I’m not on tiktok or Instagram, but this hilarious, the whole scene. Everyone’s on the floor, even the chicken. What kind of scene is this?
On one hand — Good point about how women across cultures are treated like the guardians of a sexual commodity. The framework hurts everyone when women mistakenly believe it’s their job to run security on their vaginas where men will try to beg, plead and trick their way in. I had anxiety in my early teens about this responsibility, feeling like every guy who talked to me was just trying to find a way in — because it’s what I was taught.
On the other hand — This reinforces the trope because a dog would be all over that chicken if she (the women, the gatekeeper, the security) didn’t enforce some kind of discipline.
It swings toward the negative. Instead of saying “men are thinking, feeling beings who can control themselves,” it says “men are dogs who need a woman to train them.”
On the third hand — I’d like a dommy mommy to dispassionately withhold chicken from me.
I think it’s more like, the dog has more control over itself than men. But I think it’s kinda a good analogy. Most dogs have the discipline to not ravish that chicken. But some dogs absolutely would in a heart beat. Same that most men would never SA but some absolutely would.
I think the point still stands relatively well as a woman saying “no” in this instance is respected by the dog, so a woman saying “no” to a man’s sexual advances should result in basically the same behavior. It’s not a matter of women needing to train men, it’s a matter of men needing to understand the word “no” and actually respect it.
I disagree. The dog is a stand-in for men, and dogs would be all over that chicken if not trained. That dog would totally eat the chicken anyway if it was starving.
I prefer the consensual tea analogy more, because tea is something that can be shared between two people, no one needs tea to live, and forcing someone to drink tea is fucked up. Stealing a chicken is just nature’s way.
But what if we have it wrong and the chicken is keeping the dog away from the girl?
Yes, there is something icky in the premise that I can’t quite put my finger on, but your “every guy who talked to me was just trying to find a way in” comes very, very close. It feels really … essentialist to frame things that way. (And it assumes a universal which, as I’ve ranted on in another thread, doesn’t exist for the most part: there are very few human universals.)
I’m not on tiktok or Instagram, but this hilarious, the whole scene. Everyone’s on the floor, even the chicken. What kind of scene is this?
On one hand — Good point about how women across cultures are treated like the guardians of a sexual commodity. The framework hurts everyone when women mistakenly believe it’s their job to run security on their vaginas where men will try to beg, plead and trick their way in. I had anxiety in my early teens about this responsibility, feeling like every guy who talked to me was just trying to find a way in — because it’s what I was taught.
On the other hand — This reinforces the trope because a dog would be all over that chicken if she (the women, the gatekeeper, the security) didn’t enforce some kind of discipline.
It swings toward the negative. Instead of saying “men are thinking, feeling beings who can control themselves,” it says “men are dogs who need a woman to train them.”
On the third hand — I’d like a dommy mommy to dispassionately withhold chicken from me.
I think it’s more like, the dog has more control over itself than men. But I think it’s kinda a good analogy. Most dogs have the discipline to not ravish that chicken. But some dogs absolutely would in a heart beat. Same that most men would never SA but some absolutely would.
I think the point still stands relatively well as a woman saying “no” in this instance is respected by the dog, so a woman saying “no” to a man’s sexual advances should result in basically the same behavior. It’s not a matter of women needing to train men, it’s a matter of men needing to understand the word “no” and actually respect it.
I disagree. The dog is a stand-in for men, and dogs would be all over that chicken if not trained. That dog would totally eat the chicken anyway if it was starving.
I prefer the consensual tea analogy more, because tea is something that can be shared between two people, no one needs tea to live, and forcing someone to drink tea is fucked up. Stealing a chicken is just nature’s way.
But what if we have it wrong and the chicken is keeping the dog away from the girl?
Yes. The “cup of tea” model of consent, despite some subtle flaws in the analogy, is so far the best way to illustrate these kinds of points.
Yes, there is something icky in the premise that I can’t quite put my finger on, but your “every guy who talked to me was just trying to find a way in” comes very, very close. It feels really … essentialist to frame things that way. (And it assumes a universal which, as I’ve ranted on in another thread, doesn’t exist for the most part: there are very few human universals.)
The whole “To every rule, there is an exception,” or, sometimes, “A lot of rules are made up and will hurt the people who believe them.”
I’m not into the d/s thing bit I promise to not give you chicken.