YZZAJ @Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club
- Status
- Ascended
The Trench
Joined Nov 2021
Hey guys I tried making my hyena fursona, I'm going to post all the embarrassing drawings here
YZZAJ
boosted
YZZAJ
boosted
Okay so I read the studies that are still available in this post and let met tell you:
http://web.archive.org/web/20210314154037/https://wierstamann.wordpress.com/2020/03/29/debunking-pro-cs-a-masterpost/
Lecter is fucking illiterate and interprets studies however the fuck makes him most comfortable.
The first is unavailable, but I wouldn't use any study that primarily polls prison populations anyway bc that's fucking bigotry against ALL yappers you fucking idiot.
The second study ABSOLUTELY has pro c connotations. Those who had consensual sex under 16 had the same mental health outcomes as those who had no sex at all, this is WITH the evening of the playing field of their experiences with homophobia n shit, they LITERALLY account for all variables BEFORE using path analysis, you fucking liar. What do you want science to do, ONLY CONDUCT RESEARCH ON CIS WHITE HETEROSEXUAL MEN???? WOW WAY TO NOT WANT PROGRESS LMAOOOO the study is fine and does, in fact, bolster a pro c position. It says "consensual sex with adults isnt traumatizing, rape is" which isn't fucking shocking.
The third study I could not access either, but it's also from *1986* and I wouldn't touch their understanding of consent with a mile long pole. I don't trust his summary of it though. Considering-
THE FOURTH STUDY. IS FROM THE 1970S. And while it's a better study, it's still not fucking great and I would never use it!
But it still doesn't say what you said it does.
Let's talk about your summary.
"I’ve already criticized the objectivity of self report as a trauma evaluation tool"
This is the only real evaluation tool for trauma. Shut the fuck up. If somebody is self reporting that they have or haven't been traumatized by something, that's that. Just because you don't like the findings of a study doesn't mean you get to make shitty takes that have no bearing on reality.
"(especially since many people asked were still in the process of developing and might not have faced consequences yet),"
YO WHAT IS THIS AGEISM BUDDY BOYO???????? I don't need to say anything other than that do i????
"so I’m just going to focus on another thing – if you use this study to try to justify relationships with enthusiastic or indifferent children (the study made no distinction), by the same logic non-consensually exposing genitals to a stranger is also OK."
The study......literally talks about flashers and public masturbators. And how there was little to no harm done to the declared victims until other parties got involved. So uh. Aside from flashing not being a pro c position, it doesn't do the significant harm you're implying according to this almost 60 year old study. And you're being ridiculous and drawing false equivalence. And no, the study didn't make a distinction bc it was talking about RAPE vs CONSENSUAL SEX vs EXHIBITIONIST BEHAVIORS, not enthusiasm vs apathy! Stop asking for things that weren't thought of at the time, I'll just redo the study for you damn!
"This study proves that people tend to be less traumatized by less intense experiences, and that poor handling can give them secondary harm, not that putting children through it is good and fine."
Oh my gog imagine that. Rape is traumatizing and consensual sex isn't, and being flashed USUALLY isn't bc it's really, at most times, just gross. You don't seem concerned about that secondary harm which disturbs me. Maybe, like the study pointed out, we should focus on the declared victims wishes? Because if they're not traumatized, if they were not harmed, you are the one doing the harm, not the sex. You are so hyperfocused on controlling sex that you don't realize what you're doing to the PEOPLE.
the study clearly states that the rape was unambiguously harmful, traumatizing. That's not up for debate. IT DOESNT STATE THAT CONSENSUAL SEX IS THOUGH. You are so clearly coping your way through these(the ones I could actually read) trying to find any tiny little thing to say "THIS ISNT ACTUALLY PRO C ALIGNED SCREE" but they kinda are! They reiterate that rape is bad and traumatizes people, but as soon as they even imply that consensual sex DOESNT traumatize children you scramble and insert your own narrative!
You are a terrible researcher! Never go into this field! I will embarrass you publicly on purpose because you deserve it! Just like every other "researcher" with a fucking agenda!
http://web.archive.org/web/20210314154037/https://wierstamann.wordpress.com/2020/03/29/debunking-pro-cs-a-masterpost/
Lecter is fucking illiterate and interprets studies however the fuck makes him most comfortable.
The first is unavailable, but I wouldn't use any study that primarily polls prison populations anyway bc that's fucking bigotry against ALL yappers you fucking idiot.
The second study ABSOLUTELY has pro c connotations. Those who had consensual sex under 16 had the same mental health outcomes as those who had no sex at all, this is WITH the evening of the playing field of their experiences with homophobia n shit, they LITERALLY account for all variables BEFORE using path analysis, you fucking liar. What do you want science to do, ONLY CONDUCT RESEARCH ON CIS WHITE HETEROSEXUAL MEN???? WOW WAY TO NOT WANT PROGRESS LMAOOOO the study is fine and does, in fact, bolster a pro c position. It says "consensual sex with adults isnt traumatizing, rape is" which isn't fucking shocking.
The third study I could not access either, but it's also from *1986* and I wouldn't touch their understanding of consent with a mile long pole. I don't trust his summary of it though. Considering-
THE FOURTH STUDY. IS FROM THE 1970S. And while it's a better study, it's still not fucking great and I would never use it!
