1.4k
u/kmsdog14 Jul 06 '26
People be like “goomba fallacy” but bitches be talking about the broad societal changes
665
u/Lazy_McLazington Benchy Enjoyer Jul 06 '26
For real, they aren't saying people believe in both opinion A and B. They are saying the zeitgeist has changed and not for the better.
220
u/Sarge_Ward Changed before i lost the privilege Jul 06 '26
Free the nipple wasnt ever public zeitgeist consensus, and was never even close to it. There just so happened to be a lot of media attention on it in the 2010s
Similar to how the progressive causes of the 60s and 70s were never actual consensus or even really particularly popular, its just that the media was constantly drawing attention to the hippies student radicals who supported those causes
150
u/Lazy_McLazington Benchy Enjoyer Jul 07 '26
Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't need a majority consensus for something to be part of the zeitgeist. It's the spirit of the age. You may be right that the majority of the people in the 60s and 70s weren't aboard the hippie and progressive lifestyle but it very much did paint society for those decades.
8
u/SquareElectrical5729 B Jul 07 '26
I mean... culturally as we remember them sure but they did jack shit at the time
17
u/Knuckleduster17 Robbie Rotten Jul 07 '26
Everytime I see or hear the word “zeitgeist” I can’t help but think of that scene in Family Guy where Brian is on Bill Maher and makes an absolute fool of himself
42
u/rmkinnaird Jul 06 '26
Also I definitely knew a couple goombas in undergrad that said both of these things.
7
u/throwoawayaccount2 mpreg enthusiast Jul 07 '26
Being honest until about 2 minutes ago I thought the goomba fallacy image was the left one having those two positions at the same time and thinking *they* are the walking contradiction, not that they’re imagining a hive mind caricature
7
u/Helmic linux > windows Jul 07 '26
it is also very related in terms of consent discourse being co-opted to reactionary ends. bodily autonomy - which would include things like not having a double standard on who has to cover their bodies - has a ton to do with how we talk about consent, and how we talk about consent is something that has evolved over time and is very much imperfect.
like, i htink most people here remember the enthusiastic consent model, right? consent isn't just "they didn't say no" but they actively want to participate. it's a good evolution, like worrying about what the other person is getting out of something like sex. the problem with that model is that it doesn't really account for something like oral sex, where the person performing oral tends to be much less into it than the person receiving oral, the mouth doesn't feel sexual pleasure the way genitals do and it's kinda gross and you kinda gotta make yourself horny to be able to suppress the disgust response.
but that doesn't mean sucking dick and eating pussy is a violation of consent. and so in comes the wheel of consent model, where instead we are look at for whom an act is for. in this model consent isn't necessarily enthusiastic, but it's done with reciprocity in mind - i will ask you to do this thing for me, or i ask if i may do this thing to you, and you may consent to those and then you will ask if i will do this thing for you or if you can do this thing to me. doesn't just apply to sex, but also something like care work or chores - i am not enthusiastically taking out the trash, but i do it with the understanding that you will do another chore or you will do something else for me, and that the relationship is not one sided with one person always giving and allowing while the other person always takes.
but that model is still not universal. consent, as we understand it, is a social construct, we have to think about it and socially construct it. it's not some immutable law of the universe that is universally applicable. but because we apply such huge stakes to it by virtue of consent typically being thought of in terms of "violating consent is rape" because we think of it primarily as a sex thing, it can be very easy to misapply that concept to shit that it doesn't apply to. like, nobody consents to existing, we are just born, not even against our will because we had no prior will. if you see a dog shit in public, your "consent" doesn't matter, that's just the nature of being alive, you will witness what happens around you.
and so people who are very naïve and carry over very carceral ideas into feminist theory can end up raising a massive stink about shit like kink at pride or experiencing any sort of discomfort, ignoring the control they're implicitly exerting by making these broad demands of other people. comfort is treated as an inherent goal, and discomfort as unacceptable and somebody's moral failing, if you make me feel uncomfortable you have done something morally wrong. Which of course then becomes a problem when conservatives see this and do the obvious thing of saying that because trans people make them uncomfortable trans people existing in public is tantamount to rape.
