Lurker > Nemu

I've been wanting to replay it for a while. It's like not a great game, but something about NPC collection, the NPC routine, and the ability just to fuck about is super comfy. It's definitely a game that could use a slightly expanded remaster to become really good.

The idea of there being a cutoff point is silly. If the means by which someone is accumulating money is immoral, then it is going to be immoral regardless of being a millionaire or billionaire. Some arbitrary cutoff just means theyll better learn how to disperse their assets so as to appear under the cutoff point .

Seems like a horrible name regardless of other context.

Looks kinda fugly, but I hope it's good. I'd love for them to fully flesh out this style into something absolutely amazing in the future, rather than drop it after one game.

Not ugly, but a couple sizes too big to be attractive. Can definitely see her being hot to someone into bigger women.

Conditions changed where the evolution no longer exist, the versions that existed back then migrated and became the Kantonian/whatever versions, they still exist in unexplored regions, or they just went completely extinct.

Other than stuff where I'm no longer in the target audience range, I can't think of anything I particularly dislike.

4 is a "stupid cool" concept they threw in for the sake of having a shiny new transformation. While it does have an interesting take on the Saiyan heritage, it's not at all explored enough to really feel like anything more than a novelty. God is more basic, but it at least has more of a lore explanation and fits into the overall direction of the plot.

I read that as final episode and got really worried about my sense of time for a moment.

It is rather wild how some people take it as matter of fact that they're fat, just feeding them literally whenever they cry for it rather than doing a vet-approved feeding schedule. My brother has gotten comments surprised that his corgi isn't fat because people just assume they're like naturally fat for some reason.

Turning off comments or using your own platform where you can better curate the userbase is the only way to make that stop. It'd be nice if we could come together as a society to be less shitty, but that's obviously never going to happen. Celebrities in particular have to realize they will always deal with this shit due to being in the limelight. Nobody should have to deal with that and there can probably be some measures to lighten it up a little bit, but you gotta work in reality rather than some imagined utopia.

Its kind of like billionaire hate. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate the system, but it generally seems to be the uninformed mobbing at their heels.

With padded landing, double jump. Without it, air dash.

COVxy posted...

Do you think someone isn't straight for being okay dating a post-op transwoman?

For the most part, they can be defined as straight. If you wanted to strictly define their sexuality, it'd probably be something for which we probably don't have a set word, but like "straight pan" which seems to be an actual thing people use according to Google.

Edit: Oh, misread the question as the opposite.

Gwynevere posted...

The thing about that is that in many cases, you could fuck a post op person and not tell a difference

If the knowledge of it is the only issue, then to me it seems if someone is passable in every conceivable way then divulging that info is unnecessary since they're functionally identical to a cis woman

It doesnt matter how you try to justify it, its still not the same. They still have a biologically male
body, or theyre penis-afflicted if you want to use alternate terminology. I dont understand why its so particularly hard to be able to accept that a trans woman is a woman while also understanding that the characteristic of her being trans means there are certain innate characteristics that will influence every part of life, dating and sexual relations especially. The only gray area here is that some people might be comfortable with it but might be dismissing it out of hand because of their preconceived notions. Other people, it simply does not mesh with them and will never mesh with them, and that should be just as acceptable.

gunplagirl posted...

Are we talking hormones, chromosomes (and given the number of intersex and other issues related makes the concept massively complex), or what? Oh wait, you can't use specifics because that would require knowing the specifics are complicated and saying they're not is fucking hilarious. Is it really that brag worthy to keep pointing out how you only know up to 7th grade science? And outdated science, at that.

If the person has or has at any point in their life had a penis will cover like 99% of all cases.

CyricZ posted...

Y'know sometimes I wonder if I truly am missing something that was required in my upbringing what with all these cis men thinking I'm being "disingenuous". Like the idea that I, a cis man, am supposed to just "already know" the answer to all my questions, and that I was somehow not supplied this through my formative years.

Then I work up a good belch and feel better.

Once these surgeries and treatments are applied, what remaining elements of male biology?

And I swear to God if you say chromosomes I'm going to eat another Starburst.

In fact I might just do that anyway.

Male biology, simple as that. That is literally it. It's not a matter of surface level-appearance or attraction to that appearance. If you want to posit the idea that some percentage of people may be unfairly dismissing trans people due to their preconceived notions, that's a perfectly valid area of discussion. Anything beyond that, you're just being preachy because you cannot even conceptualize the idea for some reason.

Gwynevere posted...

What kind of biological sexual characteristics?

Is there anything about trans women that precludes them from the pool of acceptable partners, that also does not overlap with any cis women?

