[msla]

> In college, I was with a group of white men and the topic of dating came up. One of them mentioned he wouldn’t date a black woman. To my shock, the rest of the group agreed with him. We say that nobody is entitled to a relationship with someone else, but I was still disgusted. Are they entitled to have this preference, when it comes to something as personal as dating and sex?

What the Hell is this? Of course they're "entitled" to their own bodies. What the Hell does she think, that she should be able to force them to have sex with her just because they're White and she's Black? She's a goddamned incel, treating others like props for her gratification.

Plus, since this apparently needs to be said, defending a rapist makes you a horrible person. Splitting hairs about what is and isn't rape is defending a rapist.

[cuttysnark]

> You are not entitled to sex with anyone, but people can have preferences that are problematic.

I read the whole article, but at this sentence I reached for Cmd+W, which was done via muscle memory as my eyes were rolled so far back into my head.

[msla]

Yeah, she doesn't explicitly condone rape, but you're a Very Horrible Person if she can't pressure you into sex.

Also, yes, dating effectively means sex and trying to defend a rapist by splitting hairs makes you horrible.

[foogazi]

date != sex

Thomas Jefferson didn’t date black women but didn’t have a problem having sex with one his slaves (allegedly)

[vacuity]

Yeah, I think I'll have regularly scheduled sex with my sla—wait, what? Thomas Jefferson isn't around in this modern world of dating, sex, and pornography. Besides, the book and the article are largely about sex.

[foogazi]

> What the Hell is this? Of course they're "entitled" to their own bodies.

The author didn’t mention bodies, but minds. The author wrotes the men said they would not even “date” a black woman

The men presumably are attracted to women, but said they would not date a woman of black skin

> One of them mentioned he wouldn’t date a black woman.

> Are they entitled to have this preference

[msla]

You're trying to defend someone who wants to use the language of social justice to pressure others into sex.

Pressuring someone into sex is disgusting, and horrible, and it doesn't matter who's doing it or why.

[tehwebguy]

She’s not trying to pressure anyone into sex, this is probably the most disingenuous read someone could make.

[vacuity]

The blog author doesn't actually make it clear if the line

> You are not entitled to sex with anyone, but people can have preferences that are problematic.

is spoken from their perspective or the book author's perspective. It's not a given that they agree with that sentiment. So it might be that the blog author briefly entertained their question of entitlement as a consideration before arriving at the conclusion quoted above, or they still favor it.

[foogazi]

date != sex

[vacuity]

I think it's fair to say that for this book dating implies having sex, since it's peak intimacy. The title starts with "The Right to Sex" and the article mentions sex a lot.

[foogazi]

> I think it's fair to say that for this book dating implies having sex

There’s dates without sex and sex without dates

Dating implies a lot of things: relationships, sex and a path for love, marriage, family

[vacuity]

> The title starts with "The Right to Sex" and the article mentions sex a lot.

I'm not saying dating literally means having sex. I'm saying in this context sex is a logical progression from dating.

[tehwebguy]

Keep pulling that thread, you are very close to discovering something about yourself worth working on! You may not want to figure it out in public though.

[LMYahooTFY]

This snark is unoriginal and I don't think it's constructive. It certainly falls far short of calmly pointing out what you think is important.

[tehwebguy]

Snark is not when someone kindly corrects someone and directs them to look inward.

[msla]

I'm making a stand against rape and you're saying I'm mentally incompetent.

[tehwebguy]

No you aren’t, you are taking a stance against someone being shocked / disgusted at hearing 4 white men say they would never date a Black woman.

Similarly, I did not say and am not saying you are incompetent, I’m saying you are intentionally reading it wrong because the the implication conflicts with something you believe.

[vacuity]

> No you aren’t, you are taking a stance against someone being shocked / disgusted at hearing 4 white men say they would never date a Black woman.

Parent isn't taking issue with the blog author being disgusted but rather the question the author raises.

I'll just copy what I said for your second sentence.

The blog author doesn't actually make it clear if the line

> You are not entitled to sex with anyone, but people can have preferences that are problematic.

is spoken from their perspective or the book author's perspective. It's not a given that they agree with that sentiment. So it might be that the blog author briefly entertained their question of entitlement as a consideration before arriving at the conclusion quoted above, or they still favor it.

Parent probably has biases that led them to interpret it how they did, but everyone has biases and parent hasn't replied to me yet, so I'm not sure if they intentionally reading it that way.