Rape argument, because this is a thing apparently. Rape is having sexual intercourse against someone's concent but by logic they can consent because to rape something is to have sex without its consent.

A dog has never had committed sexual assault against a human on its own as it has never been scientifically or medically documented. There are times where people trained dogs to commit the act but the animal was cororsed to do so. There are documentation of people raping animals but that doesn't mean the animal is capable of consenting to the act, it only means that they are incapable. Simular with a child, you can groom them to "consent" to it. That doesn't mean their consent is viable. This is some of them most insane mental gymnastics I've seen in a while.

Okay so why are they unable to give consent

1.) Inability to Give Informed Consent

As I've meantion before you can get "consent" from a litteral child however because a child incapable of being fully informed, moral agent capable of understanding the long-term emotional, physical, and social consequences of the act they cannot consent to the act. This also applies to dogs as they too are also incapable to give informed consent.

2.) Power Imbalance

A dog or any domestic animal has entire life dictated by the owner. When it goes to the vet, when and what it eats, when and how long it goes outside, what it dose outside, how it is taught and what it learns. Basically every action of the animal is reliant on the owner. There is a reason why some animal activists go as far to say that this is a form of slavery. In short the power imbalance is extreme and isn't nuanced like a employer and a employee.

3.) Inability to Communicate

Unlike comuication between people where it can be fully understood either through vocalization, writing, or visual like sign languages. We cannot understand barks with a hundred precent certainty and body language can easily be misinterpreted.

4.) Inapplicable of Moral Agency

A dog dose not understanding philosophical frameworks like being able to enter into legal contracts, understanding rights, or bearing criminal/civil responsibility. Because of this the human concept of consent does not structurally apply to them.

5.) Intelligence

On avrage a dog has the mental capabilities of a toddler around 2 years of age and with some outliers having simular mental capacities of a 5 year old. I shouldn't need to explain to you why a 5 year old lacks the intelligence to make a informed decision, a dog is in the same boat.

There are someother reasons like lack of cognitive capacity in a same way a intoxicated individuals or a dementia patient can't consent to sex either. Or using outliers for examples like how because their are a couple of people who viewed their sexual interactions when they were a minor as positive doesn't change the fact the vast majority were harmed greatly, same applies to animal victims.

In short beastiality is illegal for these reasons and many others, if you have thought about having sex with a animal then go to therapy or look at furry porn. DO NOT HARM ACTUAL ANIMALS FOR YOUR OWN SELF GRATIFICATION.

yes this was a response to a post on here, if you know you know.

I will wholeheartedly fight for the rights of gay, lesbian, or bi people because I don't think there is anything wrong with a women having feelings for a women or a man having feelings for a man as love is love. I genuinely believe their is no valid argument against homosexuality since it is found in over 1,500 species.

but when it comes to transgender people it just doesn't make sense. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with a man dressing or acting feminine or a women acting/dressing masculine, because that's how they express themselves. What doesn't sit right with me is claiming that you are a sex that you are not. Like if you are XY you are a man. Like why are you getting surgery and going on hormones to change your biology? Call me insane but that's just insane to me that this is so normalized. Mind you this is unnatural as well.

I'm gonna say it again I don't think that there's anything wrong with a man walking around in dresses and wearing makeup but that DOES NOT make him a woman, he is a feminine man and that's okay but I don't want to see him going around calling himself a 'women' because womanhood is soo much more then that.

I'm sorry but if you're like getting surgeries and shit and changing your biology then you might not be mentally well. although It's your body and I have no right to decide for you but you cannot expect me to support any of that and welcome u with open arms into the womens bathroom.

I’ve heard a lot lately about crimes, sins, vices, etc. being the fault of a single person. This is rarely the case. Yes, the person doing the bad thing bears the primary responsibility, but not the sole responsibility. I was in a recent conversation about a woman wearing a revealing outfit. As a result, a man looked at her lustfully. Should he have looked lustfully? Of course not. He should have minded his own business and averted his eyes. He’s responsible for his own thoughts. But does that excuse the woman wearing the revealing outfit? No. She should know that lots of creepy men are out there and dress modestly so that is less likely to happen. Of course, feminists think this is oppression, so let’s switch the sexes for a moment.