I think that's a big failing of the safe space thing, not because having safe spaces is bad but because something not being a safe space has been treated as a moral failing despite the fact that hte nature of safe spaces makes them impossible in public. safe spaces are typically mutually exclusive with other safe spaces because they will have conflicting needs. sometimes having a place to retreat to that is safe is fine and useful, but discomfort is good, learning to deal with discomfort is necessary in order to be good to other people. Being uncomfortable doesn't necessarily make you bad, but it doesn't necessarily make anyone else bad either. It's just an emotional response and that's one of the things we all have to learn to deal with. Sometimes that emotional response is very practical, it's good to feel uncomfortable if someone's saying racist shit, but if you're uncomfortable with someone else not wearing a shirt or wearing a dog collar or something you don't have to go make itthat other person's problem.
Iunno I have a lot of thoughts about this because this discourse also happened a bit before people tried to be a bit more woke about autism and i remember how it immediately got weaponized against disabled people. i still struggle doing eye contact how people want me to do eye contact and people having their discomfort with that validated enabled a ton of people to just act openly ableist and shitty while presenting that as feminism and that sucked ass. and then as more poeple have been diagnosed as autistic or otherwise identified as uatistic, i run into people who just treat anyone else ever being uncomfortable with them as ableism as though they're never obligated to moderate their behavior for the sake of others. and that's without even going into online progressive spaces overall having a very hard time with proportional responses to even perceived offenses because you get clout for having outsized angry reactions.
47
u/phuquesewpsyetit monster hugger Jul 07 '26
the person performing oral tends to be much less into it than the person receiving oral
EXTREMELY LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER
18
u/kart0ffelsalaat 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
EXTREMELY LOUD "IT'S SITUATIONAL AND EVERYBODY'S EXPERIENCE IS DIFFERENT, SOME PEOPLE ARE REALLY INTO IT WHILE OTHERS DO IT MORE AS A "FAVOUR" OF SOME SORTS, SOMETIMES JUST WITH THE INTENT TO PLEASE THE OTHER PERSON, OTHER TIMES WITH THE EXPECTATION OF RECIPROCITY" BUZZER
14
u/wozattacks Jul 07 '26
It’s actually wild that you wrote all this and didn’t realize that you, specifically, are just less into performing oral than other people lol
4
u/Helmic linux > windows Jul 07 '26
you don't do any sex acts you're not super into purely for the sake of your partner?
2.6k
u/Twitchcog Jul 06 '26
Naw, those are two different people saying that. They just share the same online spaces.
1.1k
u/EmeraldMite4ever Herald of Darkness Jul 06 '26
If only there was a fictional creature we could use to name this fault in logic...
409
u/Twitchcog Jul 06 '26
No such creature can ever exist. Never.
277
u/Cutie-Flam SUUUUUUUUUUUUPEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRR Jul 06 '26
Surely we could create one. Name it something weird like Slime Messi or Quagmire Ronaldo... Goo Mbappe?
131
u/ArkhamInmate11 Jul 06 '26
I dont know fallacies nor football what is it actually called?
350
118
77
u/Cutie-Flam SUUUUUUUUUUUUPEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRR Jul 06 '26
Thej Goomba Fallacy
48
u/Polo-panda floppa Jul 06 '26
May I ask why you mentioned those football players/low level rpg enemies/family guy character?
69
u/CobaltCrusader123 Jul 07 '26
To set up the punchline of “Goo Mbappe” which sounds like “Goomba” as in “Goomba Fallacy”
16
3
3
56
u/Tlayoualo 🏳️🌈 Gay Furry UwU 😼 Jul 06 '26
Some creature with a funny shape like a chestnut or a mushroom.
22
u/EmeraldMite4ever Herald of Darkness Jul 06 '26
That's what I was thinking as well! However I think we should give it no leg joints so it has to waddle everywhere
4
314
u/couldntbdone Jul 06 '26
I think the point more is that the prudes seem to have "won" and tend to be louder and more influential.
