Cash me ousside, how bow dat?

[Chae]

To be honest, from reading briefly here since there's a lot of textwalls, I have to agree with @MaviTilki. What was said in the OP was unnecessary and creepy but I know it was in a joking light and he wouldn't actually try have sex with a 14 year old. I think the way that this is being handled is all wrong, though, because this whole callout feels more like a performance than anything. Also dishing out callouts like these but rarely ever getting a callout back but being unable to handle it when it happens doesn't help. I don't like to bring socionics into it but it might really just take another Delta NF to understand this since everyone else seems confused too. I did used to do callouts on people myself when I was younger but it was never so publicly focused.

It also really distracts threads to be doing this in multiple threads so I think there should be one thread solely created for this kind of thing. It would also be easier to just keep it to as little posts as possible instead of replying to every single reaction and only feeding into some kind of public bonfire. Or even just telling a mod "Hey, this part of this post is inappropriate and should be removed". Etc.

Hopefully you don't hate me for this @Chae I just wanted to address the confusion and diversion and excessive attention this all brings. I don't think you are wrong to do this I just think the delivery could be better and that there is exaggerations to it.

"Okay!"

@niffer gdi

[flames]

Are all the American-Italian girls so ghetto trashy? They should come to Italy and learn some elegance lol. No really, she's cute in a Snooki sorta way. Oh, and SEE.

Yes, I adore her in the same way that I adored Snooki. Although, Snooki was more iconic and able to be adored to me.

[flames]

"Okay!"

@niffer gdi

lol
Just a thought, though. I know it can be frustrating when you feel like people are misinformed and need to know, but at some point you have to know that yelling at them about it is never gonna make them listen and often times even being extra polite doesn't work. Everyone will always continue to have their own thoughts and such. I think it's nice that you try to clean up the forum but it's not something that can realistically stay perfect.

[darya]

While she may be biologically mature, it doesn't mean she's mentally/emotionally mature. Just like a person can't sign a contract under a certain age, there are some decisions that people need to have greater maturity to make. Sex is one of those things, and it is taking advantage of someone even if they agree to it if they're not ready to make such a decision. Just like manipulating someone into a contract or having them make a decision drunk would be wrong - it's using someone's age or ignorance against them and to your advantage.

Oh, look, a reasonable and to the point explanation without hysterical moralizing, talking down to people and patronizingly "educating" them

[Tonatiuh]

[niffer]

Oh, look, a reasonable and to the point explanation without hysterical moralizing, talking down to people and patronizingly "educating" them

He apparently didn't get it still though as evidenced by his posts after hers, so it was ineffective towards OP.

[Chae]

lol
Just a thought, though. I know it can be frustrating when you feel like people are misinformed and need to know, but at some point you have to know that yelling at them about it is never gonna make them listen and often times even being extra polite doesn't work. Everyone will always continue to have their own thoughts and such. I think it's nice that you try to clean up the forum but it's not something that can realistically stay perfect.

No, it's not the point. It's bringing the attention to it to whatever degree possible and this is what I will always do, this is what you must calculate with, the rest is out of conscious control just like you say. The aim is already fulfilled as I see, still, the forum becomes safer now that people are alerted.

[darya]

Yes, I adore her in the same way that I adored Snooki. Although, Snooki was more iconic able to be adored to me.

Snooks <3 I actually adore certain trashyness and dgaf attitude and have frequently hung out with described groups of people in my teens. Unless you piss your pants in public or punch me in the face on the night out all is good : )

[darya]

He apparently didn't get it still though as evidenced by his posts after hers, so it was ineffective towards OP.

Never argue with a guy's dick, it has it's own mind ; )

[flames]

No, it's not the point. It's bringing the attention to it to whatever degree possible and this is what I will always do, this is what you must calculate with, the rest is out of conscious control just like you say. The aim is already fulfilled as I see, still, the forum becomes safer now that people are alerted.

I just think there are much better people or things to direct this energy to.

Snooks <3 I actually adore certain trashyness and dgaf attitude and have frequently hung out with described groups of people in my teens. Unless you piss your pants in public or punch me in the face on the night out all is good : )

Hahahaha

[niffer]

Never argue with a guy's dick, it has it's own mind ; )

I didn't argue either when I got raped ; )

[flames]

I didn't argue either when I got raped ; )

Damnnnnnn, go niffer coco

[niffer]

(I've never actually gotten raped before lol. But it's a serious-ish topic that's related...)

