM. >You're trying to normalize it without telling people know the consequences Is that so? I've never met anybody who talked about doing BDSM without also talking about safety, aftercare, etc.

>>66239 > "Sexual sadism is particularly dangerous when associated with antisocial personality disorder. This combination of disorders is particularly recalcitrant to any form of psychiatric treatment." > https://web.archive.org/web/20221123231553/https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/paraphilic-disorders/sexual-sadism-disorder Also from that Merck article: "Sexual sadism is a form of paraphilia, but mild sadistic sexual behavior is a common sexual practice between consenting adults, is usually limited in scope, is not harmful, and does not meet the clinical criteria for a paraphilic disorder, which require that a person's behavior, fantasies, or intense urges result in clinically significant distress or functional impairment or cause harm to others. However, in some people, the behaviors escalate to the point of harm. When sadism becomes pathologic is a matter of degree." I would argue that the same notion applies for sexual masochism: that is, mild masochistic erotic behavior is not pathological in the absence of harm and any other criterion of pathology, such as clinically significant distress. Of course, some people may label all sadistic and masochistic behavior as pathological or "degenerate," but that's really not an argument that should be settled here: _harmful_ behavior is the concern especially on a societal level. >>66391 I myself am focused on, and wrote about, anoreceptive activities — especially anorectal violence. Behaviors not involving the anorectal region are red herrings in that context. Ergo, whether your personal anecdote is true, and whether your supposed bruises and hickeys are actually harmless, are both rather irrelevant unless that said region is involved. >>66425 > I've never met anybody who talked about doing BDSM without also talking about safety, aftercare, etc. That is not really relevant when I was talking specifically about sadism and/or masochism taken to an inarguably pathological level. I pointed out examples of associated material (e.g. a subreddit devoted to painful anal intercourse, aka painal, which—barring _extreme_ ignorance—should appeal only to people with one or more pathological and [self-]destructive mental disorders), and noted that sexual sadism disorder along with sexual masochism disorder are rampant at least in the form of anorectal violence. I also asserted in the justice paste that violent pornography is "promoting development of related (self-)destructive mental pathologies including sexual sadism and sexual masochism disorders," which probably relates to conditioning, the Coolidge effect, and possibly other factors.

>>66425 Oh yes "safety", "aftercare". Again, you either ignorant to the consequences or trying to downplay them to make BDSM sound more appealing. I'm talking about association with mental illnesses, physical illnesses and the long term effects of your choices. Even if you practice proper protection it's there's no guarantee of 100% effectiveness all the time. Such depravity can lead to taking artificial hormones causing irreversible physical changes or castration, all in the pursuit of more "pleasure". You can throw all the "correlation is not causation" you want at me or try to denounce the more extreme end of your hedonistic spectrum but it will not change the facts, such things do not belong in a healthy society. After all that what will your legacy be? How will your actions affect the world after your death? Do you really want to be remembered as just another weirdo that dedicated his life to cooming? Is cooming your purpose? If your answer to that last question is "Yes" then I'll restate; Fine, do what you want! It's not my place to control you. But there are many people that hate your kind. No one in their right mind would trust you around children like they wouldn't trust a drug dealer around children.

>>66393 You have clearly never been to a sex dungeon. We take safety very seriously. We have to. I teach rope seminars, and if you go to any seminar at any dungeon in Chicago, there's always a section on safety. >Word of mouth, for example, may inspire others to emulate your actions I would hope that word of mouth inspires others to attend my rope safety classes. Anal is on the list of potentially dangerous activities, but near the bottom when it comes to safety concerns. People who do anal usually have things figured out. People who want to try it usually can google to find help. Follow my standard advice from >>66075. If it hurts or something feels wrong, let your partner know and slow down or stop. If you follow the advice either above or from google, the chance that something goes wrong is very low. Shibari is much more dangerous. Beginners who haven't had the correct safety briefings try things that they see in porn all the time without understanding the dangers or how to mitigate them, and people get hurt. This is a concern to me and other rope educators. What we try to do is get them into the dungeon so that we can give them the correct safety briefings and supervise the situation, then step in if we see something unsafe. >>66395 >>66394 isn't me. I'm not sure who that is. I haven't responded since >>66391. >>66398 >Life is short and you want to waste it on cooming? Life is short, so I want to spend it with the people that I love doing the things we love. For me that actually almost never includes cooming. I'm fairly asexual, but being beaten by the right person in the right context makes me feel warm and loved. Brains are weird. >I would tell you to keep it behind closed doors but the fact you're >advocating it in the first place shows I can't expect that from people like you. I share it with people that have consented, either because we had a conversation about it, or because they're currently at an event at a sex dungeon. Since all my friends and roommates also live this lifestyle, it's not like I need to suppress it. We literally just go into each other's rooms and bite each other. I'm a reasonable human being at work, in public, among vanilla friends, etc. Those people have not consented, and forcing myself on them in that manner would be wrong. >>66421 You use a lot of big words. You cite your sources. As if that means something. Why? Sex educators never use big words. Psychologists and psychiatrists never use big words either when speaking to patients or general audiences either. So, suppose you're right about all this "anorectal violence" stuff, whatever that means. After all you may be, you haven't said anything falsifiable. What's the solution? Sex education and psychiatry. If you think it's a problem, why not speak the language of the solution? This confuses me. As a person and a sex educator, I do take offense at the suggestion that being a sadist or masochist is a mental disorder. You never said it directly, but the implication is there. It's an attack on something fairly core to my personality.