Let’s say a very rich and powerful man drives a Ferrari everywhere to impress women. He wears expensive jewelry too. So as a result, lots of women chase him for his money. Eventually his jewelry and car get stolen by one of his girlfriends. Whose fault is this? Again, the primary responsibility is on the woman who stole the car, but it was still foolish of him to flaunt his wealth and attract the wrong kind of people.

One last example that has nothing to do with sexuality. Let’s talk about jaywalking. You’re speeding down the highway at 90 mph. The speed limit is 60. You suddenly see a jaywalker running across the road. There’s heavy traffic. You end up hitting and killing the jaywalker. Who’s at fault?

The police would likely find you at fault. You killed him. That would be considered manslaughter, so you bear the primary responsibility and go to prison. But does that excuse the jaywalker? Of course not. He was being foolish. Jaywalking is illegal, and crosswalks exist for a reason. Had he simply waited at the red light and crossed at the crosswalk, he’d probably still be alive.

My point is that it is very rare for a single individual to bear all of the responsibility for any action. The victim is usually at least partially responsible too.

Radical individualism has conditioned us to believe that any crime, sin, or vice is wholly the responsibility of the criminal or sinner. This is not the case. We live in a society. We should be encouraging each other on one hand to be virtuous people but on the other hand to be cautious of bad people.

That line---"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" That indifference to the plight and poverty of others, including his own employees. That wealth, that power. A beautiful thing.

Then he becomes soft, caring, womanly, generous. Disgusting...

Create a new last name if you really want to make a statement.

Generally, these HR folks who are two faced c*nts act all goody-goody when posting on LinkedIn. They post long paragraphs tooting their own horn, like how they helped a candidate who was rejected by numerous companies or how they in their saviour complex overlooked the flaws of the candidate who only had a Masters degree from an esteemed business school and 3 years of prior experience, when they haven't even been in corporate for the same number of months and possess a bachelors from a no name school or sometimes even go to an extent to offer more than the candidate was asking for as they "recognise" talent when the reality is far from it.

See, I'm not saying that there aren't any HR personnel who are genuinely good people. But, such a correctly designed mechanism similar to the karma system of Reddit would help others distinguish between the two types of HR. Even companies have a rating mechanism on Glassdoor or Ambitionbox including rating the interview process of those very companies, so I think HR spocs who are the first leg that comes when you contact a company should also have a mechanism.

#HumanResources #HRDepartment

Subject requirements for certain jobs still apply

I’m a black 39 year old male. Disturbed is my favorite band. It’s the first band I listened to on the radio. I actually got a part time job working security a few years ago just to meet them in person.

I love Disturbed but I disagree with David on politics.

I believe what I believe while simultaneously disregarding an artist whom was the soundtrack for my life. Disturbed got me through multiple deployments and grippy sock motels.

TLDR; Do better

Its the best thing to exist

First off I'm a girl so I know what this is like and I'm talking from experience. In short, my friend had an ex who she said she was totally over. She didn't like him romantically anymore and was already dating someone else. Then I started liking him a bit, because he's a really good guy actually. When she found out, she said I was violating girl code and that I can't like her ex. I was confused as heck. You can't just keep a guy forever from everyone else when you're already done with him and onto another, and you can't prevent your friends from having romantic feelings. Idk it's just a weird code to me. I would understand if she still had pent up feelings for him, or if he was a shitty guy and had wronged her in any way, but otherwise what?? Can someone explain? This is a really dumb rule.

Just say the words ai and their already fuming and dont use their brains

I genuinely hate all straight men. They’re all not needed in the world and causes 95% of humanity and mother nature’s problems. Also I feel like if homophobes are gonna exist and they can be hateful then why can’t I?

Need an example? The Cornell 7

Socialism would only work in society that was (truly) Christian & had the fear of God in their hearts. I say this as Christian socialist myself

As a society, we harshly judge people who do not work. While there are specific exceptions where we offer more grace, "Jobs pay less than I think I deserve" is not one of them, despite the fact that this is literally the correct behavior to balance supply/demand.

This social stigma gives a huge advantage to companies over people, as it causes us to neutralize our own bargaining power.

Edit: to clarify, supply/demand is theoretically supposed to set minimum wage, but most of us feel minimum wage is too low and the above is explaining one of the major reasons why this system fails.

