The idea of letting young engineers at a university design production equipment is WILD to me. Universities make PROTOTYPES. The gap between prototype and reliable production equipment is so big you could drive a bus through it.

A good production engineer is worth their weight in gold but when you have shitty ones you're better off letting the workers run the ship. At least they know what's happening and where the hangups are. You'll know a good engineer because they're down talking to the lead hands on the shop floor because they want to understand what's actually happening and run ideas through the shop before they fuck with things.

That's quite fair and nuanced. I'm not 100% on what you said but I think your views are well supported.

I think we differ in that you're mentioning things that are likely to be successful in current society. Which is probably going to be the main factor in short term sexual relationships.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of qualities of a good sexual partner which is going to be more important in long term relationships for most people.

I think both views are important. I appreciate the discussion.

I understand that people in "casual" settings don't generally understand kink, but the sub is the one with actual power in the dynamic and has to frame the encounter. Whereas most doms are pretty flexible in what tools is techniques they're willing to engage in, it's the sub's boundaries that generally frame the encounter. Especially in "casual" scenes where it's more likely that none of the sub's asks are out of bounds for the dom.

Kink is about exploring fetishes in a safe way that's enjoyable to all participants. This type of "rough sex" often including breath play isn't as casual as most participants believe. If you're a sub and that's your fetish then it's best for everyone involved to get more serious about Safe Sane Consensual sex.

It's the same problem as 50 shades of grey where someone with a Dom/sub fetish engages in dangerously unsafe and non-consensual sex but it's "sexy" coded in the movie. In real life the kind of guy that would break past all your boundaries and do perform violent sex acts whether you wanted it not is a violent, dangerous person. In an SSC setting, these encounters are negotiated ahead of time (and more subtly during the scene), openly and without an unbalanced power dynamic.

If anyone is wondering what happened here (since half the comment section got nuked): it was mostly a political discussion not related to technology that was rightfully removed by mod imo.

[email protected] was supposed to be that, if you read the stickied posts it's still supposed to be that. But it's mostly porn atm.

I haven't found an active kink community in the Lemmyverse, but I haven't looked very hard.

From personal experience in casual settings it's femme/sub coded people that tend to oppose enthusiastic consent. The idea of "agreeing" to various acts doesn't feel "subby" enough.

I suspect the casual femme/sub role is mentally coded the same was bodice rippers/literary smut content is where a strong masc/dom appears and coercively satisfies all the femme/subs desires without real communication occurring freeing the femme/sub from the "shame" of accepting and expressing their femme/sub desires.

I think it would be, to me, difficult for the concept of enthusiastic consent to come from just one side of the equation. Both partners have to find it sexy for it to be sexy. It needs to enter our sexual zeitgeist, likely through advocacy and proper sexual education.

I have a hard time understanding how to people asking for what they want and expressing what they'd like to do could possibly be unsexy to anyone. Like I'm watching everyone get off and have their sexual needs validated and acted on. Non enthusiastic consent sex is SOMETIMES hot like the movies where two people are on the same wavelength and effortlessly act on eachothers desires. MOST of the time it's awkward lack of communication leading to uncomfortable positions and the partners ESPECIALLY the femme/sub role having ALMOST what they want, getting CLOSE to amazing orgasm(s), but through lack of communication not really getting there, or settling for less.

Ironically the people who most consistently have "sexy hot movie sex" without having to talk are people who have been having enthusiastic consent sex for a few weeks or months and are playing out a scene they both understand.

Whew, thinking all this out is making me feel some kind of ways!

Enthusiastic consent is so sexy! I also love open scene planning beforehand for kinkier sex so that everyone gets what they want out of it and avoid things they don't want.

A lot of people still find both unsexy and think sex should both be purely spontaneous AND meet all their kinks somehow.

I use duck duck go as well. I wish it wasn't just anonymised Bing search. One of these days I'll look into an open source independent search engine.

"do what you want to me" is my least favourite dirty talk. The base idea is that we both currently WANT to do the same dirty rough sex but for some reason we're not doing it. What makes her think he's NOT doing what he wants right now? What if he's a for fetishist and wants to put her foot in his mouth and jerk off? What if he just wants her to eat his ass?

Clearly "do what you want to me" doesn't mean do what you want to me. "do what you want to me" means "I have a specific type of rough sex in mind but I'm not able to express my desires clearly, so I've projected them into my partner and I've made it their responsibility to understand me and do the right type of sex stuff to me"

I know this is basically an unhinged response to a greentext but I've had so many bad experiences with that specific line. Is wanting clear communication before and during sex about the sex we're about to perform too much to ask for?

And he can pardon them for all crimes and get back to what they were doing. No man, Trump is closer to ending the rule of law than anyone understands.... We have to do the right stuff at the right time or were doing fuhrer 2 electric boogaloo by summer

I think it's important to downvote them and even make them feel unwelcome. You can't let Nazis and white supremacists in your communities because any community that doesn't kick out Nazis will eventually find itself overrun by Nazis fleeing communities that kick them out.

You don't need to argue or make a fuss, but make sure to downvote anyone who doesn't believe all people are born equal and that people have a right to choose what to do and who to love.

Once they're primaried, people can vote for whoever is the better candidate.

Exactly. They're a scourge. Even you can't abolish the one you're in when you want to. They have to go and this is a great way to do it. All it takes is a few people in a neighborhood to opt out and suddenly the impossible becomes possible and people will be able to disband bad HOAs.

Good ones (if they exist) will stay because everyone will voluntarily join in keeping the community great.

Unless they agree to HOA rules they're not allowed to live in those neighborhoods, access those schools etc.... this is a coercive pressure.

I get that you're part of an HOA board so you think they're great, but for the most part you're part of a system that's a net negative in people's lives and society. See the Jon Oliver video linked above if you ever actually want to evaluate HOA more objectively.

The American tradition of telling everyone else what to do and how to behave while not wanting others to tell you what to do and how to behave!

Yes, but the problem is that HOAs are forever. Just because I've group of people a long time ago agreed to make one EVERYONE who lives there FOREVER are bound to it. That is problematic.

If the reason the new people bought into the neighborhood is that it was managed by a good HOA then they'll sign the contract voluntarily!

Exactly. We're using the same concept that destroyed unions power, but instead of doing it for evil we're using it to destroy HOAs