this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
138 points (93.1% liked)
Casual Conversation
2255 readers
412 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A female friend once said that, at least in the US, men are often viewed by women as being either creepy or not creepy. The not creepy men have learned to avoid women due to the creepy men, so the only men who would approach a woman must be creepy.
Make of that, and its consequences, what you will.
Well what I make of that is, that it's (perhaps) an out of date social norm ;)
It would seem so.
That's a really good way of putting it.
There are asexual men too. And asexual women.
I think its more that 'creepy' is just a less blunt measure of attraction.
I mean sure there are legit creepy people out there but that's a lot rarer than people believe (because the internet steeps us in creepy people all day).
I've seen good looking chuds do the most stalkerish of shit and get away with it, I've seen well meaning ugly people treated like shit at every turn.
Not creepy, aka attractive/ with money.
It's such a tired line. You know what everyone finds creepy, people who don't respect your personal boundaries and don't understand basic concepts of consent. Neither Money nor looks can make up for that in the slightest.
That's simply not true, the golden boy trust fund blonde and blue eyed track star at my HS cornered and raped two students his first year, on school campus.
Nothing serious happened, no one 'othered' him, the language always framed him as 'just a guy who got too horny, like boys do'.
He probably had done more but after the first two came forward and not even the cops got involved, all the rest of the girls clammed up.
Oh yeah it can. You see it everywhere in the news.
I would tend to disagree quite a bit. Most of the couples I know say they chose each other because they felt most at home with each other.
Do you think they would have got together if they weren't physically attracted to each other? Cmon.
Some of them, yes. There's more than one kind of attraction in the world, it's not just physical attraction or wealth attraction. There's mental attraction, vocal attraction, attraction based on having been one's deep friend in the past, attraction based on shared interests, etc. Physical attraction actually didn't used to be all the rage as much as it is now.
Do you think you could have sex with a ugly dude face on top of yours, breathing heavily? I could not do that with a ugly girl. If people get together usually they can at the very least see some attractive physical traits in their partner. No wonder once almost everyone gets uglier with age they divorce.
But I don't even have that.
If you can't think outside the box, you're not going to succeed, because outside the box is where the goal is. There is more to a partnership than that, otherwise such a thing would be relatively pointless.
(Also we should steer clear from NSFW discussions here.)
Not creepy, aka doesn’t say stuff like this.
I've read all your comments so far and this combined with the 'deserve love and cuddles' shit... You dropped your mask buddy