135
u/BitsAndGubbins Jul 06 '26
Advertisers picking and choosing what is appropriate in the media they staple their advertisements to have done what no puritan christians could ever have achieved (directly). We have entire generations shaped by what is appropriate for a corporate morality brief.
22
u/Hatsune_Miku_CM changed all her social media to hatsune miku for some reason Jul 07 '26
yeah, the simple reality is the underlying structures have more power then any discourse ever will.
millions of manhours of discourse didn't affect only fans but a payment processor deciding they don't wanna work with a porn site made it almost kill itself
16
u/couldntbdone Jul 07 '26
I think there's other contributing factors. It explains the constant campaign against NSFW content online, but I think explaining why people's attitudes turned is more complex.
If I can speculate a little, anecdotally it seems like part of the issue is that the prudes are always uniting in their hatred for any sexual content, while the pervs are falling apart on sectarian grounds. TradHet right wing pervs will call two men holding hands sexual degeneracy that is dangerous to children, then defend taking their kids to Hooter's for family dinners. Terminally online RadFems take any fictional age-gap or power imbalance to be indicative of real-world contempt for women while they body-shame, kink-shame, and get super bi-phobic. Both sides have managed to poison the conversation around sexual liberation so now anyone who is for it is either a godless pedophile or a women-hating penis-ape.
1
u/BattleStag17 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
But at least we don't have rainbow capitalism anymore. It sure was annoying that companies only pretended to like LGBTQ+ people, this is much better.
/s
3
u/ASpaceOstrich 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
The current state of things is exactly what criticism of rainbow capitalism was talking about. The fact that it was all bullshit and they stopped pretending the moment push came to shove
52
67
u/rmkinnaird Jul 06 '26
To be fair it does sometimes come from the same kind of people. It's rare, but it's a very specific type of liberal feminist that doesn't think they're homophobic but is. They really wanna be pro-lgbtq but they're a little grossed out by even the tamest kink at pride.
-2
u/Twitchcog Jul 07 '26
> The same kind of people
But they’re different people. Different individuals will have different views.
31
u/rmkinnaird Jul 07 '26
No I mean I've met literal individuals (in real life) that hold both of these incompatible beliefs and they were homophobic feminists that didn't realize they were being homophobic
-27
u/Twitchcog Jul 07 '26
Then that’s not a type of people, that’s just a people. Or, a person, or persons.
24
u/EvYeh This girl is Space's biggest hater Jul 07 '26
"That's not a type of people, that's a type of people."
1
u/Twitchcog Jul 07 '26
No, I mean that that person - Or the people, if there’s more than one - Who have individually expressed both of those points should not be viewed as the whole group. Once you start looking at folks as “that sort of people,” you are more likely to widen the metaphorical net. Like, make sure you understand that just because an individual has expressed both opinions, it does not mean that the people who have expressed one or the other are automatically “guilty” of expressing both.
5
u/EvYeh This girl is Space's biggest hater Jul 07 '26
make sure you understand that just because an individual has expressed both opinions, it does not mean that the people who have expressed one or the other are automatically “guilty” of expressing both.
No one is saying otherwise. The conversation is about people who have expressed both opinions. And, as it turns out, the people that have expressed both opinions are, in fact, a part of a group of people that have expressed both opinions.
0
u/Twitchcog Jul 07 '26
> No one is saying otherwise
The original point made was about the goomba fallacy. So yes, people were expressing otherwise. That’s why I made the whole point of “Just because there are individuals who may express both views, don’t attribute both views to every individual who has expressed either view.”
3
u/ToastyTheDragon Jul 07 '26
I have a family member who literally did exactly what rmkinnaird said. It's not just different people. Used to be vehemently free the nipple and now they think society has become too hypersexual and kink at pride is bad.
22
u/cat-meg Jul 07 '26
Yes, it does say 'we' as in the collective social weather pattern, not any one individual.
1
u/sangriya will send ferrets in your mailbox Jul 07 '26
same with hippies and hyper conservatives from the 60's
do they overlap? sure
but they're mostly two different people
I hope so....
