Like actually? just dont use AMAB and AFAB as nouns like that, its basically the same thing as saying “biological males” and “biological females” and just as impresice. ln your comment there you could have literally just said
So this law bans
jack off when cum
Gay sex when cum
sex where the one person is post menopausal or some shit, if the other person cum
lesbian sex where someone is non-reproductive for any reason, if someone else cum. including the rhythm method
period sex
and conveyed the exact same message without using that stupid ass dehumanizing lanaguge
Hope that helps ----
I heard it on We’re Not So Different which is a podcast with Dr Eleanor Janega Medieval Historian (and Luke Waters Star Wars podcaster), there’s a few episodes on sex specifically.
She also has a book “The once and future Sex: going medieval on women’s role in society”. I haven’t read it though (it’s sitting on my bookshelf.
Also both are Marxist-Leninists and Historical Materialists.
Am also on that podcast shit and IIRC the part you forgot to mention is thatremoved CANNOT result in conception. No consent = no orgasm = no conception
pregnancy = evidence of consent
“the woman’s body has a way of shutting it down” or whatever the stupid quote was from 10 years ago
Well perhaps not good intentioned, as you mention there’s nefarious aspects to it. But also more weirder too than random modern conservative misogyny. Like how Dr Janega points out it was medically recommended for young widows to get digitally stimulated by a female midwife to release the sperm lest their “womb suffocate” and kill them.
and even more complicated by, as was pointed out, the issue of vasectomy. it is semen but it is not “genetic material”.
like i said before this what not intended to describe in detail every specific situation that could arise, but to describe SOME OF THE KINDS of things that are contemplated by the law. the law is formulated in a cis-centric manner on purpose.
Was my list comprehensive? NO.
Didn’t realize yall needed this: I am not a lawyer. Moreever I am not a Person Who Is A Sitting Judge On The US Supreme Court. (Would not want to “dehumanize” by referring to a “supreme court judge”— I’m learning.) Super apologize for the confusion.
IT IS A STUPID LAW there is no way to talk about it that isn’t stupid.
I think glans might be in a « qu’est-ce que c’est » mood, as I like to call it.
Edit: Which is to say, it can’t seem to face up to the facts; it’s tense and nervous and it can’t relax; it can’t sleep cause its bed’s on fire; so don’t touch it, it’s a real live wire.
…Or put more simply, something’s going on in its life that’s put it on edge and causing it to act weirdly aggro for seemingly no reason, as is Hexbear tradition.
My own style uses AMAB and AFAB strictly in the same manner as the full phrases spelled out. Thus it’s a person AMAB (“a person assigned male at birth”) and not *an AMAB (“an assigned male at birth” — what exactly is an “assigned male”?) nor *an AMAB person (“an assigned male at birth person” — that’s an odd bit of syntax, isn’t it?)
—Of course, acronyms do often undergo zero derivation, this is to be expected and generally is perfectly fine, but I think the risk of allowing this to happen with AMAB and AFAB specifically is that these terms will lose their original purpose and come to just be used as misguided euphemisms for male and female, and the world just doesn’t really need more synonyms of male and female, right?
Obviously, though, you couldn’t just replace “AMAB-on-AMAB sex when cum” with “person-AMAB-on-person-AMAB sex when cum” and expect this to be any better, because that phrase would be really clunky and would still indicate a sort of “binary mindset” about it.
Thus my own general rule for these sorts of situations is to think pona, i.e. what are the exact biological or physiological features in question? The most pona description of the law’s scope ends up just being the law itself, so then if we want to list examples of what the law would ban, we could say something like…
It bans ejaculation of semen either as a result of masturbation, fellatio, anal or non-penetrative sex without intent to donate or sell sperm, or as a result of penetrative sex between someone who produces sperm and someone who cannot conceivably become pregnant through natural insemination at the time the intercourse took place, except when this inability is the result of contraception. Under this law it would for instance be illegal to ejaculate inside someone postmenopausal or someone having a menstrual period, or likewise to ejaculate inside someone born without a uterus or ovaries, et cetera.
