… for the very reason that Fortran you can grasp in an evening.

There is a kind of shorter-term marriage in Shia Islam which sometimes may approach prostitution in practice.

But generally no. A traditional European marriage is not a worker servicing a client.

Well, honestly what political positions women have means less in “interesting times” like ours.

They are not strongly pressured by conservative men of their family and surroundings (if they have such), because tribal parts of politics rely a lot on crowd instincts, and those of women don’t work exactly the same. They do participate in politics, but with the different kind of emotion.

For men a woman holding different views is usually not an existential enemy. They might ridicule that or dislike, that may look disgusting, but it’s a different kind of attitude. It’s pretty normal for women from families from authoritarian elites to have publicly liberal views. The dictator daddy won’t punish his daughter for reposting something virtue-signalling against what he’s doing. He knows it’s of no consequence.

At the same time women, of course, see the tendencies around us and their views change accordingly.

But again, in the “interesting times” what men do may matter just a bit more, because there are power dynamics involved where women are disadvantaged due to both different tribal instincts and to men being more represented among people with power. In some sense political views are a kind of compensation.

So it’s both bigger incentives for such views (with actual incels loudly talking) and less pressure (that’s spent on threatening violence against male opponents).

I’m not an incel. Just thinking.

We won’t. The desire is to be connected to a real living woman. Toys can’t get sophisticated enough to make you believe what you prematurely know to not be true.

Yes. Liberal is the opposite of “moralist” and sometimes “oppressive”.

The US use of the word “liberal” is a bit shifted in the direction of “libertine” (same as libertarian, but strongly focused on personal freedoms of substance abuse and sexual promiscuity at the expense of economical\political freedoms to own catgirl slaves and shoot up crowds).

Being less educated and living the traditional life of sitting at home and doing house work.

Easy.

As far as I’m concerned walking totally naked should be legal, though for practical implications of varying ass-wiping culture and genitals saying things we don’t put into words, I suppose, it would be “everything is optional except pants”.

The true problem is not a problem, it’s the reality of human sexuality where most men and some women see female breasts as sexual most of time.

There are different situations where nudity of all kinds is not perceived sexually, that doesn’t affect the general rule that I shouldn’t run around the block all naked.

Saying it’s not equal because men too have nipples and those are not perceived as sexual is kinda strange. Let’s abolish pregnancy leaves then. Gender may be a social construct by now, sex is obviously not, and (most) humans are not hermaphrodites, so the rules can’t be the same.

This is a nothing burger of a subject frankly, we already know that real world doesn’t fit ideal ideas. If some ideal idea would describe the real world, then you’d only need that ideal idea to know it all and other information wouldn’t matter. Some religious fanatics are actually trying, destroying all the knowledge and art not coming from their holy book.

This doesn’t work, the real world is as complex as all the information in it. An action is good or bad only in a particular real situation.

Which is also why choosing a seemingly ideal enough principle and trying to fit it to everything, pretending that makes everyone equal, is a lie.

It’s baffling just how much language is used to dehumanise, other, and discriminate against people.

Yeah, such language sucks, of course, but since right now that connotation of marijuana, for example, seems to be lost - why the hell worry about it. There are worse things which are not in the language, but in the way “protected group” works in the heads of some homo sapiens specimens.

I’ve recently had my comment deleted for answering “Armenian Genocide was bad, but not even close to the Holocaust” with “Holocaust was bad, but not even close to the Armenian Genocide” and in the next sentence clarifying that for me they are on the same level, but people for whom one of these statements is acceptable are not people.

What it definitely does is prevent you from verifying vote results and specific votes. While people selling votes will (in our day) just make a photo and send it to their buyer.

If by “other things” you mean violence against those voting “wrong” - yes, that’s a problem. When you invent a way to have a verified anonymous vote, let me know.

My comment is a specific application, and your comment is “no u wrong”.

To allow easier falsifications.

The users right now may fall into a false sense of privacy when voting because the votes are hidden from Lemmy users.

Why would you even want anonymous votes but not anonymous comments?

The former is as good\bad as the latter.

I know they were already technically public. I think they should be shown.

Gamarchoba genatsvale

I think you should think about that when it reaches Ireland.

Yes, but mainly a mix that wouldn’t be washed away.