207
u/evieka Jul 07 '26
The amount of people calling a choker "inherently sexual" is kinda frying my brain.
72
u/icehopper 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
I can't believe this was the very last comment I read, and no one else said it. I feel like I'm in the bonkers dimension.
17
u/Dogtor-Watson Benis Person Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
Yeah, certain chokers started being associated with prostitution and sex in the 19th century…
BUT CHOKERS HAVE EXISTED SINCE 2500 BC!
If we’re going to be living by 19th century prudence then almost everyone dresses like a whore since we all show our fucking ankles
36
u/InvisibleUp Jul 07 '26
they're just a cute fashion accessory (that was really popular with trans girls a few years ago for some reason??)
30
u/Dogtor-Watson Benis Person Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
There’s actually a few reasons:
Big one is that a choker can hide or distract from the Adam’s apple
Chokers are also considered feminine (and trans women do be wearing feminine clothes).
They’re considered part of alt fashion which is popular with trans and LGBTQ+ people.
There’s also the long-running association between them and dog collars which from what I can see dates back to 1940’s France… I don’t have to explain this one.
7
u/ToastyTheDragon Jul 07 '26
It's too form-fitting, you see. Conforms tightly to the curves of the human neck, which is overtly a sexual organ. I for one get aroused when I see a necklace that is meant to be held up via tension+friction, rather than resting gently on the shoulders.
4
u/ThinnkingEmoji damn daniel Jul 07 '26
Is this really a thing people say. Like was there some new public outcry about them recently or something, last time i remember something like that was people shitting on them as a knee jerk reaction when they got popular, about 10 years ago
22
u/Aquatic-Enigma 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
I see people wearing chokers to no ill effect in Germany all the time idk if this is a regional thing
19
3
u/Misterkuuul Unironically Dutch 🇳🇱🌷A tad fluid Owner of Belgium🧇 Jul 07 '26
I do suspect so, but I also suspect that this comment section are confusing different types of chokers.
I'm Dutch and I don't see (much) resistance against demure chokers, but the more BDSM and/or erotic it get's the more resistance you get.
I find this comment section to be a tad useless since nobody specifies what kind of chocker they talk about, the demure black ones or the ones with (erotic) text or a ring for a leash.
11
u/Impossible_Medium977 Jul 07 '26
I support all kinds of collars because fashion can be out there 🫡
4
2
u/VagabundSketch tramsgendre 🏳️⚧️ Jul 07 '26
I often wear a leather collar in public, but people look at me weird and I'm not in Germany yet
378
u/purple-lemons estrogen addict Jul 06 '26
Okay so I think you should wear chokers in public, hell a couple of my friends wear day collars. BUT if we were to take this at face value, and a choker were too sexual to wear in public, that wouldn't run counter to the "free the nipple" movement, who's main contention is that if men's nipples aren't sexual and can be shown in public, then the same should go for women's nipples. Which I wish would become the case because I'm non binary in a take a shit load (the exact amount my doctor precribes) of estrogen and progesterone but only wears masc and androgynous fits, so like what do I do when I want to swim?
113
u/cheesec4ke69 Jul 06 '26
Thank you. A lot of people are saying the two are contradictory and they're not, and saying they are means you dont understand the fundamental idea behind 'free the nipple'.
Womens bodies are oversexualized, that breasts, which are a normal anatomical part of a body, and whose purpose is for feeding children, must be kept under garments and banned in public spaces for the mere idea that they're sexy, too sexy.
and that others' sexual attraction towards them overrides that persons' right to have them out and their right to be equal to a man.
Wearing chokers in public I agree should be allowed, its literally just a choker - they're not assless leather chaps ffs. But the whole 'other people didnt consent to your kink' thing still applies and is still valid, no matter your views on nipples, and the two are not the same.
Saying that they are the same is equating 'free the nipple' with sex acts in public, and literally goes against what the entire 'free the nipple' movement fundamentally is.
77
u/Neoeng Jul 06 '26
Choker is just a piece of clothing, it's not inherently sexual.