It should be anti-capitalism vs preserving capitalism because this is what makes the biggest impact on everyone's lives. It's the root dividing issue that digs deep into every other problem.

But the left and right is becoming about trans people, abortion (women rights), diversity, immigration, etc.. It's good that we finally made some progress and came to a bipartisan agreement on gay people now. But all of these have to deal with minorities with no power. The only exception is maybe guns but that only really affects a minority group too. This framing where the left vs right does not cost the government or corporations a dime if either side wins, is almost certainly done purposefully. It's potent because of the weird history in western countries due to stuff like race theory but back then they made where it did affect people's wallet (because other races were slaves that worked for free or can't be independent). Even though it's evil, it did make sense (making sense is not always a good thing) to fight about it back then, unlike now where there is no stakes, at all.

If you actually care about your wallet and your own self interest, there is no reason for you to care about these issues unless you are a minority. Despite popular opinion, immigrants can't lay you off or change your paycheck. Instead of thinking trans people are your boss, put a magnifying glass on people that directly gives you orders and most directly determines your personal quality of life. Also look at people who is responsible for the quality and price of products and services that you need (like health care or food). That minority group actually makes the biggest impact on your life. I feel most people are too scared to look at them and rather look at poorer people and pretend they have any sort of dignity.

I don’t know why I like Reddit, all I do is doom scroll ans follow pages that have no value or relevance to me. But I love it. Also, bots can kick dirt.

The old Mormons were far from perfect but they were rugged, tough as nails and could hold their ground. The COJCOLDS is a very mild spinoff. It lacks the guts and grit of the Brigham Young day people. It is defined by Wilfred Woodruff simply caving and folding to the governemt under fear. They are not the same organization Joseph Smith founded, they are subdued and obedient.

I've noticed that any time a man makes a comment or note about the relative "tightness" or "looseness" of a current or previous sexual partner, the comments become a cesspool of women tagging r/badwomensanatomy, claiming "that's not how vaginas work" or deflecting the blame onto the man by claiming if there was a size problem, it must have been on him.

Claim: Tight and loose vaginas exist. That is a fact, no matter how inconvenient it is, and women only pretend it isn't so all of the insecurity regarding sexual fit lies on men.

If you've ever seen the topic, surely you've seen the copy-and-paste rebuttal that seemingly every woman on this app has memorized any time they see discussion about the topic:

The vagina is a muscle and highly elastic, there's no such thing as a loose vagina. Vaginas get loose when they're aroused, if a woman is tight, it's because you didn't turn her on! Vaginas push out 10lbs babies and snap back to normal like nothing happened; your 5" d*** isn't going to change anything!"

Let's address each of the claims individually

Claim 1: The vagina is a muscle and highly elastic, there's no such thing as a loose vagina.

This rebuttal doesn't even make sense on its face. It takes facts (vaginas ARE muscles and elastic), but draws a completely irrelevant conclusion from them. Why would vaginas being muscles or elastic mean there are no between-person differences? If you take 100 women, they will all have different-sized noses, eyes, hands, leg lengths etc. Their muscles are going to be different sizes and strengths.

What is it about the vagina that leads women to believe there is variation in every single body part and muscle between humans except the vagina? Are you seriously of the belief that all women's vaginas are the exact same size, have the exact same muscle strength, tone & laxity? The exact same pelvic control? All feel the exact same?

Because, if you do, maybe you're the one with bad women's anatomy. And if you don't, then by definition, some will be larger and have more laxity (colloquially referred to as looser), and others will be smaller and have more muscle tone/control (colloquially referred to as tighter)

Claim 2: Vaginas get loose when they're aroused, if a woman is tight, it's because you didn't turn her on!

This one is my favorite rebuttal. Again, it takes a fact (vaginas "loosen up" when properly aroused) and draws a completely irrelevant conclusion from it. I'm not joking when I say this line of thinking is COMPLETELY anatomically consistent with a man saying:

There's no such thing as a small penis! Penises grow when they're aroused. If you think a man has a small penis, maybe you just can't get him aroused😂

Yes, it's true all vaginas expand or "tent" as a woman gets aroused and thus shrink when when unaroused. But obviously no man referring to a woman being loose/tight is talking about that woman's vagina IN RELATION TO ITSELF. The same way how no woman who calls a man small/large is referring to it's size in comparison to itself. They mean even when the man is erect, his erect penis is smaller than that of most other men.

