this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
306 points (86.3% liked)

196

16489 readers
3917 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
306
epic ratio rule (lemmy.cafe)
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
 

Lemmy is a worse platform for women than Reddit was EDIT this link is an OLD POST that contains my thesis on the state of lemmy and is not the context of the much more recent comment in the screenshot. sorry for any confusion caused by this juxtaposition, my main goal with having this linked is to expose how nothing has improved

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

In my opinion, talking about women ‘withholding’ sex as a ‘punishment’ implies a certain level of expectation or entitlement, like men are entitled to have sex with women

No they are not entitled. But the poster specifically instructs people to withhold sex. Even if the woman wants to have sex. This could make sense if the woman was having sex with someone who opposes the ownership of their bodies. But if the man already holds their point of view, what is the point? For who are they not having sex? What is being achieved?

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Again, I totally get your point, and I think it’s a worthwhile conversation to have, but that’s not really what I’m here to talk about - I’m just trying to explain what happened in the comment thread, why people got upset, and how we can avoid that so that we can have open and productive conversations about these really sensitive topics without upsetting people.

The reality is that women so often have to deal with men trying to control their sexuality, so when we’re talking about these topics in good faith, we really need to be extra cautious that we’re handling these topics delicately and respectfully.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure thing. But that is not what OP was insinuating with his original argument.

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago

I’m not sure I really understand who you’re referring to when you write “OP”, but either way, I think that that with the additional context I explained above, the comment reply of “women do not exist for you to have sex” is quite understandable - I personally don’t feel that it is fair to describe it as a non-sequitur.

Honestly, I find it kind of weird that the top level comment (as written by Lightor) is more about how the movement would affect him, and I think that it probably demonstrates that he isn’t really the ally he seems to think he is. In my opinion, if he really was “one of the good guys”, he wouldn’t have written his comment the way he did.

Anyways, I think I’ve said all I have to say - thanks again for the respectful conversation, and I hope you have a great day, much love and solidarity!