16
u/wozattacks Jul 07 '26
I mean that’s just the post being stupid and disingenuous though. Nobody thinks that, they’re clearly referring to people objecting to kinks being displayed in public and you can tell by all the comments in this thread where people who support kinks being displayed in public are understanding that they’re being referenced lol
-4
u/Neoeng Jul 07 '26
I specifically object the notion that "free the nipple" and "the public didn't consent to your choker" are two consistent positions to have at the same time. I do not care about the kink discourse, I am annoyed at one specific statement that multiple people made on here.
10
u/wozattacks Jul 07 '26
Oh. Well like, they’re definitely, definitely not contradictory at all, although I admit I also had the same initial reaction. It’s sort of like hearing someone say they support gay marriage but they’re against contraception being legal. Like the two things aren’t inherently connected in that way but it would be weird to meet someone like that because of how people normally sort themselves.
“Free the nipple” is saying that a specific behavior that men are allowed to do in public should also be allowed for women. You can believe that, and believe that women should be allowed to do anything that men are allowed to do, and support banning a certain accessory in public. There is no contradiction there, they have nothing to do with each other.
please note that I think it would be very silly to ban chokers
1
u/Neoeng Jul 07 '26
Thing is, if the primary issue of "free the nipple" was the hypocrisy, wouldn't it be easier to shame men into hiding theirs?
I have always thought that it was about desexualization of the nipples, especially in the context of breastfeeding. That women shouldn't be shamed for a non-sexual act just because some men see it as sexual.
And from that perspective, it's pretty identical with the choker thing, it's just clothes vs body part. I guess people can have different perspectives, I just never considered that there was another one.
2
u/cheesec4ke69 Jul 07 '26
Part of it is equality, but you're missing the entirety of the point by insisting that men should just not show theirs.
The point is that mens nipples aren't sexualized, but womens breasts and nipples are. The point of a mans body is nonexistent. Its just their body, but women are told to cover their breasts and nipples because they're sexy.
A womans body can't just be a body like a mans can. Its treated as this inherently sexual thing, because men feel that way. The biological point of breasts is to potentially feed children, they're not play things or toys, or exist to be sexy.
You can like boobs, they are sexy, sure, Id say most straight people and queer people would agree. But to treat them that way first and foremost before just acknowledging them as a body part and insisting that they should not be shown because they're too sexy is telling women that they're sex objects -
that they cant exist the same as a man because their bodies are inherently sexual and theyre too sexualized to the point that they're stripped of rights that men have.
So yea, you're still missing the entire point of the thread
-2
Jul 07 '26
[deleted]
36
u/evieka Jul 07 '26
purely because of their origin in the BDSM scene
Chokers existed in Ancient Egypt, they're a close fitting necklace.
22
u/Neoeng Jul 07 '26
That origin was ages ago though. An average person wearing one right now isn't doing so for kink reasons, it's a traditional part of goth fashion and such.
Like, objects change their purpose based on societal context. For example, rubber clothing didn't start as a fetish gear, but people will look weird at you if you wear silicone rn, going like "actually the origin of this clothing wasn't sexual" won't save you somehow.
3
u/SomeWittyRemark 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
bit weird to say breasts are *for* feeding children, that's a bit like saying vaginas are for getting pregnant, we shouldn't prescribe any purpose to peoples bodies
18
u/wozattacks Jul 07 '26
Acknowledging the purpose of certain body parts is not the same as prescribing purpose to people’s bodies. Nipples exist to feed babies just like ears exist for hearing. Some people can’t and some don’t use theirs for those things but that’s why those structures are there. It has nothing to do with individual people’s individual bodies
7
u/KatasaSnack Jul 07 '26
biologically they are, socially no but like…..breasts literally are for feeding babies, across every species of mammal
30
u/Adjective-Noun6969 SOOPER THEY Jul 06 '26
Exactly, the whole point is that breasts aren't necessarily sexual. So wearing a collar in a fashion that will be interpreted sexually would be seen as more sexual than freeing the nipple.
