Mother Cocanuts

Members
  • Content count

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mother Cocanuts

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight
  1. What's the point of sexual attraction without implicit sexual prospects? It's not hard to understand; you just haven't done a good job convincing me. Why? Okay, I'll indulge this: why? Why? When? We became more sensitive with the passage of time, too. No. "We" don't understand what's really required to consent. When it all boils down, establishing consent is often subjective. To remove these subjective constraints, feminists have attempted and currently succeeded in legally objectivizing the establishment of consent by demanding arbitrary rules like explicit verbal consent. Yes Means Yes Law.
  2. No, I've stated that it's nonsensical.
  3. Well heterosexual attraction exhibited by men has been demonized for years and still is. This period is not at all "sex-positive." Sure, we've seen more and more inclusion of LGBTQ, but sex-positivism is not necessarily about the inclusion of sexuality, but broadly the perception of sex itself. Customs and courting etiquette have been incredibly feminized to the point where every word and action must accommodate some hypersensitive laundry list. I mean, look at the responses here: having just an expectation of sexual interaction is "a betrayal of trust," "being a chode," "disgusting" "conducive to sexual harassment, assault, or rape." And men who have multiple female partners are rebuked. I agree that as long as no one is being harmed or violated, it should all be potatoes and gravy. Unfortunately, we've been arbitrarily expanding the concepts of violation and harm.
  4. Not surprising. There are instances where particularly Australia has mimicked U.K. law.
  5. So you're saying that everyone teaches everyone? Then you're clearly apart of the exception. Why do you find it disrespectful? Or lacking respect?
  6. Then it's clear that there's nothing more to say. Have a nice evening.
  7. You have a problem with thesaurus.com? Okay, here's Oxford. Go to #2, it's the fourth synonym. Okay, demonstrate or prove it. So you're assuming? You're not really certain? I assume this assumption is based on the falling out between you and the aforementioned female friend? Nope. As far as this conversation is concerned, it's about you. I'm not debating everyone. I'm debating you and your counterexample. You have no idea what I am or am not fond of. And it's completely irrelevant. If you have a question of me, then ask away. Well as an authority on myself and carrier of my thoughts, let me inform you that your presumption is incorrect. But either way, you're not helping your counterpoint. I'm not forcing you to "hide" anything. I want you to go deeper. And since you submitted yourself as an example in your counterpoint, getting personal is fair-game. Depends on the person. I have and have seen others tap others they don't know in order to get their attention. I've been tapped by a person who didn't know me trying to get my attention. I didn't find the tapping which wasn't previously agreed to, or wasn't a ritual, greeting or game, as inappropriate. Once again, this statement is entirely meaningless if you don't know what my sexuality is. All you're really doing s just asserting that I'm a dick. What are the reasons to expect sex? Or deliberate malice? Malice is not synonymous with expectation. And the crimes you listed are not subject to the initiator's "misinterpretation."
  8. Yes, English. If it wasn't verifiable, I wouldn't have told you to look it up. Hope is a synomym of expectation. (2nd column, 7th row.) They've told you as much? No. Right now, it's about you because you offered you and your relationships as a counterexample. I've argued exceptions for either party being homosexual or asexual. I've not once told you what my sexuality is. So bringing up my relationships is entirely irrelevant unless you know of my sexuality. Your inference is uninformed. This is not very convincing, since you won't explain. I could just as easily say that tapping a person on the pinky is being a chode, and I would need no more substantiation than the arbitrary qualifications you've just submitted. Explain.
  9. Hope and expectation can be synonymous. (Look that up.) As far as declaring that sexual expectations play no part in most of the relationships between you and your female friends, are you certain that said friends have no expectation as it concerns their interacting with you? This is not about me; it's about you. You submitted yourself as an example, so let's keep our focus. Why? You're making a lot of qualifications, but you're not answering the question. Why is having sexual expectations in the interactions between you and a friend whom you find attractive metaphorically being a chode, and being entitled self-centered thinking? Go deeper.
  10. I meant to ask this before, but who stated that the male and female in this scenario were sharing a room? My point earlier is about polishgenius finding one of his female friends attractive and not having any sexual expectations of his interactions with her.
  11. It's a penis that has more gerth in its width than its length. At least that's what Urban Dictionary states. Why do you have to be in a "romantic" relationship? What if the relationship is merely casual? So expectation and sense of entitlement are similar in concept and meaning? Isn't anyone whom you bear a sexual attraction the "object of [your] sexual desire"?
  12. Yes, but "we're sharing a bed, so she is going to have sex with me" is still a thought. You're right: there's no room for a difference in opinion there. Until it manifests through action, it is still just a thought. So having sexual expectations of a friend whom you find attractive is metaphorically being a "chode"? Why? Never implied or suggested that you or anyone made that argument. If you're arguing conversely that male and female relationships do not implicitly denote sexual expectations, you need to do more than just say, "No it doesn't." I'm not using your example to suggest this alone informs my point. (That's why I said it "in part" informs my point.) You submitted yourselves as examples. That's the reason I've been prodding you.
  13. Let me ask: you're friends with them; you're attracted to some of them. Why don't you have any sexual expectations of your interactions with them? This in part informs my point.
  14. You've confused the point. I'm not talking about action; I'm talking about expectations: Expectations are thoughts, not acts.
  15. I don't understand how in the heat of the moment, he's to differentiate the step he took and extending an extra step. They also teach you not foul injudiciously, but it still happens. You're judging this entirely on the consequence and not the intent. Never said I wasn't bias, only that my bias can't refute facts. Well, I've argued using stats and video; what have you argued with? Your bias fandom? You clearly don't take facts seriously. You've done no more than I have to demonstrate that Zaza committed a dirty play. If my thoughts are asinine, what would you consider yours?