Well I didn't claim that, so I would agree. The way we can reduce it is to reduce the size of institutional structures to appropriate sizes.




We aren't going to revert to a dead end agrarian civilization, that would be a huge step up from what is going to happen. Doesn't really matter what any of us find spritually uplifting. Also, somehow I don't think giving every person on the planet access to more energy than all the rulers of history to burn on pointless bull**** is going to colonize any of those rocks.

And yes Jonesie, all people are gross. Have you ever met someone who didn't sweat?

The distinction is rather fine, but I see a difference between animalistic benavior and assault.

Compare: Larry Flynt is a pervert. He has done a huge number of unspeakable sexual acts and other debauchery. But I'm not sure if he's ever assaulted anyone. In his words, he "celebrates women".

Compare Donald Trump, who openly brags about assaulting women. Or Jerry Falwell, who preaches moral purity, while he himself ****ed his mother in an outhouse (well, at least that's what Hustler magazine said )

Related: Larry Flynt recently offered a ten million dollar reward in exchange for dirt on Donald Trump leading to his inpeachment.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/17/larry-flynt-president-trump-political-bounty/770939001/

OTOH, he's spat in the face of his wife, divorced another because the sex was bad (and had only married her in the first place in order to have sex with her), and oh, btw, shot a chicken after morbidly penetrating it.

So I guess I'll fess up that the man is guilty of assaulting others in the service of his grossness....

Yes, sure Reid. You should work on "becoming" a replicant.

Reid hasn't been anywhere near his baseline for weeks.

Could you speak a little more on what constitutes unspeakable sexual acts that are consensual?

asking for a friend

RJ just means stuff ya don' talk about at the dinner table with yr folks, maybe, and not 'impermissible' or 'immoral' or 'godless' sex acts?

Do you talk about missionary position sex with your parents at the dinner table?

Bonus: look at the first google image result for missionary position.

wow, how dare you, my parents are dead.

died in a tragic catastrophic puritanical sexual discussion embarrassment disaster years ago.

I love the heavenward, open-mouthed gaze.

I've always wondered, is your name supposed to bread saber opus or saber O'pus?

That's actually the look everyone had on at LSD church when I was growing up

If some of the people I encounter in videogame matchmaking are any indication, it's meant to be read 'saber puss'

but yeah, opus, not o'pus.

I'm going to go with the Irish spelling because it makes you seem like more of a wildcard character. Sorry.

I'm open to it.

That's an interesting question. One thing to realize about Flynt is that on account of his background, he considers many of the somewhat non-consentual aspects of sex he's been involved with as inconsequential. He didn't brush an eye when he killed the chicken he raped, and he didn't seem to care that he was molested himself. Perhaps this makes him a rather unreliable judge, since he seems to have internalized what objectively ought to be considered abusive. But in his case, he basically came out as a devient who couldn't get enough of it.

[Quote=The Independent]Flynt believes his different attitude to sex was born in those hills. "I'm a hillbilly and people like me come to sex without all the hang-ups imposed by the hypocritical morality of the middle class," he once wrote. Yet his autobiography, An Unseemly Man, contains many passages that present children in strange ways. His first sexual experience, he says, was when he was seven. He says his cousin, another seven-year-old, asked him to "do it" with her and "I did a lot of squirming and humping as she instructed". He says about his first wife, Peggy: "Her mother had let her screw around since she was 10 years old." I ask if she really wanted to. "It was different times," he says, shrugging.

He lost his own virginity at the age of nine, to a chicken. He describes penetrating its egg sack, and how "when I let the chicken go, it started towards the main house, staggering, squawking and bleeding" – so he immediately killed it. Did you feel bad for the chicken? "What? No. It was a" – long breath, gasp – "chicken."

And then he was molested himself. When he ran away at the age of 15, he was picked up on the side of the road by a man and forced at gunpoint to take part in sexual acts. How did this affect you? "I don't think it did. I've always been heterosexual. I've never had thoughts of being gay." But abuse isn't about sex for the victim, I say. He looks puzzled by this. "It made me more aware," he says. Of what it's like to be a victim of sexual assault? "No." He looks bemused by the question. "Of... uh.... It didn't cause any psychological trauma."[/quote]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/larry-flynt-freedom-fighter-pornographer-monster-2289592.html

Fisting.

Same thing.

Baconfish made advances on me when I was 17.

Baconfish was 9 years old at the time.

lmao

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

now we'll never see his subversive take on pederasty

that's a lot of words to say middle aged man who, in front of people, jokes a lot about masturbating enjoys masturbating, in front of people.

Weird though. Does that mean that he gets off thinking about people watching the episodes of his shows where he jerks off? Are we all participants in his masturbation?

I wonder whether the celebrity sexual assault scandal reflect on sexual assault as a problem for celebrities or as a problem in society in general. Is the rate there higher? Probably, but it's still worth asking.

The more celebrity you have, the more leverage you have over others outside your family. Within families, I'd imagine it's more uniform.

It's not just celebrities though, but anybody in a position of power-even your manager at Wendy's counts. You hear about celebrities simply because they are famous.

I'd bet that industries/businesses where people's careers/upward mobility are built on personal relationships (such as in the entertainment industry) are especially susceptible to these sorts of abuses. In industries where getting work is based on personal relations rather than more formalized processes, employers are more able to take sexual advantage of potential employees, because getting the job hinges on the potential employee ingratiating themselves to the employer. Plus, that structure incentivizes sticking up for powerful people in the industry/business, because they expect they'll be repaid for their loyalty when they silence dissent.

Academia works in a way that's similar to the entertainment industry. The entire academic system is based on personal relationships, in that upward mobility is based primarily on one's connections. And abuse is rampant in academia.

http://www.chronicle.com/article/AbusersEnablers-in/241648/

You mean to say there are powerful people who control access to the means of production abusing their privileged position in order to extract rents from society and their own workers?

I think people generally underestimate the psychological power of vocation, especially those people who don’t have one. Employers in those fields, however, are very much aware of it. They wield access to employment and even volunteered participation like a weapon against the passionate. Sexual favours, physical and emotional abuse, unreasonable working conditions and low pay, and if you complain, you do so under threat of being blacklisted by the entire industry, never to practice your art ever again.

Understanding the relationship between wealth and this kind of power should be enough to turn anybody socialist.

Except it exists in socialism, too. Any system where someone has control over a commodity or means (even if only as a manager or steward) will have this problem. The guy who supervises the bread truck deliveries for the free bread lines will give a few extra or better pieces to his various lady friends in exchange for certain services. If she declines she gets rancid week-olds.

Unless perhaps his various lady friends participated in the allocation of capital. Some kind of participatory economics, if you will.

A matter of scope and scale. Yes, people will always trade for favors, but if people's livelihood depend less on the whims of others then there will be less abuse of power.

Though your comments makes me think you believe socialism is Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Socialism sure sounds terrible when you add to it the private control of capital and its operation for the profit of the controller.

Darn that pesky human nature always getting in the way of perfectly good ideas.

Human nature is a good argument for a system that compensates for it, not a system that maximizes it.

Socialism doesn't work because if you think your lazy ass can just tax the noble and wealthy till the cows come home, then I have news for you.

(At least I think Thatcher said something to that effect.)

Socialism: what lazy people wish they could afford to purchase from the rich, if only they were hard working enough to get off their ass and get a job.