glans

It sounds like you are saying the risk comes from interacting anonymously and at no physical proximity to adults, and having conversations about sexual matters.

What are they are risk of?

It seems to me that there is a bigger problems with zero-interactive aspects of sex on the internet: endless streams of videos, animations, images, etc.

There is also lots of non-explicit dialogue about say, relationships between people, power dynamics, etc that kids are actively encouraged to engage in. Example: the recent "your body my choice" thing repeated by 11 year old boys all over.

Back when I was a kid, I was very fortunate to get access to online places where adults were chit chatting about sex in a (more or less) good way. Saved me a lot of turmoil to just understand certain things right away.

Also I made use of resources that were intentionally created for teens. I specifically recall https://boards.scarleteen.com/ which is apparently still around! We had other pre-socialmedia spaces. Of course the problem then is how to keep the adults out.

Well this is an internal thing so presumably everyone concerned would have a .gov or similar email address.

My question is whether the snitch line emails are FOIAable

It really really depends.

Could be anywhere from $0 and 10 minutes of work to thousands of dollars and weeks of time to impossible.

If you know how to make a bootable USB for linux, you could doing that, and don't make any changes to the system, just see if you are able to mount your hard drive from inside linux.

If you know how to dismantle the laptop you could try removing the drive and putting it in an enclosure, and seeing if you could mount it on another computer.

If you aren't sure how to do either of those and your files are valuable, take it in to a shop. Maybe they can fix the whole computer for you.

Come to think of it,

The more I think of this, the more and more and then less, and then more again, things come to mind. It is stupefying. A mindgame trap?

matryoshka pregnancy

So we are talking "they're born pregnant" ala

Overall I agree this is an exhausting convo. Especially because I doubt either side is 100% correct, and we arguing about how to apply our imperfect analysis to describe a totally bonkers situation which kicks and screams against any framework, even a shitty one.

Because really the whole thing is some republicans cos playing as klingons who've traveled back in time to outlaw tribbles. That's the hope you've given me anyway.

would that it be the issue.

and even more complicated by, as was pointed out, the issue of vasectomy. it is semen but it is not "genetic material".

like i said before this what not intended to describe in detail every specific situation that could arise, but to describe SOME OF THE KINDS of things that are contemplated by the law. the law is formulated in a cis-centric manner on purpose.

Was my list comprehensive? NO.

Didn't realize yall needed this: I am not a lawyer. Moreever I am not a Person Who Is A Sitting Judge On The US Supreme Court. (Would not want to "dehumanize" by referring to a "supreme court judge"--- I'm learning.) Super apologize for the confusion.

IT IS A STUPID LAW there is no way to talk about it that isn't stupid.

I don't remember that.

Is it related to the Victorian vibrator fake history?

most sane reply

Am also on that podcast shit and IIRC the part you forgot to mention is thatremoved CANNOT result in conception. No consent = no orgasm = no conception

pregnancy = evidence of consent

"the woman's body has a way of shutting it down" or whatever the stupid quote was from 10 years ago

too be honest my comments are really long a lot of the time and I just try to keep them briefer to save everyone's eyeballs from falling out. My mistake. Here you go.

the bullet points were intentionally terse, missing multiple words that would have been required to form complete sentences. "AMAB jack off cum" = constructed so the reader fills in missing parts. I'm practically hemmingway over here ok lol.

Unconvinced about how amab and afab as nouns can be dehumanizing; since virtually all humans are either Assigned Female At Birth or Assigned Male At Birth. Is it possible to dehumanize 100% of humans in one go? what would that even mean?

It bans ejaculation of semen either as a result of masturbation, fellatio, anal or non-penetrative sex without intent to donate or sell sperm, or as a result of penetrative sex between someone who produces sperm and someone who cannot conceivably become pregnant through natural insemination at the time the intercourse took place, except when this inability is the result of contraception.

But that sentence is so hard to read, I just read it like 9 times and I am not sure if it conveys what my bullet list did. I think it is mostly pretty accurate on some of it but I am not sure. I get lost reading it. I'd have to print it out and use 2 or maybe 3 colors of highlighters to understand and my printer is in the other room. OTOH the way I wrote it, it was easily understandable.

It would be impossible to make a comprehensive list of all the the sex acts this law does or does not ban. Or to make a table of the combinations of people who are or are not allowed to have what kind of cums. Because it is inherently contradictory and stupid, which was The Point. Obviously, the monsters who wrote it had People Assigned Male At Birth and People Assigned Female At Birth in mind when they wrote it. They're not interested in anyone's identities or feelings or relationships. To go out on a limb, they are likely specifically interested in how people are Assigned. For example, trans men can have prosthetics or implants that ejaculate. Are these monsters interested in that? No not at all.

Under this law it would for instance be illegal to ejaculate inside someone postmenopausal or someone having a menstrual period, or likewise to ejaculate inside someone born without a uterus or ovaries, et cetera.

I don't think where the cum occurs (inside or elsewhere) is at any issue? (ha). Potentially replacing amab with "semen ejaculator" or less funny "Person who ejaculates semen" if I am not allowed any fun would work (excepting the trans men.....). But I don't know if there is any real good word or phrase to describe what the monsters describe as "women". It would need at least a dozen words and be totally unwieldy.

And actually I didn't think of it at first but someone else pointed out that cum post-vasectomy is banned under this law in all situations. So that makes both of our descriptions wrong and I don't even know how to address it.

All the argumentation aside I appreciate your time in thoughtfully elaborating on the very poorly-articulated original critique.

wow I've been so educated about being too "imprecise" i wish i was enlightened about "precision" like you are.