…Which is more clinical, but also far more precise and thoroughly divorced from a binary conception of AMAB-versus-AFAB as rigid categories.
too be honest my comments are really long a lot of the time and I just try to keep them briefer to save everyone’s eyeballs from falling out. My mistake. Here you go.
the bullet points were intentionally terse, missing multiple words that would have been required to form complete sentences. “AMAB jack off cum” = constructed so the reader fills in missing parts. I’m practically hemmingway over here ok lol.
Unconvinced about how amab and afab as nouns can be dehumanizing; since virtually all humans are either Assigned Female At Birth or Assigned Male At Birth. Is it possible to dehumanize 100% of humans in one go? what would that even mean?
It bans ejaculation of semen either as a result of masturbation, fellatio, anal or non-penetrative sex without intent to donate or sell sperm, or as a result of penetrative sex between someone who produces sperm and someone who cannot conceivably become pregnant through natural insemination at the time the intercourse took place, except when this inability is the result of contraception.
But that sentence is so hard to read, I just read it like 9 times and I am not sure if it conveys what my bullet list did. I think it is mostly pretty accurate on some of it but I am not sure. I get lost reading it. I’d have to print it out and use 2 or maybe 3 colors of highlighters to understand and my printer is in the other room. OTOH the way I wrote it, it was easily understandable.
It would be impossible to make a comprehensive list of all the the sex acts this law does or does not ban. Or to make a table of the combinations of people who are or are not allowed to have what kind of cums. Because it is inherently contradictory and stupid, which was The Point. Obviously, the monsters who wrote it had People Assigned Male At Birth and People Assigned Female At Birth in mind when they wrote it. They’re not interested in anyone’s identities or feelings or relationships. To go out on a limb, they are likely specifically interested in how people are Assigned. For example, trans men can have prosthetics or implants that ejaculate. Are these monsters interested in that? No not at all.
Under this law it would for instance be illegal to ejaculate inside someone postmenopausal or someone having a menstrual period, or likewise to ejaculate inside someone born without a uterus or ovaries, et cetera.
I don’t think where the cum occurs (inside or elsewhere) is at any issue? (ha). Potentially replacing amab with “semen ejaculator” or less funny “Person who ejaculates semen” if I am not allowed any fun would work (excepting the trans men…). But I don’t know if there is any real good word or phrase to describe what the monsters describe as “women”. It would need at least a dozen words and be totally unwieldy.
And actually I didn’t think of it at first but someone else pointed out that cum post-vasectomy is banned under this law in all situations. So that makes both of our descriptions wrong and I don’t even know how to address it.
All the argumentation aside I appreciate your time in thoughtfully elaborating on the very poorly-articulated original critique.
Come to think of it, “Discharged with the use of a contraceptive or contraceptive method intended to prevent fertilization of an embryo.” — what does it even mean to fertilize an embryo? You fertilize an egg to conceive an embryo, but you don’t fertilize the embryo, right? Wouldn’t that be like a matryoshka pregnancy?
…I guess that means any sex with contraceptives is then banned because contraceptives specifically intended to prevent matryoshka pregnancy do not exist. And how about wet dreams, for that matter?
I have more things to say about what you’ve written but I don’t really feel like it right now. Maybe when I have more energy again.
The more I think of this, the more and more and then less, and then more again, things come to mind. It is stupefying. A mindgame trap?
matryoshka pregnancy
So we are talking “they’re born pregnant” ala
Overall I agree this is an exhausting convo. Especially because I doubt either side is 100% correct, and we arguing about how to apply our imperfect analysis to describe a totally bonkers situation which kicks and screams against any framework, even a shitty one.
Because really the whole thing is some republicans cos playing as klingons who’ve traveled back in time to outlaw tribbles. That’s the hope you’ve given me anyway.
They are dehumanising when they are frequently used to dehumanise trans people. Your ignorance, use and defence of your use of those terms is seriously distressing to read. Just stop.
