Does having your name / reputation / career ruined because a previously consenting straight partner later decides “Nah” count as dangerous? Cause women are sorta doin that to cis men very publicly in some western countries, like Canada. Like there’s currently a big public case where a chick was on video consenting to an orgy, callin the guys sissys for not fucking her faster, and now they’re all on trial cause she later decided “wait, havin sex with 5 dudes in one night made me feel like a ho!”. Being a cis guy and openly expressing an urge to fuck is also a great way to get fired from pretty well any professional job – but if you’re gay, you can get in your gimp suit and party on a parade float and people will cheer you on / you’ll be able to sue if you get fired for it.
Or are we going to scope ‘dangerous’ down to fit a more niche thing to suit the argument?
The answer to your first question is: “No. Not at all. That is independent of sexual orientation.”
And “openly expressing an urge to fuck” at work vs “get in your gimp suit and party on a float” at a public event… If you can’t sus out the difference between those two situations, no wonder you are afraid of getting in trouble…
From what I observed the people who consider the concept of consent flawed and are discussing how it could be improved upon, so the safety and comfort of all people involved is protected seems, are the same people who fights for women’s right. There is a great RadioLab dive in on the topic - I honestly couldn’t recommend it enough). People who demands straight pride parades uses any edge cases of consent going wrong to weaponize it into “it happened, so the consent was there”. If you’re genuinely concern about safety and well-being of man, you’re putting your effort in a wrong place.
Does having your name / reputation / career ruined because a previously consenting straight partner later decides “Nah” count as dangerous? Cause women are sorta doin that to cis men very publicly in some western countries, like Canada. Like there’s currently a big public case where a chick was on video consenting to an orgy, callin the guys sissys for not fucking her faster, and now they’re all on trial cause she later decided “wait, havin sex with 5 dudes in one night made me feel like a ho!”. Being a cis guy and openly expressing an urge to fuck is also a great way to get fired from pretty well any professional job – but if you’re gay, you can get in your gimp suit and party on a parade float and people will cheer you on / you’ll be able to sue if you get fired for it.
Or are we going to scope ‘dangerous’ down to fit a more niche thing to suit the argument?
No.
The answer to your first question is: “No. Not at all. That is independent of sexual orientation.”
And “openly expressing an urge to fuck” at work vs “get in your gimp suit and party on a float” at a public event… If you can’t sus out the difference between those two situations, no wonder you are afraid of getting in trouble…
What a dumb argument.
From what I observed the people who consider the concept of consent flawed and are discussing how it could be improved upon, so the safety and comfort of all people involved is protected seems, are the same people who fights for women’s right. There is a great RadioLab dive in on the topic - I honestly couldn’t recommend it enough). People who demands straight pride parades uses any edge cases of consent going wrong to weaponize it into “it happened, so the consent was there”. If you’re genuinely concern about safety and well-being of man, you’re putting your effort in a wrong place.
Can you share a direct link to that RadioLab piece please?
of course. it was a multipar series called “in the NO” or simply “No”. Here is the first part: https://radiolab.org/podcast/no-part-1
Do you know you’re being disingenuous?
Straight people aren’t being murdered for being straight.
None of your points are examples of how it’s dangerous to be straight.