skinfeeler:skinfeeler:skinfeeler:ah, this is where we’re at, nowto be clear i am blatantly and purpo
skinfeeler:skinfeeler:skinfeeler:ah, this is where we’re at, nowto be clear i am blatantly and purposefully cutting this out of context and within its context (which is unimportant) it’s valid, but this frame in general isn’t a very valuable or productive one. when it comes to talking about sexual ethics i sincerely believe we should completely expound on what we actually mean with what we say instead of reply on rhetoric shorthand.“the boundaries of people of the general public should be considered when it comes to any public behavior or apparel that is sexual or sexualised, especially when it comes to minors.”“the development of boundaries and sexuality (undistorted by trauma) of minors shouldn’t be disturbed for a laugh or for shock value.”some such.do remember: we’re freaks and creeps and our sexual freedoms are under constant attack by cishets, so if you can make statements on sexual ethics and boundaries without empowering rhetoric frames that makes their work easier in turn, why not do so? seems like the basic responsible thing to do.(moreover, in the vast majority where this kind of statement is said, the substance of the frame IS regressive.)like, i’ve seen affection between trans women in public in literally any fashion — no matter how innocuous — been framed as men displaying their fetishes towards CHILDREN, in PUBLIC.the thing with statements such as the one at the very top is that it can mean literally anything if you don’t expand on what you mean, and honestly i will always treat the refusal to say what you actually mean with a kind of suspicion. it’s laziness at best and deceptive at worst. only honest and specific statements can be tested wrt their values and social impacts, so if you’re going to argue with people on the online or commenting on currently hot discourses, be prepared for people to hold you to those standards, no matter whether you’re ‘venting’ or not or whatever lol -- source link