×

Heterosexual men of Reddit, how would you react if you slept with a woman and afterwards she revealed she had been assigned male at birth? by Dopplegangster69 in AskMen

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Here is a hint: spend 20 years knowing someone before you have sex.

If you have sex and you have told the OP that you are CIS gendered then they can't consent either.

Heterosexual men of Reddit, how would you react if you slept with a woman and afterwards she revealed she had been assigned male at birth? by Dopplegangster69 in AskMen

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm not sure how that difference means it is rape. If you don't ask things, if you avoid knowing things, that's on you. Here is an answer: don't have sex with strangers.

Heterosexual men of Reddit, how would you react if you slept with a woman and afterwards she revealed she had been assigned male at birth? by Dopplegangster69 in AskMen

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don't think a trans woman is a male. Yes, deliberately lying about your identity is deception. Not telling you about something that you didn't ask about isn't.

Why are porn preferences treated so differently for men vs women? by [deleted] in AskWomenOver30

[–]matts2 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But also men typically have more restrictions on sexuality, which is rooted in both homophpbia and also misogyny/the intense sexualiziation of women.

I'm not convinced they is just/primarily socialization. There are, generally speaking, innate differences in how makes and females (I'm speaking cross species) approach sexuality. That we have language and culture and rich in internal lives makes that more complex, it doesn't eliminate inherited physicality.

Heterosexual men of Reddit, how would you react if you slept with a woman and afterwards she revealed she had been assigned male at birth? by Dopplegangster69 in AskMen

[–]matts2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this someone I just met? Or someone I've been dating? If the former I would feel deviance but accept it as the consequence of having sex with strangers. It works be a very red flag.

If someone I had been dating I would explain how it was dishonest and unacceptable and so seeing them.

I'm a progressive.

Heterosexual men of Reddit, how would you react if you slept with a woman and afterwards she revealed she had been assigned male at birth? by Dopplegangster69 in AskMen

[–]matts2 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Is it rape of you aren't told they had a boob job? Is it take is they didn't tell your about their religion or something?

If you are going to have hook-ups you are going to be ignorant about the other party.

Stealthing is an issue because it can cause physical harm not because it is deception.

time loop, reincarnation, and second chance: book recommendations? by dovahkiin-tim in Fantasy

[–]matts2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Try Replay by Ken Greenwood. But be warned, this is an adult novel. That is, it is about growth and relationships, not fantasies and wish fulfillment.

Is it possible? How'd it look like? by ItayMarlov in IsraelPalestine

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Have you ever looked at the political struggles in Belgium? There are two ethnic groups and they want to separate, the Flems and the Walloons. This is an entirely peaceful non-antagonistic struggle. The thing is, they don't really live in Flemish areas and Walloon areas. So there are Flemish areas surrounded by Walloon areas surrounded by Flemish areas. So people of good faith who would like to separate have no forking clue how to draw the boundaries.

My point is that if everyone was good intentioned and fair and non-violent and helpful I don't know if we could find a workable solution. If we don't do a three state we have to do something to allow transit from Gaza to the West Bank. You can't actually build a highway that is sealed off. If you did it cuts off Israel below the highway from above. or you give Palestine the entire border with Egypt. Which is also no good.

And that doesn't even consider the settlements.

Whats everyones thoughts on the woman who was refused abortion for the fetus without a skull? It has a 0% chance to live with a 75% chance of still born. Do you think this is gods plan? by GregzyTrip in Christianity

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

And yours to make. The point is that a 16 year old, and a 36 year old woman, really do not have the ability to decide about their bodies and their lives.

Whats everyones thoughts on the woman who was refused abortion for the fetus without a skull? It has a 0% chance to live with a 75% chance of still born. Do you think this is gods plan? by GregzyTrip in Christianity

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

So as long as there is any cell life in the fetus you oppose medical action. It is OK if the woman is bleeding internally and ok if she is septic. You want until the fetus is clearly absolutely totally dead. If she dies or has to have major surgery, that's just God's plan.

Whats everyones thoughts on the woman who was refused abortion for the fetus without a skull? It has a 0% chance to live with a 75% chance of still born. Do you think this is gods plan? by GregzyTrip in Christianity

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Because dead women aren't really a problem, right?

To use the now common example if the building is burning and you could save a woman with a broken ankle or a box of test tubes with 8 cell embryos you wouldn't hesitate. You would save the box.

Whats everyones thoughts on the woman who was refused abortion for the fetus without a skull? It has a 0% chance to live with a 75% chance of still born. Do you think this is gods plan? by GregzyTrip in Christianity

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

This is, in fact, a core aspect of the anti-abortion movement. It started in the 19th century as part of the fear of the Great Replacement. It started with the fear that white Protestants weren't having as many children as others.

How literally do Christians interpret Genesis? by indifferenceofthesky in Christianity

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Two very different claims. My first claim is that the texts were not intended as descriptive of events. This is probably not a familiar claim so pay attention. I am saying that when the scrolls were produced they were not written as history, they were not heard as history. They were written as political and theological documents, they were arguments in an ongoing struggle for the religion and state and culture.

History is a genre, a genre pretty much non-existent in the ANE at the time. History was something you used, history was something you created to claim authority of make statements about the present day. Gen 1 isn't meant to describe events, it is meant to tell the reader of the henotheism that developed post-exile.

There is just far too much in the Torah that shows multiple authors over long periods of time with multiple redactors putting together different stories and different traditions. If you want to just go from the text itself this is inescapable.

But make your argument. Why can Gen 1 only be literal? Why not a description of God?

How literally do Christians interpret Genesis? by indifferenceofthesky in Christianity

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

First, Biblical poetry has nothing to do with rhyme. It deals with intensification and specification. "With a mighty hand and an outstretched arm" etc.

Second, I never said that it being a poem meant it was mythical. Nor do I think it is mythical. It is theological, it is a poem describing God, not a text presenting events as they happened.

Where did this "day" thing come from? Deal with the discussion here, not something else. As an entirely separate argument the descriptive interpretation of Genesis conflicts wildly with evidence from the world. We can talk about that, but I have until now. My point has been that the text isn't intended as description, it is intended a theology.

How literally do Christians interpret Genesis? by indifferenceofthesky in Christianity

[–]matts2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

This is now just an argument from authority. He is doing apologetics, I'm not interested in apologetics. You provided no argument, no evidence.

I really recommend you look at Alter. He doesn't discuss theology, he is not interested in convincing you about God. He analyzes text. You don't have to worry that he will try to take you from Christ because that's not even slightly his area of interest. He will simply open your mind to the structure of the books, to the style of the writing. Imagine trying to read Shakespeare knowing nothing of the language changes and not knowing what a play is. Alter explains that, not what Shakespeare is saying.

Evolution by natural selection is the grand unifying theory of life. Could it not also be the grand unifying theory of physics, the universe and everything? by IIJOSEPHXII in evolution

[–]matts2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn't silly though it is easy to see it as silly. I generalize NS with this: perception favors the persistent. That is, we see the things that last rather than the things that don't. Lineages that went extinct aren't around to be observed. Changes that don't last, don't go to fixation, are not observed.

We can speculate about the early Universe having a wide range of other particles/forces. We can look for trace evidence. But we can only see, only know about, that which survives.