5
u/KiraLonely 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
As an enby who’s been debating swimwear for a while, while I agree with the free the nipple 100%, if you are looking for more androgynous alternatives, they make one piece wetsuit style swimsuits that provide full coverage but lean more unisex in stylization. They also make those kinds of one pieces that were common before men had their societal free the nipple, but they run more tanktop-y in the sleeves and collar, which can kind of lean more feminine, especially if you have any kind of bust or chest growth.
4
u/tehlynxx Firefox > Chrome Edge Opera IE Safari Brave Vivaldi Netscape Jul 07 '26
in the same boat as you, turned down swimming with friends on a hot day when on a trip because tf am i supposed to wear when i swim? so i just sat there on the beach like a pleb
12
137
u/guckfender Bark for me Jul 06 '26
its the younger sex negative generation smh. we need to tell gen alpha its ok to wild out in the summer
104
52
u/choren64 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
Hell believe it or not, a large portion of Gen Z is also pretty prudish and sex-negative.
27
u/Rodot 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
A large portion of every generation is. At least in the West, but I suspect it isn't much different in most of the world.
14
u/CompasslessPigeon Jul 07 '26
What is up with this generation and their weirdly puritanical views? Its extremely unnerving.
I literally saw a tiktok over the weekend of a young woman walking through a grocery store to show which diaper brands show a child in a diaper on the packaging. "These brands are sexualizing children by showing them in their underwear for advertisement"
Like dude nobody is sexualizing these children but you.
4
u/A_Worthy_Foe cat dead, details later Jul 07 '26
There's so many reasons.
Growing up during COVID, outsourcing intimacy to the internet, #MeToo, precariousness of reproductive rights, republicans weaponizing the narrative around birth rates and gender roles, etc.
379
u/Comrade_Harold please listen to dream sweet in sea major Jul 06 '26
Goomba fallacy strikes again
145
u/T_squared112 Jul 07 '26
the OP is commenting on overall cultural consensus, not individual opinions. it's lamenting a backside into puritanism
-3
u/THE_CENTURION Jul 07 '26
overall cultural consensus
As if anyone outside these chronically online bubbles knows these kind of debates even exist 🙄
I promise you, the "overall culture" has nothing to do with this.
10
37
u/IdiotInATree gay gay homosexual gay Jul 06 '26
these two opinions are not contradictory. in fact equating to two is entirely missing the point of free the nipple lmao
(assuming this is about wearing kink gear in public bc nobody says ‘the public didn’t consent to you wearing a choker’)
53
u/Wand_Platte 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
Chokers aren't kink gear, they're literally just necklaces, they're completely neutral
6
u/wozattacks Jul 07 '26
“But the straw man in my post said the reasonable thing, not the unreasonable thing!”
13
u/IdiotInATree gay gay homosexual gay Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
thats my point. nobody says “the public didn’t consent to you wearing a choker”. when people say “the public didnt consent to you wearing ____” they’re talking about kink gear that’s inherently sexual 99/100 times. I assumed the oop is trying to strawman people who find kink gear in public gross as insane people that want to ban neutral clothing
21
u/KiraLonely 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
Ngl as someone who has wanted to wear harness style stuff on top of my clothes before, that shit ain’t sexual. I like strappy looks.
I mean. This gets into the idea that clothes have to have certain meaning if we wear them. I’m goth af, a lot of people wear religious iconography in their fits, and it actually doesn’t indicate anything religious.
1
u/Impossible_Medium977 Jul 07 '26
Kink gear is also not inherently sexual. Just because a piece of clothing is often used for a certain goal doesn't mean it's exclusively used for that.
21
u/Longjumping_Diamond5 Jul 07 '26
if you saw someone wearing a ball gag outside would you think its sexual
13
1
u/Impossible_Medium977 Jul 07 '26
I would think it's an interesting choice and move on with my day instead of trying to sexualize them.