Male biology, simple as that. Gender affirming surgeries and treatments are just that, surgeries and treatments. If that is enough for someone to be sexually interested, that's fine and their sexuality shouldn't be mocked or criticized for that. In the same way, nobody should be criticized if that is not enough to be sexually interested. It's a different story if someone would be interested but is only hung up on ideas like it "being straight" or "being gay" or whatnot because of societal biases, but that's obviously not going to be a high percentage of people.

CyricZ posted...

What does "everyone else" think matters?

This goes back to that "critical information" I'm asking for in Post #372.

Why be this purposely disingenuous? What is the benefit to that?

Gwynevere posted...

It's a colossal mental leap to say trans people are basically just cross dressers if you ignore the massive physical and mental changes that come with hormones and surgery

Those changes don't matter when the underlying issue of all this has to do with the biological sexual characteristics of the person. For some people, outward presentation is all that matters, but that's not the case for everyone else. This whole thing seems to stem from people who have no preference not understanding why other people do have that preference.

CyricZ posted...

What is the malice in this context?

Also please get off cross-dressers, for god's sake, it's not part of the discussion.

They are knowingly withholding critical knowledge that could potentially vastly change the parameters of the encounter. Putting the onus on the other party in this situation is stupid when the one with all the knowledge holds all the cards. The problem with this whole framework is acting like accepting that tran people are their identified gender means they categorically fit into all the same boxes as cis people despite their underlying biology still being relevant in many aspects. The discussion of crossdressers in the same situation is completely relevant because the only difference (aside from hormones and surgery) is that one identifies as their perceived gender and the other doesn't.

CyricZ posted...

The greater problem I'm seeing is the continued reinforcement of "it's okay to consider trans people as the one who has done wrong when they 'trick' you". It basically establishes harmful attitudes like violence against trans people as valid simply because "a lot of people don't want to date trans people".

No matter what wording you want to use, someone who is trans that doesn't disclose it is willingly withholding information from the other party in a malicious way. Even if you want to say "trick" is contentious because they are the gender they represent themselves as, as compared to a crossdresser in the same situation who is misrepresenting their gender identity, that doesn't make it any less scummy because the point of contention is the biology and not the gender identity. I'd assume most transpeople aren't scummy enough to do that, but it's still a discussion to have nonetheless.

I don't see how that in itself is supposed to be a problem. Their wealth is mostly directly tied to the growth of their businesses, so it's not like you could even redistribute it. You can certainly make valid arguments they should be paying more taxes on that wealth, but you can only do so much when the grand majority is tied up in stocks. You can certainly find issue in that one has appalling working conditions relative to that wealth and the other is a snake oil salesman, but otherwise not a ton you can do.

It felt weird at first, but its nothing once you get used to it. The bezel is the worst part of it overall.

Discussions of the flaws of the country do seem to turn overly doomer at times.

More likely to be trashy than not, compared to other tattoos.

Holy shit, that is bad, horrible placement and no particular obvious significance. Only small positive is that the art itself isn't shit, but that doesn't really help when it's just so badly placed.

CyricZ posted...

And I feel that pairing it up with obviously non-consensual acts isn't doing your case any favors.

We're just talking about complete sexual domination of one partner over another in the context of an otherwise (perceived) consensual relationship. Alcohol is the only gray area in my examples. I wasn't thinking shitfaced, but rather constantly buzzed so as to not think too deeply about things that may otherwise have set off alerts. Though I don't really think there's a strict definition as to what constitutes too drunk to consent.

CyricZ posted...

I'm still not 100% on what you're trying to describe here, but I would imagine this would fall under the umbrella included with the alcohol one of "non-consensual by definition of the act" and "being the sex I don't want" doesn't really factor.

It's like asking "is it non-consensual if a trans person has sex with you and you didn't want to have sex with a trans person and also they chained you to the wall?"

It's burying the lede, really.

The how doesn't really matter that much. Those are just some options as to how it would work. There are countless possible combinations that could lead to a situation like that. The ultimate question is if the non-disclosure of biological sex regardless of gender identity is rape.

CyricZ posted...

Or does "biological sex" truly live in a completely barren wasteland of a set where it is the only occupying element of "things you must disclose upon meeting a potential sexual partner"?

Other than transmissible STDs, pretty much. We have the entire class of sexual preference descriptors for a reason. Trying to lump things like non-transmissible medical issues or other immutable characteristics into the discussion is fairly disingenuous. Those can certainly be relationship dealbreakers, but we're talking about something that needs to come up in the context of any sexual encounter.

CyricZ posted...

I don't know why but I had a hell of a giggle at this. Like I feel it needs to be a statement delivered by some death metal vocalist.

Also, what is a "controlled encounter"? I searched for it and I can only find stuff on immune cells.

This is non-consensual by definition of itself and no other factors need apply.

Controlling every aspect of the sexual encounter so as to best hide the truth, giving them no power in the situation.

King0fSTL posted...