>>66494 Your response wasn't on screen when I posted. The person you're responding to isn't me. Someone has been posing as me. The last times that I posted were >>66495 and >>66391. I presume that there are also multiple people in opposition to my pro-bdsm takes. To respond though, I don't understand your mistrust. I have stated in every one of my messages that we see trust as sacred and safety as important. Why do you not believe me? What reason do you have not to trust me when I tell you that these are the things that we talk about among ourselves? You speak of consequences. Kink can be dangerous, but the dangers can be mitigated. Normal sex too carries risk of pregnancy. Conceptually, I don't see any difference. I think the issue is that you are contextualizing the actions of the bdsm/lgbt communities using your own cultural context and values, rather than ours. Any college anthropology course will tell you that's a rookie mistake. For example, you could spend just as long talking about the dangers of eating raw meat. In our cultural context, eating raw meat seems dangerous and wrong. That doesn't change the fact that it's been the norm across many cultures for many thousands of years, still is in many parts of the world, and that it doesn't make those cultures any more or less valid. In other words, you do not get to tell us whether our culture is "healthy" or not. That's something for us to decide for ourselves. This argument has limits however, as the Calvin and Hobbes comic discusses. In my opinion though, for the topics we're discussing, they're all pretty similar in terms of both how weird they are and the risk of doing them to eating raw meat. To dispel one last myth, Nobody transitions in pursuit of pleasure. The first thing that any doctor will tell you is to expect a steep decline in libido. It's not something that people do for fun either. In general, the process is like kicking dead whales down the beach. When my college roommate transitioned, she talked about debilitating pain as she formed breast tissue, and feeling weak and dizzy when we worked out together. With that said it's definitely worth it for those who do need to transition, and she was able to get help from her doctor with minimizing those side effects. In general, this seems to be a common thread. With bdsm, anal, transitioning, raw meat, all of the above. The things that we do in our culture can be dangerous. Therefore, you should get help from people who know what they're doing to help you mitigate the risks. When the risks are properly mitigated you're probably pretty safe, but don't get complacent or someone could still get hurt.

>>66497 That's a whole lot of words to say correlation is not causation and downplaying the consequences. I'm saying sexual deviancy is on par with drugs and it's nothing to be proud of. Listen I'm no saint. I smoke multiple packs of cigarettes a week. But I understand the health risks, I'm not "proud" to smoke. I don't advocate people to smoke. I most certainly do not make an ideology around it! I do it because it helps me clear my head and think straight, and I like the taste - superficial things I can enjoy now at the expense of consequences down the road... BDSM is so far down the spectrum you're like a junkie. You've sacrificed much of your potential, possibly your offspring too, in the pursuit of pleasure. When you're 40 you'll be thinking back to what could have been but in the end your legacy amounts to being a cuumer and then you'll be forgotten (if not already killed in a fascist insurgency :troll:).

>>66498 >your legacy amounts to being a cuumer and then you'll be forgotten 99.99% of people are forgotten within 2 generations of their death. Your descendants will almost certainly share neither your interests nor world view. They'll probably do and think things that would mortify you, because those are mostly the result of a person's surroundings. You might as well donate sperm if you want to maximize your genetic offspring, and even someone who likes bdsm can do that.