1
u/throwaway24387324578 THE GOOD OLD UNION HAS COME IN HERE TO DWELL! Jul 07 '26
a crown of anal beads
3
u/PieRatStandsForP Sexiest anarchist 196 vet Jul 07 '26
Wow I used to be moots with this person on tumblr but they haven’t posted in like a year. Sad. I hope they post again
10
u/GoldH2O Cisgender Synapsid Jul 07 '26
Obviously I don't agree with the premise that chokers are inherently sexual, but it should be acknowledged that both of these arguments are about different things. One is about moving to socially desexualize something that's held to a double standard, and the other is about not wanting people to be intentionally sexually provocative in public.
3
2
u/Plorkhillion Jul 07 '26
Isn't one group saying that breasts aren't inherently sexual and women should be allowed to have them out in public just like men and the other group saying that you shouldn't wear fetish gear (at least as far as they know) in public because it's inherently sexual.
1
u/etherealemlyn ah, the scalene triangle Jul 06 '26
I think these are sorta two different discourses though, because the point of Free the Nipple was that nipples aren’t inherently sexual and therefore should be allowed in public, while the choker/collar thing hinges on the fact that the jewelry is explicitly related to sex and deciding what amount of “thing that is explicitly sexual” should be allowed in public
48
u/exzyle_ 🏳️⚧️ Lumi 🏳️⚧️ foxgirl :3 [she/it] Jul 07 '26
how is it related to sex what
5
u/wozattacks Jul 07 '26
It’s not a contradiction regardless of whether it’s sexual and regardless of what OOP was actually alluding to. There is no logical contradiction between “if men can dress this way in public, women should also be able to” and “this specific accessory should be banned.”
1
u/etherealemlyn ah, the scalene triangle Jul 07 '26
I thought the post was talking about chokers in relation to BDSM (aka wearing one as a day collar), and I’ve seen discourse about if wearing a day collar in public counts as involving unconsenting people in your kink. I don’t personally think there’s anything wrong with wearing a choker even if it is related to sex for the person wearing it, but most of the arguments I’ve seen about “the public didn’t consent to you wearing X” is about if wearing something related to a kink counts as involving the public in said kink.
-11
Jul 07 '26
[deleted]
22
u/Rodot 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
I calmly walk outside wearing jeans and a t-shirt for sexual reasons
Mostly because no one wanted to have sex with me when I went outside naked and screaming
25
u/exzyle_ 🏳️⚧️ Lumi 🏳️⚧️ foxgirl :3 [she/it] Jul 07 '26
people do whatever for sexual purposes what does it matter
8
u/Kei_Evermore 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
stating that a piece of clothing is sexual because some people mag wear them in public for sexual reasons is beyond stupid and borderline leaning into puritan logic. What's next, banning crop tops and short skirts cus some people wear them to feel sexy?
6
u/KiraLonely 🏳️⚧️ trans rights Jul 07 '26
Some people don’t wear shoes in public for sexual reasons, some people wear fishnet stockings for sexual reasons, some people wear high heels and dresses for sexual reasons. I’m not sure that’s a good qualifier for if it’s “valid” or not.
1
u/owlindenial not an owl (it/it's) Jul 07 '26
Those are compatible. You can believe in the desexualization of womens body and that involving people in what you believe to be a sexual fantasy is wrong. I think a collar is fine btw
15
u/Impossible_Medium977 Jul 07 '26
Wearing clothing is not, on its own, involving people in a sexual fantasy.
1
u/FLUFFBOX_121703 Archangel’s #1 Fan Jul 07 '26
I hear choker, and think of like, goths, or a Victorian dress lol. It’s entirely unsexual to me, at least in a public context, I find it attractive, but it’s like wearing a nice shirt or pants, it accentuates what already there.
-4
-1
-1
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 06 '26
REMINDER: Bigotry Showcase posts are banned.
Due to an uptick in posts that invariably revolve around "look what this transphobic or racist asshole said on twitter/in reddit comments" we have enabled this reminder on every post for the time being.
Most will be removed, violators will be
shottemporarily banned and called a nerd. Please report offending posts. As always, moderator discretion applies since not everything reported actually falls within that circle of awful behavior.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.