[Chae]

I just think there are much better people or things to direct this energy to.

That's gotta be left to you as a 7, you're not a 3 performance yeller

[Cosmic Teapot]

(I've never actually gotten raped before lol. But it's a serious-ish topic that's related...)

F****ck I'm on mobile. Didn't mean to click constructive. Niffer no. That's not funny.

Edit: a misunderstanding. She did nothing wrong. See below.

[ashlesha]

I agree that giving consent can be given in multiple ways, not just by saying yes or no. If you're 14, you know what ''Yes'' means, and you know what ''No'' means. So if you said any of them I don't see any room for ambiguity. Hell, if you're 2, you probably already know the difference between yes and no, it's the first things you learn.

The bolded was my point. I assume you don't condone sex with 2 year olds? People are generally instinctively averse to that because they aren't at all sexually developed. But a toddler might even still initiate sexual contact if they've been abused. It doesn't mean they're actually capable of consent. This is why the concept of consent needs to include more than the simple act of agreement to sexual activity. The issue is more complex than that.

The sex you regret at age 20 and age 60 is also very qualitatively different from eachother. What's your point, that we should disallow sex for people under the age of 60?

You're again comparing adults to teenagers. It isn't equivalent. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says the following about the teen brain:


Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents’ brains function differently than adults when decision-making and problem solving. Their actions are guided more by the amygdala and less by the frontal cortex.

Based on the stage of their brain development, adolescents are more likely to:
•act on impulse
•misread or misinterpret social cues and emotions
•get into accidents of all kinds
•get involved in fights
•engage in dangerous or risky behavior

Adolescents are less likely to:
•think before they act
•pause to consider the potential consequences of their actions
•modify their dangerous or inappropriate behaviors

Most of these things contribute to a mind that is less capable of providing informed consent. A lot of these things don't settle in until the mid-20s. So the current laws are actually pretty liberal and give a fair amount of leeway.

The power dynamic will always be different per individual case. Even adults have relations that are unequal in power dynamics (e.g. benefactor, supervision) and they aren't disallowed either. The question is, where do you put the bar? Who is the law to state what people can handle and what not?

You can't protect everyone from unhealthy power dynamics in sexual relationships all of the time, but an effort is made to do so in more extreme and egregious cases, for example with teenagers and adults, or with psychiatrists having sex with their patients even when they are both adults.

They are different from adults, yes. But how do you know where to put the line?
Who is the law to say that sex between an 18 year old and a 82 year old is acceptable, but sex between a 14 year old and a 22 year old is forbidden?
I'm pretty sure the 22 year old and 14 year old have more in common than the 18 year old and 82 year old, yet the former is forbidden and the latter is allowed. So your law is not consistent, therefore flawed.

I have changed since I was 14, yes. I will also have changed when I will be 80. Yet, when I am 80, I suddenly am able to have sex with 18 year olds, as if there is no power dynamic difference there. Then why, according to the law, am I allowed to have sex with 18 year olds as an 80 year old, but not have sex with a biologically mature 14 year old as a 22 year old? As if 18 year olds know suddenly know all the pros and cons of having sex with older people. The law is ridiculous, overgeneralizing.

This is based on the brain chemistry of teenagers compared to the brain chemistry of adults. Personally I find a sexual relationship between an 18 year old and a 50 year old to be kind of uncomfortable and probably conducive to unhealthy power dynamics but I'm aware that you can't police every single instance of these things and a good faith effort is made to protect vulnerable people with undeveloped brains while balancing the realities of sexual development and desires. The ages selected for ability to consent can't be exactly right all of the time because everybody is different, but that doesn't mean we should carte blanche sanction adults having sex with any preteen who has gotten their first period or wet dream (or, I mean, toddlers, for that matter). The best that can be done is an attempt to be reasonable. It's impossible to provide protection for vulnerable youth without generalizing.

How do you know. Also how do you know that adult relations aren't based on manipulation? Should we also forbid all adults from engaging in relationships with eachother then, to protect people that will be cheated on, or get manipulated into doing things they don't want in their marriage, for example? Should we ban marriage, because people might, when they get older, find that they married the wrong person? No, we let them marry, with the risk of regretting it later. Then why don't we let minors have consensual sex with majors, with the risk of regretting it later?
Both power dynamics and regrets don't magically go away once you turn 18, so why are we protecting 14 year olds from them, but not everyone above 18? Shouldn't we disallowed sex completely then, for everybody? Lol?

