@208 L Hand
"You would be surprised by how many...desire to be penetrated by a penis without a condom"

No just saddened. And people have every right to be penetrated without a condom if they're recklessly foolish enough to want to be.

There's a big ethical difference between wanting a thing done to you, and doing a thing to someone else because they didn't ask you not to. The later, about which you say @207 they "have no right to be upset", is sexual assault, you sociopath.

@211 L Hand
"a penis must have a condom on it unless/until the vagina-haver takes it off"

You just make this stuff up.

The penetrator should obtain consent if they want to depart from the safe, responsible sheathing of the penis. Otherwise they have committed a sexual assault. They have primary responsibility for the violation. You disgust me by raising the victim's failure to ask them not to assault them as bearing equal responsibility for it. (No one wants them to /not/ bring it up, but not bringing it up is not primary responsibility, it's secondary/lesser.) No hyperbole; if you penetrate without a condom without asking to, I want you arrested.

Hell, just for being so stupid, in the name of human evolution I want you to only have sex with your L. hand.

@212 curious it doesn’t surprise me that you feel like sex is something that is done to you and that you are a passive participant.

Fior me, sex is something that I do and enjoy jointly with my partner. We have no trouble discussing things. My partners have agency.

As for the “disgust” part - don’t worry, the feeling is mutual.

@L Hand "you have no right to be upset if the penis that you want and expect to penetrate you (and may even help to penetrate you) doesn't have a condom on it."

You keep throwing out shit like this. It's a problem that is pissing off some of the regulars who've bothered to engage with you. You don't seem to have grasped the zeitgeist around here. Take a break and read the archives!

The notion that, in a non-negotiated scenario, a "penis must have a condom on it unless/until the vagina-haver takes it off" is a very good one, if you don't want to be rapey. I would (and do) go one step further: a penis must not penetrate a vagina without words being uttered and the impending penetration announced (e.g., "I'm going to fuck you right now"), with condom use having been previously discussed -or- a condom worn by default.

And frankly, if condoms aren't going to be used, there needs to be a conversation about sexual history and test status. Sticking your dick into someone without all of this is risky and best, and rapey at worst. It could get you a bad reputation, if not a record.

It's about clear, current, ongoing consent.

Fubar #214: *risky at best, lol.

curious2 @206
"a smart strategy might be to /not/ to bring it up, since that would ruin the opportunity to ... discover whether they don't regard condoms as the default"

In my experience, that would have the unwanted effect of him viewing me as someone who didn't care enough to bring up safer sex and pregnancy issues early on. Since I do care, I have that conversation while our clothes are still on. And I generally find I get plenty of information about his experiences and expectations from his side of the conversation.

@fubar 214 Why would I give a damn about the "zeitgeist"? You want me to modify my sincerely held beliefs to fit your mold of what you think I should say? You can shove it.

And yes, we can break it down to that. You are using hyperbole again to call something "rapey" that clearly isn't. We don't have to argue about default since not having a condom on your penis is "literally" the default.

But your point about "non-negotiated" is the best one. Apparently the "zeitgeist" around here prevents people from using their words. Apparently they regularly jump on people, rip off their clothes, start having sex, and then, afterwards, confirm with the penis-haver that he somehow had a condom magically materialize on his penis.

So let's just agree on this point- there should be no non-negotiated sex. I can agree with that since that is the case with all of my sexual encounters. For the rest of you who can't seem to figure that out, I really don't give a shit what you do.

@EricaP 216 Completely agree. I am sick of arguing hypotheticals because I always have the conversation (sometimes with clothes on, sometimes as they are coming off) and I always have condoms with me - sometimes they are used, sometimes they aren't. To people that are incapable of initiating or having the conversation, all I can say is you deserve whatever you get.

@216 EricaP
Of course you are absolutely right!

@219 p.s. In other words that suggestion of mine was conceived not WRT the real world, but WRT the debate I was engaged in. That suggestion was bad; I only liked it for it's 'sorting hat' functionality.

@102 JibeHo
"Incels (the involuntarily celibate) by definition don’t get there dicks wet. So yes, that is, in fact, the “defining criteria”

Every time I post, get re-directed to page one I re-read this post, so finally my imagination wondered:

If by some sad miracle an incel sleeps with someone once, what happens? As nice as it would be if they were, I don't imagine they get drilled out of the club. Perhaps they become an alpha incel? (That all the other losers look up to.)

I went back and re-read BabyRae's winning contributions to this thread. I want to again acknowledge her @128 that's never stopped echoing in my head and heart during this thread:

"If a conversation hasn't happened yet and a penis (flesh or dildo) owner is about to go in, they should ask first. I shouldn't have to have the "wait wait what did you just do?" Conversation after I've already been exposed to whatever STDs this person is carrying around. And if they go barebacking strangers without asking that risk is pretty damn high."

My heart goes out to BabyRae and everyone else who has been what's properly described as violated and sexually assaulted, this way. Someone keeps repeating otherwise(1), so I need to say (though it's crazy that it needs to be said) IT WAS NOT YOUR FAULT.

(1)
L.Hand:
"you have no right to be upset" @207
"you deserve whatever you get" @218

Mean, misanthropic, toxic, and a green-light to sexual assault.

In a series of posts L.Hand is MRA-isly defensive about it being the male's responsibility, never acknowledging the winning contradictory point repeatedly landed (BiDanFan@135 repeatedly echoed including me me@126@134) that it's the primary responsibility of the one initiating the penetration regardless of gender. I was doubly skeeved out when not even correcting L.Hand's misconception by un-gendering the proper assignment of the ethical responsibility wasn't enough for L.Hand (or for Dadddy who had supported the 'gendering' thesis @125 saying "@L Hand: Yes, there are sexist women here who hold men and women to different standards.") to embrace it once it was properly identified as un-gendered.

Curious2 @220: "Mean, misanthropic, toxic, and a green-light to sexual assault."

Exactly.

The link between rising air pollution and autism is compelling. I’m eager to see where the science goes with it. My son has low-functioning autism and I deeply appreciate people like CalliopeMuse citing real sources and evidence versus conspiracy theories based on fear-mongering articles that cite nothing more than conjecture. It’s funny, I wasn’t expecting the fight with L Hand to go Bizzaro world with LavaGirl going off on a weird tantrum about vaccines, but it was enlightening to see how far pattern recognition overload can derail a normally logical human being.

seventieslilo @224 Thanks, I appreciate that. My brother has high-functioning Asperger's (I still find it a useful descriptor for his symptom cluster even if the DSM says it's not a thing anymore), and we're both very grateful to have had pro-vaxx parents.

For anyone looking for primary, peer-reviewed research on the subject, here's a link to a CDC index of every CDC research article from reputable journals published on the topic of vaccine safety since 2000, organized by year: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/research/publications/index.html

And here's a comprehensive review article (a peer-reviewed compilation of recent primary research) published in the journal Pediatrics less than five years ago on the safety of the vaccines regularly given to children: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/06/26/peds.2014-1079 You can download the full paper as a PDF.

@223 Fubar "Mean, misanthropic, toxic, and a green-light to sexual assault." To tell people to talk before having sex???? Alrighty then...