But it still doesn't say what you said it does.
Let's talk about your summary.
"I’ve already criticized the objectivity of self report as a trauma evaluation tool"
This is the only real evaluation tool for trauma. Shut the fuck up. If somebody is self reporting that they have or haven't been traumatized by something, that's that. Just because you don't like the findings of a study doesn't mean you get to make shitty takes that have no bearing on reality.
"(especially since many people asked were still in the process of developing and might not have faced consequences yet),"
YO WHAT IS THIS AGEISM BUDDY BOYO???????? I don't need to say anything other than that do i????
"so I’m just going to focus on another thing – if you use this study to try to justify relationships with enthusiastic or indifferent children (the study made no distinction), by the same logic non-consensually exposing genitals to a stranger is also OK."
The study......literally talks about flashers and public masturbators. And how there was little to no harm done to the declared victims until other parties got involved. So uh. Aside from flashing not being a pro c position, it doesn't do the significant harm you're implying according to this almost 60 year old study. And you're being ridiculous and drawing false equivalence. And no, the study didn't make a distinction bc it was talking about RAPE vs CONSENSUAL SEX vs EXHIBITIONIST BEHAVIORS, not enthusiasm vs apathy! Stop asking for things that weren't thought of at the time, I'll just redo the study for you damn!
"This study proves that people tend to be less traumatized by less intense experiences, and that poor handling can give them secondary harm, not that putting children through it is good and fine."
Oh my gog imagine that. Rape is traumatizing and consensual sex isn't, and being flashed USUALLY isn't bc it's really, at most times, just gross. You don't seem concerned about that secondary harm which disturbs me. Maybe, like the study pointed out, we should focus on the declared victims wishes? Because if they're not traumatized, if they were not harmed, you are the one doing the harm, not the sex. You are so hyperfocused on controlling sex that you don't realize what you're doing to the PEOPLE.
the study clearly states that the rape was unambiguously harmful, traumatizing. That's not up for debate. IT DOESNT STATE THAT CONSENSUAL SEX IS THOUGH. You are so clearly coping your way through these(the ones I could actually read) trying to find any tiny little thing to say "THIS ISNT ACTUALLY PRO C ALIGNED SCREE" but they kinda are! They reiterate that rape is bad and traumatizes people, but as soon as they even imply that consensual sex DOESNT traumatize children you scramble and insert your own narrative!
You are a terrible researcher! Never go into this field! I will embarrass you publicly on purpose because you deserve it! Just like every other "researcher" with a fucking agenda!
https://youtu.be/b9rnnWa7Esk
This song is for anyone I was too hasty with, I'm sorry, please come home 
YZZAJ
boosted
This flu was exactly what I needed to put a stop to my addictive masturbation habit. 5 times a day to none at all, you win this one God, you got me to stop masturbating.
https://youtu.be/sFA8e7gqGzE
What ever happened to him? I don't think he got cancelled, they tried with his rape jokes but failed, and then he went away when he didn't have to
My perfect world looks like star trek tng, all races and species in the federation working together, all altruistic, all accepting of different cultures, that's the world I want to live in. Even though sometimes I apprar "racist" or "hateful". I refuse to watch nutrek. It will taint star trek in my mind and it is one of the only purely good psychological things left in my idea soup thoughtform patterns.
Did you know that dandelions fix nitrogen? Grow some dandelions!
Sorry for spam, wanted to tag all the old posts, going to start using this tag for church related shit
Wow Shabbas creeped up on us! I almost didn't realize! I've had the flu this past week and so I'm tempted to talk/think about entropy, but sickness isn't really entropy is it? I think sickness is just change. You know, there was a video I posted a while back that was a "step by step guide" on spirit possession. One of the ways a spirit could possess a body, was through sickness, sickness was indicative of spirit possession. This was not always a bad thing, possession is not always negative, there was even Christian tradition and Jewish tradition of sleeping on top of the grave of a Great Hero in order to be possessed by them to gain temporary strength in order to achieve a Divine goal. I don't know if I believe in literal possession, but there is definitely something going on, and this something is a change, and change is not entropy. Right now a battle is being waged inside my body, as is being waged in all our bodies, those of us who have functioning immune systems, and even in those who do not, still a battle is being waged, against the forces of the molecular, in order to contract, and pump, and fight, and electrically discharge, all in order to stay alive. And so it seems to me that life may be the most precious thing in the universe, dictated by the universe, by virtue of its existence in the face of entropy. If this is true we should all celebrate our lives, even the gross parts, even the parts where we're sweating, laying in our bed wishing that it would end, because our lives are precious, and for every down there is an up, for every trench there is a surface, and if we check out while we are dwelling within that trench well then that is where we will end and we will never again feel another high.
Let us pray, in the name of the Fall, in the name of The Trench, Amen.
"THE TRENCH KEEPS US HOLY THE TRENCH KEEPS US STRONG"
THE THIRD TENANT OF THE TRENCH IS PERSEVERANCE
Watching this livestream to help me figure out how to kill YHWH, I'm over here just like, "a physical body you say?" *writes that down*
https://www.youtube.com/live/SAQgMdOO__E?feature=share
- Status
- Ascended
The Trench
Joined Nov 2021