Again, the difference between the adult brain and the adolescent brain. Children are also usually granted lighter sentences when they commit crimes because of this difference. They are determined in most cases to need the supervision and guidance of parents or guardians and not allowed to live on their own because of this difference. Are they magically more capable of making the kinds of decisions that make them capable of supporting themselves financially the day after their 18th birthday? Of course not, but that doesn't mean parents are allowed to toss them into the street to fend for themselves when they're 13. The age of 18 has just been determined to be the most reasonable age. Do you think a 10 year old should be forced into getting a job and an apartment if their parents get tired of them?

I agree there probably are more cognitive differences between minors and majors, but my point still stands. We all know people who are 70 are much wiser than when they were just legal, and would've made different choices if they could go back.

We all have our regrets, and saying someone cannot make their own decision just because they are young and may regret it later seems very patronizing of youngsters. As if you know better.

I do know better. I would have found it patronizing when I was 14 too, but tough shit lol. Of course I know better. Let's be real.

Everybody is in the same boat here, we are born, fuck around a bit, then die. Nobody knows shit. Yes we may have regrets, but from mistakes and regrets you learn. Who is the law to prohibit people from learning from their mistakes? Who is the law to say that having consensual sex with an adult as a teenager is a mistake at all? Maybe it's one of the better experiences of their life.

Lol, it's good to let children learn from some mistakes, but those mistakes don't have to involve major, life changing, potentially very dangerous adult decisions. Maybe if I let my kid drop LSD he'd expand his mind and become the next Eckhart Tolle. Still not gonna happen though.

I know I wouldn't have had a problem fucking some 22 year old when I was 14. In fact I'd rather have fucked some 22 year old than another 14 undeveloped 14 year old. In fact, I still am into older women, am I not allowed to? Do I magically know better now than when I was 14? Maybe I will come to regret all the older women I've fucked by now. But it is still a decision I've made when I was 22, so yea, deal with it. We can't prohibit 22 year olds from acting, even if they don't know shit in the world, so why prohibit 14 year olds from doing the same.

Adults/=teenagers, again.

Nobody can look into the future, so how do you know the minor will regret it?

It's not about whether they'll regret it. It's about the fact that they're unable to give informed consent.

This law is based on the presumption that minors having consensual sex with adults is automatically wrong, which it isn't. Therefore the law is flawed, because it gives no room for exceptions, and overgeneralizes adults to be rapists and minors to be victims, who don't know what the fuck they're doing. Nobody knows what they're doing. Nobody has moral highground. We are all born here, do random shit, then die. Make the most of it, and don't try to prohibit other peoples freedom while we're at it.
The world would be a nicer place if people would just live and let live, so long as you don't hurt others (which consensual sex isn't), or limit their freedom in some way.

"Live and let live" definitely doesn't apply to children for obvious reasons. We don't let 5 year olds eat an entire box of ice cream in one sitting and we try not to let teenagers have sex with adults until they're 18. Because we have common sense and we're not savages.

Should we develop an IQ test then, to see who is eligible to fuck and who isn't? Lol. Maybe we should ban people with down syndrome from fucking, because they don't know how to give consent, right?

I don't know about Down Syndrome, but there are laws about whether people who are severely mentally impaired are able to give consent, even when they are adults.

[niffer]

F****ck I'm on mobile. Didn't mean to click constructive. Niffer no. That's not funny.

Uh... No I agree with you lol. And that was my point exactly....

Darya was joking about something when we're talking about a topic related, as if following and not arguing with your dick when it comes to underage people is something to be joked about and the weight of the importance of bringing more understanding to the issue is lightened...

Therefore I made a counter-comment (which wasn't true) in order to bring people back to reality of the seriousness of the issue using shock, in a way that I knew Darya would understand. It doesn't actually make light of rape if you think about it... and that of course was not my intention either. I hope that makes sense.