Don’t use afab and amab as nouns challenge [IMPOSSIBLE] Please just use slurs instead, it’s less insulting
what would be better?
Like actually? just dont use AMAB and AFAB as nouns like that, its basically the same thing as saying “biological males” and “biological females” and just as impresice. ln your comment there you could have literally just said
So this law bans
and conveyed the exact same message without using that stupid ass dehumanizing lanaguge Hope that helps ----
so you think everyone produces semen when they cum?
maybe you didn’t understand this law is specifically about semen
Yes.
most sane reply
Wait until Ben Shapiro switches teams. He’ll find a way.
A popular scientific theory in the middle ages was that women had their own internal sperm (from internal testicles) and required orgasm to conceive.
Both are wrong but the first seems logical with the knowkedge of the time and the latter good intentioned.
Ooh where can I read more about this Medieval sex science?
I heard it on We’re Not So Different which is a podcast with Dr Eleanor Janega Medieval Historian (and Luke Waters Star Wars podcaster), there’s a few episodes on sex specifically.
She also has a book “The once and future Sex: going medieval on women’s role in society”. I haven’t read it though (it’s sitting on my bookshelf.
Also both are Marxist-Leninists and Historical Materialists.
Am also on that podcast shit and IIRC the part you forgot to mention is thatremoved CANNOT result in conception. No consent = no orgasm = no conception
pregnancy = evidence of consent
“the woman’s body has a way of shutting it down” or whatever the stupid quote was from 10 years ago
Well perhaps not good intentioned, as you mention there’s nefarious aspects to it. But also more weirder too than random modern conservative misogyny. Like how Dr Janega points out it was medically recommended for young widows to get digitally stimulated by a female midwife to release the sperm lest their “womb suffocate” and kill them.
The issue is you implying that “amabs” produce semen
would that it be the issue.
and even more complicated by, as was pointed out, the issue of vasectomy. it is semen but it is not “genetic material”.
like i said before this what not intended to describe in detail every specific situation that could arise, but to describe SOME OF THE KINDS of things that are contemplated by the law. the law is formulated in a cis-centric manner on purpose.
Was my list comprehensive? NO.
Didn’t realize yall needed this: I am not a lawyer. Moreever I am not a Person Who Is A Sitting Judge On The US Supreme Court. (Would not want to “dehumanize” by referring to a “supreme court judge”— I’m learning.) Super apologize for the confusion.
IT IS A STUPID LAW there is no way to talk about it that isn’t stupid.
then say CUM ROPES then or something holy fuck. not using AMAB and AFAB as nouns challange realy do be impossible ig
Some people like to speak in a somewhat professional way to indicate they are serious. AMAB/AFAB accomplishing this purpose, CUM ROPES, does not .
wow I’ve been so educated about being too “imprecise” i wish i was enlightened about “precision” like you are.
Take the L.
Removed by mod
you’re being defensive for literally no reason here. just don’t describe people as AMABs and AFABs
I think glans might be in a « qu’est-ce que c’est » mood, as I like to call it.
Edit: Which is to say, it can’t seem to face up to the facts; it’s tense and nervous and it can’t relax; it can’t sleep cause its bed’s on fire; so don’t touch it, it’s a real live wire.
…Or put more simply, something’s going on in its life that’s put it on edge and causing it to act weirdly aggro for seemingly no reason, as is Hexbear tradition.
As much as I love talking heads I am pretty sure Byrn was a fed asset.
Blowjobs are out, too
My own style uses AMAB and AFAB strictly in the same manner as the full phrases spelled out. Thus it’s a person AMAB (“a person assigned male at birth”) and not *an AMAB (“an assigned male at birth” — what exactly is an “assigned male”?) nor *an AMAB person (“an assigned male at birth person” — that’s an odd bit of syntax, isn’t it?)
—Of course, acronyms do often undergo zero derivation, this is to be expected and generally is perfectly fine, but I think the risk of allowing this to happen with AMAB and AFAB specifically is that these terms will lose their original purpose and come to just be used as misguided euphemisms for male and female, and the world just doesn’t really need more synonyms of male and female, right?