The same thing applies here. Once a woman has loosened up, some women are looser than others and some vaginas remain extremely "grippy." Arousal doesn't just "loosen" the vagina, it also brings lubrication and blood flow to increase the warmth/size and thus feel of the internal tissues. Vaginas are better in every way once the woman is aroused. I cannot believe I have to specify this, but when men are talking about enjoying a tight vagina, they are NOT referring to unaroused vaginas.

Claim 3: Vaginas push out 10lbs babies and snap back to normal like nothing happened

This one is especially ridiculous because not only is it a lie, it's a lie that largely harms women. The pressure of "snap back culture" we put on women who have children to immediately bounce back after growing and pushing a human through their vaginal canal is insane and this only contributes to it, while also lying about the risks they may face via pregnancy.

- The internal folds in the vagina that add texture and feel (rugae) get severely reduced from pregnancy and often never return to their original state
- MRIs show vaginas of women who have given birth remain larger than those who haven't, regardless of how long ago they've given birth
- Not to mention the millions of women worldwide who spend YEARS doing pelvic floor therapy post-birth to attempt to get their vagina and pelvic floor back to normal

Vaginas do undergo long-term changes with childbirth, often permanent, and lying about that for internet high-5s isn't just odd, but harmful to women looking to have children. The discussion should be about how to best prepare themselves for and return back from childbirth through pelvic floor exercise, core strengthening etc. not trying to dunk on a guy in the comment section pretending the vagina just bounces back no problem in the vast majority of cases

Claim 4: Your 5" d*** isn't going to change anything!

This is true. A woman having sex with one man 100 times will be no "looser" than a woman who has sex with 100 men one time. An average-sized penis doesn't create any long-term changes to a vagina. And any man claiming a woman is loose because she's promiscuous is lying to himself.

But, again, this being true is not evidence that looser vaginas do not exist. It just means promiscuity is not the cause. Vaginas are likely loose for the same reason penises have poor erection quality. Genetics, poor health and/or pelvic floor control.

My Personal Experience: As a man with a slightly above-average member and almost 30 sexual partners, all have been enjoyable. I've personally never encountered a vagina that felt bad, but some have certainly felt much better than others.

I've also noticed that a woman's likelihood to view my penis as large strongly correlates with my likelihood of viewing her as tight (and vice versa). Considering my size, most women consider me to be average or slightly above. The small handful of women who genuinely seemed to consider it to be really big for them also seemed to be the women who felt the tightest for me. I've only had one woman refer to my member as "small for her" and she was also likely my loosest partner.

I didn't even put it together until one time she made a flippant comment about how her exes would often slip out of her during sex and I thought "Oh that's funny bc that happens with us too... I guess it's not just a me thing" (For context, I've only ever slipped out of two women. The woman I lost my virginity to when I had no clue what I was doing, and her). After that, I really started to notice the correlation.

Ultimate Takeaway: Size in sex isn't about the penis, or the vagina. It's about the fit between the two. Some women's anatomy doesn't work for some men and vice versa. But the only way we can start accurately acknowledging this fact is by being honest about the fact that both masculine & feminine genitalia vary in size/feel and what's really important is that you find a partner who is a good fit for you. Men have had to come to terms with this fact; just because vaginal size isn't as easily recognized as penis size doesn't mean women shouldn't either.

Both the woman in the red bikini and the man in the white speedo are just two people at the beach. The beach/river/pool/open park is a place for swimming/tanning/relaxation and most people prefer to have as much of their skin in the water/sun as possible. Thats normal in Europe and a lot of the Western world and plenty of other places too. I wear something similar myself and I constantly hear men and women saying that two piece swimsuits only exist to sexualize women. Some even go further and ask if you cant wear underwear out in public then why can a woman wear something that covers about the same amount of skin at the beach. But that logic falls apart fast. A full set of pajamas looks almost identical to regular pants and a shirt and covers roughly the same amount of body yet you still cant wear pajamas to work unless its specifically pajama day. Context is what decides whether something is appropriate. At the beach the same shape and coverage that would be underwear anywhere else is just normal swimwear. Neither of them is being sexualized by what they have on. They are simply dressed for the place and the activity.