[Bertrand]

I just want to point out that the law is that minors (of a certain age, depending on statute) cant give consent by definition not that "consensual sex with adults is automatically wrong"

that is why it is called statutory "rape"

it has little to do with rightness or wrongness [1] but is instituted as a matter of policy in order to prevent abuse by basically drawing a line somewhere in lieu of trying to get into the nitty gritty rightness or wrongness of each individual case, because to do so would be an impossible burden on the system. therefore people can contravene the law and plead their case (there are defenses to statutory rape) but the system is designed as such that the benefits of fucking minors vs all the time and money spent on prosecution resulted in a policy that errs on the side of devaluing sexual freedom in favor of potential crime prevention

[1] of that particular situation, rather it is a categorical judgment rooted in the need for an efficient policy over granularity

[Cosmic Teapot]

@niffer sorry - I just didn't want to cause misunderstanding but didn't keep track of your conversation.

[ashlesha]

Fwiw, an adult shouldn't openly say that a 14-year-old makes their dick tingle (even if it is a joke) in the OP of a thread and expect people to not get creeped out or have it stir up controversy. This should be common sense.

Apparently OP has a Fe PoLR though, so it's more understandable I guess.

Reminds me of some stuff Sara Ahmed has said @Chae

"Let’s take this figure of the feminist killjoy seriously. Does the feminist kill other people’s joy by pointing out moments of sexism? Or does she expose the bad feelings that get hidden, displaced, or negated under public signs of joy? Does bad feeling enter the room when somebody expresses anger about things, or could anger be the moment when the bad feelings that circulate through objects get brought to the surface in a certain way?"

"When you expose a problem you pose a problem. It might then be assumed that the problem would go away if you would just stop talking about or if you went away."

"You can cause unhappiness by noticing something. And if you can cause unhappiness by noticing something, you realize that the world you are in is not the world you thought you were in."

[niffer]

I just want to point out that the law is that minors (of a certain age, depending on statute) cant give consent by definition not that "consensual sex with adults is automatically wrong"

that is why it is called statutory "rape"

it has little to do with rightness or wrongness [1] but is instituted as a matter of policy in order to prevent abuse by basically drawing a line somewhere in lieu of trying to get into the nitty gritty rightness or wrongness of each individual case, because to do so would be an impossible burden on the system. therefore people can contravene the law and plead their case (there are defenses to statutory rape) but the system is designed as such that the benefits of fucking minors vs all the time and money spent on prosecution resulted in a policy that errs on the side of devaluing sexual freedom in favor of potential crime prevention

[1] of that particular situation, rather it is a categorical judgment rooted in the need for an efficient policy over granularity

Well what's moral is always personal/subjective in some way but in a more practical or objective sense the issue can be seen as "wrong" and to do with inherent rightness/wrongness, for many of the reasons lungs described in her post above yours (#96).

[YXPR]

I still feel like that girl is intuitive. sometimes you shouldn't trust the obvious. I'd add that she might be introverted too. The "Se" looks like an act to me. Maybe that's why people find her so funny,

[niffer]

^ I have no words for this lol.

[wasp]

maybe y'all should cash each other ousside, how bow dah?

I'm just teasing, but I'm inclined to blame her parents and Dr Phil. why does Dr Phil's show even exist? inadequate parenting in childhood results in poor excuses for parents dragging their children (whose "fuckedupness" is of their own creation) into the public eye so that they can be verbally flogged alive, whilst the parents sit idly by, pointing fingers and gloating in their 5 minutes of fame under the guise of giving a shit about their kid's well-being. it's kind of weird how the primary motive behind this thread was an under-handed attempt to pass judgment on a teenager who literally doesn't know any better. she was unceremoniously thrown into the limelight by one or both of her parents and now her reputation precedes her, so it doesn't even matter what she says/does at this point because everything will be tainted by the public's negative perception of her. Dr Phil's show exists because we have nothing better to do with our time than to talk shit about victims of abuse/manipulation/etc because it fends off boredom, I guess. we can barely keep our cool on an insipid online message board, and yet we expect a teenager to keep her cool while the peanut gallery of America runs every word/action of hers under a microscope, as if we'd fare any better under those circumstances. I don't think OP is a low-key rapist, but he should probably think twice before posting borderline Lolita remarks sexualizing young girls on the internet. if not out of respect them, then to avoid inadvertently incriminating himself.

Dr Phil's the kind of jackass to buy you a gift without prompt or necessity, and then selfishly expect your gratitude, along with a gift in return.

[I'm typing from my shitty phone at work right now, I'm not taking a knock at anyone, but I agree that OP's post is cause for concern]

[flames]

@Number 9 large I found your new forum theme song.

