Here’s a Podcast episode from NCOSE (National Center on Sexual Exploitation) that will piss you off -
It’s good that you’re creating an archive of these feminazis and their war on freedom and men! Everything they spout needs to be hammered to bits with facts and research studies. Showing what alarmist, fear based, and false rhetoric they spurt on about. Why don’t they advocate against the military arming and using robots to kill people?
Because Caitlin is a victim feminist. She wears her victimhood as a badge of honor to be this SJW and make up lies against anything that stands between her desire to avenge herself against all men. Punishing them by denying every sexual avenue to make up for her mental problems. She’d rather be castrating every male. She C.an’t U.nderstand N.ormal T.hinking. Or anything sane or reasonable when it involves men, because they have a penis, and she doesn’t. Because to her, men=sex fiends.
We can only hope they all go play in traffic. Everything they stand for counters Prostasia and they would likely wish everyone here dead as well.
2 Likes
I personally don’t condone the term ‘feminazi’, the term ‘sex-negative feminist’ is more appropriate.
Judging by the types of rhetoric that Collective Shout are known to embrace, it’s no surprise that Morality in Media would align themselves with them. Keep in mind, Morality in Media’s stated goal is to ‘end recreational sexual activity’ between consenting adults.
5 Likes
Thank you. Comparing sex-negative feminism (often borne from legitimate, if exaggerated, critiques of the sex industry) to the industrial mass slaughter and human experimentation of 17 million people is a wee bit insulting to the victims of Axis tyranny…
3 Likes
There’s a difference between being critical of things or specific elements and being outright against them.
What a lot of people like Caitlan Roper do is they frame everything through a very skewed lens that distorts the reality and often ignores nuance to suit their goals. There’s a lot to be said about how the goals and rhetoric put out by them has actually set culture and society back by validating and bolstering objectifying attitudes and a culturalized dismissal of any art pertaining to sex or sexual gratification as not compatible with value or merit, be it artistic, literary, or political.
In other words: by generalizing and making broad-strokes attacks, sex-negative feminists feed the very beast they claim to want to destroy.
4 Likes
Once they succeed in getting doll bans, “practice-rape-sex-dolls”, passed worldwide, a percentage of 4.5 billion males will have no outlets. They’ll ban the small ones then go after the big ones. Then a sex ban against the use of ALL robots. All forms of pornography, lolicon, drawings, fictional text, and nude art will be next. Puritanism. Since wealthy women only get that way by using and divorcing men. They’re looking out for their own interests. Yet dildos, “disembodied male genitals”, will never be an issue.
4 Likes
Here’s another article NCOSE posted - Paedophiles using open source AI to create child sexual abuse content, says watchdog | Child protection | The Guardian
I know this isn’t about Child-like Sex Dolls but what about this?
I personally don’t see an issue. It’s AI-generated which means it’s fake. No actual children are being harmed whatsoever.
AI generated material has been discussed in other topics. It’s the “training” data that has been used. No matter what it’s based on the human form, like all species, only has so many variations. The whole problem that will be faced is that the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. Once real pictures of real people have been used, there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. Pandora’s box has been opened.
So any image created will always have a connection of sorts to someone, somewhere. Any human that looks human. The argument that the actual image isn’t actually a copy of a real person becomes pointless. I’d continue this thread with a new topic or find the “AI & images” related one.
As someone who can fap to essays, I know for a fact that pretty much anything can be used as “sexual content”. Yes, Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal, as I’m sure I mentioned countless times before.