I'm curious how you have sex with a crossdressing man without realizing he has a penis

Clothed sex, dark sex, controlled encounters, possible copious usage of alcohol. There was that case of the woman pretending to be a man and dating another woman some years ago. I think she was charged with rape.

hockeybub89 posted...

Is an infertile woman lying if she doesn't share her past miscarriages, health condition, lack of uterus on the first date? Is she a rapist if there is sex before she discloses this info? People view things besides being trans as dealbreakers. Where exactly is the line?

None of those are at all comparable to biological sex. We don't have terminology describing one's sexual attraction to health conditions (excluding the possibility of really weird sexual fetishes).

King0fSTL posted...

I answered this.

You only half-answered with your weird deflection to race. If your actual answer is that none of the three are rape, then I guess there's really nothing further to discuss. I think that's a bonkers response, but at least it's consistent.

King0fSTL posted...

What question above?

If a cross-dressing man has sex with another man who would not have consented to sex with a man, is that rape? The usual deflection in these discussions seems to be "they didn't notice, so why does it matter?" If you think it's not rape, then I guess there's simply no discussion because we're just so completely removed from each other. If it is rape, then there is a discussion to be had why you think that the acceptance of trans women as women overrides that being rape.

King0fSTL posted...

I don't care if people don't want to have sex with trans people. That doesn't make it rape if they do have sex with a trans person.

Could you answer the question above in that case? If the self-identification of someone committing the possible crime is what we're using to gauge whether a crime happened or not, that is a very weird way of looking at things.

King0fSTL posted...

They're both stupid things people get irrationally hung up on

Or maybe youre just more sexually open than the average person and dont realize youre projecting that onto other people? It seems most people on the it doesnt matter side of those are people who themselves dont have a preference and cannot seem to rationalize that their lived experience may not match the average person.

King0fSTL posted...

No. I wouldn't consider it rape if he was racist and had sex with a light skinned black chick either, even if he wouldn't have had sex with her if he realized she was black.

Why do you think race is at all comparable to biological sex?

Xavier_On_High posted...

Just to restate it, because it really can't be said enough:

You're not a bigot just because you don't want to have sex with trans people. You can have sex with whoever you want, for any reason, as long as it's consenting and legal. No one reasonable is actually contesting that.

But ALSO they absolutely do not have to tell you they're trans.

These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

So lets say you have a cross dressing man, a pre-op trans woman, and a post-op trans woman. All three have sex with a man without the man finding out. The man would not have consented to having sex with a man. The man would not have consented to having sex with a trans woman, pre-op or post-op. Would you consider any of these rape?

Do fucking bots write these articles or are these sites that desperate to work the Google Algorithm?

Sure. One trait of pure stupidity is hardly enough to be a turn off from literal perfect soulmate otherwise.

If DC hit some really hard times, I could see Disney buying it as another notch on their belt. But thatd take like a decade of decline.

I started it for like two or three hours and it just didnt capture me like the first one did. I dont know if its simply that I was burned out on the formula or if the game just lacked something.

Seems insensitive at worst from just looking at it, but I haven't actually watched it. No idea if they do shitty caricatures or just dumbed down their culture for mass consumption.

If that ends with anything other than humanity evacuating Earth, seems pretty bullshit even by wonky movie physics with how fucking close it is to Earth.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if you're physically attracted to the person, why does anything else matter?

Because you could apply the same logic to a very effeminate crossdressing gay man who put a whole lot of time into the getup. You're attracted to the surface level physical characteristics, but that is just one small part of attraction. It seems that you personally have no issues with who you fuck, which is perfectly fine, but that's not the experience of everyone else.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

nobody is demanding anything of anyone.

the reasons why aren't complex, you're right. they're based in bigotry and preconceived notions about what you "should" be attracted to.

you're right that attraction isn't universal. my point here is that if you're attracted to her, that's all that matters. if she turns you on, then you two fuck and you enjoy it, nothing else is relevant.

It sounds like you're just projecting your own sexual preferences (pan?) onto everyone else.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

i dont understand why this matters to anyone. if you're attracted to her, you're attracted to her. period. get over your silly preconceived notion of what you "should" be attracted to. if you look at the person and you wanna fuck, you wanna fuck and there's nothing to be ashamed of. sexuality is not a binary thing, it's just about what you enjoy.

Because many people do not want to be with someone who was born with a body of the opposite biological sex no matter what procedures are done. People who would have a relationship with a trans woman but are otherwise held up by social stigmas aside are one thing and should be encouraged to get over those preconceived notions about it "being gay" or whatever holdup they have about it. Otherwise though, the sexual preferences of the other party should absolutely be respected, so it's absolutely morally disgusting, even if not legally rape, not to disclose it.

As long as they're not rude, I have no reason to be rude, but whether I would remember in the future would depend on if I actually know them or not.