[Aylen]

Some people might find this interesting given the subject matter.

Nothing has really changed. There are still loopholes which are left there for a reason. I have my ideas why they are there beyond the common reasons stated but I am trying to keep my personal experience out of this.

Unlike most Western countries, half of the US states do not have a legal minimum age of marriage. While in most US states, individuals age 18 have a right to marriage (with two exceptions—Nebraska (19) and Mississippi (21)), all states allow minors to marry in certain circumstances, such as parental consent, judicial consent, pregnancy, or a combination of these situations. Most states allow parties aged 16 and 17 to marry with parental consent alone. In most states, children under 16 can be married too. In the 25 states ^[1] which have an absolute minimum age set by statute, this age varies between 13 and 17, while in 25 states there is no statutory minimum age if other legal conditions are met. Although in such states there is no set minimum age by statute, the traditional common law minimum age is 14 for boys and 12 for girls - ages which have been confirmed by case law in some states.^[2] However even 11-year old girls have been known to be legally married.^[3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of..._United_States

Minimum Age of Marriage For Girls With Parental Consent




World Policy Forum
The Clinton Foundation notes that child marriage "limits the full potential of girls" and "undermines health, education, economic opportunity, and security." Early wedlock is most common among the world's poorest children.


One study found that teen marriage in the U.S. increased by nearly 50 percent in the 1990s thanks to "the spread of abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education at American schools, a shift toward cultural conservatism among some teens and a growing fear among youngsters of contracting AIDS through promiscuity," as the Chicago Tribune wrote in 2004.


Child marriage is much less of an issue in the U.S. than it is in other countries with similar laws. By 2002, only about 2.1 percent of American girls between the ages of 15 and 17 were considered "in a union," and just one-tenth of 1 percent were married. Meanwhile, in Niger, 39 percent of girls are married by 18, and 22 percent are in Bolivia.


Most U.S. states set the age of consent at 18, but minors can get married younger if their parents approve or if a judge thinks it's in their "best interest." Some states only enacted minimum marriage ages a few years ago after a rash of betrothals between 20- or 30-somethings and teens.

Some American child marriages are the result of attempts to prevent the imprisonment of the older partner for statutory rape. The Tribune story describes the case of Liset Landeros, a 14-year-old in Texas who married her 18-year-old boyfriend to keep him out of jail.


"It was love at first sight," she told the paper. "My parents didn't agree. So I ran away from home and moved in with James."


Even though American teens who get married might have more say in the matter than their counterparts in other countries, many advocates believe permissive child-marriage laws can still be harmful. The Clinton Foundation report notes that "while many factors influence the prevalence of child marriage, laws can play a foundational role by setting minimum ages of marriage, which affect social norms and expectations." For example, after the Maldives set the minimum marriage age to 18 in 2001, the percent of girls who were married by age 18 fell from nearly half in 1995 to just 6 percent in 2009.


https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ge-map/387214/

[The Reality Denialist]

Yeah it is kind of freaky when kids try to become adults too soon. Where are we few decades later? Just check how those age limitations have shifted through time.

I don't know. Seriously. Considering that kids start sooner their puberty... No easy answers here. I suppose you can fool others if you want to.

Anyways the question at hand: It is risky to voice it.

[Aylen]

Jung:

The erotic instinct is something questionable, and will always be so whatever a future set of laws may have to say on the matter. It belongs, on the one hand, to the original animal nature of man, which will exist as long as man has an animal body. On the other hand, it is connected with the highest forms of the spirit. But it blooms only when the spirit and instinct are in true harmony. If one or the other aspect is missing, then an injury occurs, or at least there is a one-sided lack of balance which easily slips into the pathological. Too much of the animal disfigures the civilized human being, too much culture makes a sick animal.

[YXPR]

^ I have no words for this lol.

Don't become some kind of weird internet bully. It's starting to feel like high school. We don't like each other it's fine, I still can post on this forum without having to deal with side comments from the meangirls club.

[niffer]

Don't become some kind of weird internet bully. It's starting to feel like high school. We don't like each other it's fine, I still can post on this forum without having to deal with side comments from the meangirls club.

On Wednesdays we wear pink.

[YXPR]

On Wednesdays we wear pink.

Is it to forget how ugly and dark you are on the inside?