>>66495 >BDSM > I'm fairly asexual Wait, how does that work? Isn't BDSM a sex based subculture? I'm a religious conservative (not a Christian btw), and I'm fine with people crossing boundaries and engaging in taboo and dangerous behavior, so long as that behavior remains taboo and illegal. After all, its only through extreme sin that you can appreciate virtue and sublime religious truths. But if illicit sexual behavior became suddenly accepted in society as at least a somewhat acceptable option for people to choose then suddenly we don't enjoy that anymore. I mean take homosexual anal sex. There was a time when that was considered horrific and unacceptable, but now it's legal and therefore boring. We teach teens about it and tell them it's just another acceptable option to pick from, as a result it becomes dull, linked to authority, and uninteresting. It's vanilla. I like the idea of engaging in sexual activity that is inherently dangerous and literally immoral and where the consequences are going to be negative. Like people ostracizing you or being sent to prison, or even executed. These things make stuff exciting, risky, and adventurous because what brings you closest to death allows you to appreciate life. It's like climbing a mountain, risky business. But if you could go up Mt. Everest in a cable car suddenly it wouldn't feel all that great anymore. Sure your not going to risk freezing to death but the sense of accomplishment is gone. >>66498 I'm somewhat sympathetic to what you've been saying overall but I disagree. Is it really something deviant? I mean, when I've had the occasional run in with BDSM types they're quick to emphasize how they're consent orientated, how they comply with medical and psychiatric discourse, how they operate within the law. In other words, they accommodate the dominant authorities and hierarchies in a liberal society. Isn't this (and I'm not knocking it here) simply pretend play deviance? Are they really 'freaks' or simply ordinary people masquerading as 'freaks' for personal pleasure, self comfort or whatever? And if it's all just pretend deviance, then why care? That's actually why I don't like BDSM it's so conformist!

>>66500 >I'm a religious conservative >its only through extreme sin that you can appreciate virtue and sublime religious truths >if you could go up Mt. Everest in a cable car suddenly it wouldn't feel all that great What is your goal again? If it's to chase an emotion irregardless of the means, you're not a religious conservative, you're a larper. You also imply people should keep their sins a secret from the authorities. "When repentance is reduced to a mere question of conscience... it also becomes a useless, religious, moral and social trick"

>>66499 99.99 is an inflated number. The truth is if you try, you will be remembered. Even if people don't remember you by name you will live on in them through your actions. I find comfort in death knowing that throughout time my actions will have a cascading affect throughout the universe. God has a memory too you know?

>>63694 > Logically-fallacious diversionary tactics: > • A red herring is a tangential topic introduced intentionally as a distraction or inadvertently. >>66463 > I myself am focused on, and wrote about, anoreceptive activities — especially anorectal violence. Behaviors not involving the anorectal region are red herrings in that context. BDSM in general is a red herring (as are various other topics being discussed recently, such as religion and sexual/erotic deviancy). This thread is about advocating unpopular causes: neither the pro-BDSM cause nor the anti-BDSM cause seems to qualify — at the very least versus an undeniably _very_ unpopular cause touching on numerous topics about which many people would greatly prefer not to think seriously, much less earnestly discuss. This thread has been derailed. I suppose it's time for me to go elsewhere. At some point I may start my own /hum/ thread again as I suggested in >>63996. >>63920 > "Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual (including oneself) or a group of people" https://web.archive.org/web/20220918033407/https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151 > (Notable addition made in September of 2021: "Note that health misinformation, namely falsifiable health information that encourages or poses a significant risk of physical harm to the reader, also violates the Rule.") >reddit bullshit & omission.pdf There has been an uptick in relevant bullshit on /r/sex this month. I'll post an updated edition of that soon, which may be my final post in this thread. However, I will continue to watch for an indefinite amount of time, and may begin posting anew in this thread e.g. if anyone asks about one or more specific URLs included in that collection, or if anyone posts something else that pertains to what I discussed.

>>66533 > There has been an uptick in relevant bullshit on /r/sex this month. I'll post an updated edition of [reddit bullshit & omission] soon, which may be my final post in this thread. However, I will continue to watch for an indefinite amount of time, and may begin posting anew in this thread e.g. if anyone asks about one or more specific URLs included in that collection, or if anyone posts something else that pertains to what I discussed. Here is the updated edition. An important thing to note is, as of this post, archive.org has somewhat annoying behavior of relevance: referencing an archive snapshot by way of, for example, /web/202301/[URL] may bring up a more recent one from 2023-02 instead in which some undesirable change(s) occurred, such as deletion of the original post. One workaround is to specify a day, as in /web/20230101/[URL] to bring up the earliest January snapshot when at least one January snapshot is extant. However, in some cases such a snapshot may be too early with no comments: it seems some other person(s) fairly frequently will archive a Reddit /r/sex thread quite soon after it is created, which I typically avoid doing myself. Going forward I may therefore refrain from posting an updated edition of "reddit bullshit & omission" until two months have passed, at which point I can review included links and provide more specific snapshot URL dates if necessary. I probably shall do so at the beginning of March at least for the January snapshot threads, and update the URLs with more specific dates as needed for a future edition.