Obviously, though, you couldn’t just replace “AMAB-on-AMAB sex when cum” with “person-AMAB-on-person-AMAB sex when cum” and expect this to be any better, because that phrase would be really clunky and would still indicate a sort of “binary mindset” about it.
Thus my own general rule for these sorts of situations is to think pona, i.e. what are the exact biological or physiological features in question? The most pona description of the law’s scope ends up just being the law itself, so then if we want to list examples of what the law would ban, we could say something like…
…Which is more clinical, but also far more precise and thoroughly divorced from a binary conception of AMAB-versus-AFAB as rigid categories.
too be honest my comments are really long a lot of the time and I just try to keep them briefer to save everyone’s eyeballs from falling out. My mistake. Here you go.
the bullet points were intentionally terse, missing multiple words that would have been required to form complete sentences. “AMAB jack off cum” = constructed so the reader fills in missing parts. I’m practically hemmingway over here ok lol.
Unconvinced about how amab and afab as nouns can be dehumanizing; since virtually all humans are either Assigned Female At Birth or Assigned Male At Birth. Is it possible to dehumanize 100% of humans in one go? what would that even mean?
But that sentence is so hard to read, I just read it like 9 times and I am not sure if it conveys what my bullet list did. I think it is mostly pretty accurate on some of it but I am not sure. I get lost reading it. I’d have to print it out and use 2 or maybe 3 colors of highlighters to understand and my printer is in the other room. OTOH the way I wrote it, it was easily understandable.
It would be impossible to make a comprehensive list of all the the sex acts this law does or does not ban. Or to make a table of the combinations of people who are or are not allowed to have what kind of cums. Because it is inherently contradictory and stupid, which was The Point. Obviously, the monsters who wrote it had People Assigned Male At Birth and People Assigned Female At Birth in mind when they wrote it. They’re not interested in anyone’s identities or feelings or relationships. To go out on a limb, they are likely specifically interested in how people are Assigned. For example, trans men can have prosthetics or implants that ejaculate. Are these monsters interested in that? No not at all.
I don’t think where the cum occurs (inside or elsewhere) is at any issue? (ha). Potentially replacing amab with “semen ejaculator” or less funny “Person who ejaculates semen” if I am not allowed any fun would work (excepting the trans men…). But I don’t know if there is any real good word or phrase to describe what the monsters describe as “women”. It would need at least a dozen words and be totally unwieldy.
And actually I didn’t think of it at first but someone else pointed out that cum post-vasectomy is banned under this law in all situations. So that makes both of our descriptions wrong and I don’t even know how to address it.
All the argumentation aside I appreciate your time in thoughtfully elaborating on the very poorly-articulated original critique.
Come to think of it, “Discharged with the use of a contraceptive or contraceptive method intended to prevent fertilization of an embryo.” — what does it even mean to fertilize an embryo? You fertilize an egg to conceive an embryo, but you don’t fertilize the embryo, right? Wouldn’t that be like a matryoshka pregnancy?
…I guess that means any sex with contraceptives is then banned because contraceptives specifically intended to prevent matryoshka pregnancy do not exist. And how about wet dreams, for that matter?
I have more things to say about what you’ve written but I don’t really feel like it right now. Maybe when I have more energy again.
The more I think of this, the more and more and then less, and then more again, things come to mind. It is stupefying. A mindgame trap?
So we are talking “they’re born pregnant” ala
Overall I agree this is an exhausting convo. Especially because I doubt either side is 100% correct, and we arguing about how to apply our imperfect analysis to describe a totally bonkers situation which kicks and screams against any framework, even a shitty one.
Because really the whole thing is some republicans cos playing as klingons who’ve traveled back in time to outlaw tribbles. That’s the hope you’ve given me anyway.
Cracker is always acceptable, except for when it isn’t.
Removed by mod
They are dehumanising when they are frequently used to dehumanise trans people. Your ignorance, use and defence of your use of those terms is seriously distressing to read. Just stop.
Removed by mod