I like to wear pink but that just because it flatters my amazing skin complexion.

[Pookie]

Thats why her hair is so big, its full of secrets

[YXPR]

Anyway, before Chae and her petty minion decided to come after me all I wanted was to type Danielle Bregoli, and I'll go back to that even if some find it laughable for obscure reasons.

The whole "comic" of that girl"s character is that her Se sucks. Her own mother says that she is "all mouth". I grew up around delinquent gamma SFs teenagers (boys and girls) and trust me such words could never describe them. Even my 8 years old niece wouldn't feel threatened by Danielle.

Because she displays overly belligerent behavior doesn't mean that she is Se base, it doesn't even mean that she is Se valuer actually. She simply makes a mockery out of Se, or maybe thinks that she has to behave like that for some reason.

Here is a video of a lovely SEE teenage girl. Danielle Brogoli could never be as lively and expressive as her, even if she actually wanted to:



But we can still agree to disagree I guess.

[YXPR]

I also leave this here for your entertainment. At least it entertains me.

[darya]

Anyway, before Chae and her petty minion decided to come after me all I wanted was to type Danielle Bregoli, and I'll go back to that even if some find it laughable for obscure reasons.

The whole "comic" of that girl"s character is that her Se sucks. Her own mother says that she is "all mouth". I grew up around delinquent gamma SFs teenagers (boys and girls) and trust me such words could never describe them. Even my 8 years old niece wouldn't feel threatened by Danielle.

Because she displays overly belligerent behavior doesn't mean that she is Se base, it doesn't even mean that she is Se valuer actually. She simply makes a mockery out of Se, or maybe thinks that she has to behave like that for some reason.

Here is a video of a lovely SEE teenage girl. Danielle Brogoli could never be as lively and expressive as her, even if she actually wanted to:
[/video]

But we can still agree to disagree I guess.

What would you type Danielle? Gamma SF's are not particularly threatening btw. "All mouth" is actually a perfect description for many out of control SEE''s. I disagree with everything you said, but mostly I'm very interested how would you type her if not Se ego?

[flames]

What would you type Danielle? Gamma SF's are not particularly threatening btw. "All mouth" is actually a perfect description for many out of control SEE''s. I disagree with everything you said, but mostly I'm very interested how would you type her if not Se ego?

I agree.

[maniac]

Whats dangerous about having sex?

[maniac]

Danielle is probably sp/sx 7.

[strangeling]

Reminds me of some stuff Sara Ahmed has said @Chae

"Let’s take this figure of the feminist killjoy seriously. Does the feminist kill other people’s joy by pointing out moments of sexism? Or does she expose the bad feelings that get hidden, displaced, or negated under public signs of joy? Does bad feeling enter the room when somebody expresses anger about things, or could anger be the moment when the bad feelings that circulate through objects get brought to the surface in a certain way?"

"When you expose a problem you pose a problem. It might then be assumed that the problem would go away if you would just stop talking about or if you went away."

"You can cause unhappiness by noticing something. And if you can cause unhappiness by noticing something, you realize that the world you are in is not the world you thought you were in."

Oh, for fuck's sake. The girl is attractive for her age and he made a joke off that. That has zero to do with sexism. If anything, the only thing he seems to be guilty of is being too honest about his attraction because she's underage and that might bother some people. But no your feminism doesn't somehow make this sexism or even justify your reaction. I've seen you state this before when you moralize what isn't even there and justify it with feminism. It's extremely vexing and yeah, this is why I don't like you. I don't know why you can't just state your dissatisfaction without having to make it into a feminist or moralizing crusade.

[ashlesha]

Oh, for fuck's sake. The girl is attractive for her age and he made a joke off that. That has zero to do with sexism. If anything, the only thing he seems to be guilty of is being too honest about his attraction because she's underage and that might bother some people. But no your feminism doesn't somehow make this sexism or even justify your reaction. I've seen you state this before when you moralize what isn't even there and justify it with feminism. It's extremely vexing and yeah, this is why I don't like you. I don't know why you can't just state your dissatisfaction without having to make it into a feminist or moralizing crusade.

That's literally what I did in this thread - I said I didn't like it but I never mentioned sexism or feminism. If you're rabidly anti feminist or already think I'm an asshole maybe you read more into it? This particular post was just empathizing with Chae and not making a statement about the entire thread per se.