@RichPuchalsky what does "our own society" mean, when discussing anti-fascism? Because our society, as it exists right now, is fascistic said quietly. And you are right, it is not a binary, it's shades, but those shades grow violent when given power, and the power to kill (a gun) is the greatest power in "our own society". You say that they aren't practising, but you also saying they are failing. Failing is a step in practise. Your words express a contradiction that I don't think you are confronting. Defining who has the right to wield a weapon is how we got in this position in the first place. If you want to look to a group operating within "our own society" that has a "kick out people who fuck each other" rule, that's called the police. Sex is not the problem, assault is, and the police are one of the least reported sexual predators, just shy of politicians, and far short of the ones that wield the weapon called capital, which kills without a bang. Abolitionism is the antithesis of healthy discourse, and you are calling for sex abolitionism within those most likely to turn to violence when denied. Beyond that, sex has been used, through out history to /improve/ the bonds of comradery and solidarity within tactical units. If you call for no sex in dangerous situations, you are calling for no sex, because there is no situation devoid of danger and power imbalance. The point of fighting fascism is to make decisions together with the people close to you, not to blindly follow a standard imposed from outside. You say that it is a hot take, and that it comes from a place of privilege, but one someone less privileged who is working on the complexities of negotiating power dynamics and intimacy in inherently unbalanced spaces, you say it is unreasonable and lacks nuance while rejecting the experienced nuance. Even in spaces where accountability for sexual conduct is a part of the culture, predators still manage to make their way in. I'm talking about kink spaces, where the tension between violence and intimacy is most closely examined. We are bad at it because it is hard and we are out of practice. Beyond that it benefits predators to keep it that way, through "no sex" policies, and "don't ask, don't tell" policies. Punishing people for fucking will only ever benefit a predator, because it keeps victims quiet. Predators know how to use the language of consent and accountability to point their wrath at the victim for daring to speak up.

In fact, they sound a lot like you. Opinions like these, expressed in good faith, become ammunition for those operating in bad faith. So if you really want to /improve/ cohesiveness and effectiveness of anti-fascistic self-defence organizations, I suggest you look long and hard at /why/ you believe these things. I know that you are a good person, and that this take comes from a place of wanting to ease the path to liberation, but your words communicate the opposite. This is not a judgment of you, this is a critique of your propaganda. And please, only tag me if you are responding to me. That was a lot of unnecessary pings.

@FinalOverdrive I understand that you are lending your voice to my position, but when dealing with issues as complex and nuanced as this, repeating my points in one or two lines just ends up feeling like being poked. I want to sit with Rich, not badger them. Thank you for lending your support, but in the future, please examine the function of your reply before doing so. Add nuance to the conversation, not weight. Also, only tag me if you are addressing my comment or adding to my comment. I know that Mastodon auto-tags the person tagged in the prior post, but I respectfully request that you be more intentional. Your comments feel a touch reactive to me.

I really hope this came across as an invitation to explore, and not an attack. I try to speak plainly, which I have found can come across as aggressive. If this is the case, please accept my apology for ineffectively communicating my intent. This is a conversation that needs to happen, and it will continue to be difficult until we (referring to humans in general) get better at doing the accountability and communication thing.

@RichPuchalsky I wonder if maybe you have a cart horse situation here. If a predator enters a militant space, but no sex happens, the predator is still in the militant space. If the predator is never revealed to be a predator within that space, then what you have is a predator surrounded by a well armed cadre that have practised relying on each other in a low certainty environment. This is how allies are groomed. The problem isn't the sex, it's the predator. Also, maybe there is a problem with the ways these groups are constructed that makes it possible for a predator to destabilize the whole group. And like, if it's not just a predator, but a group of predators, do we really want them to be the ones with guns? Because the distance between a sexual predator with a gun and a fascist is very very small.

Now if we are talking about unintentional sexual trauma, that is a whole 'nother ball of wax, but again has nothing to do with the guns. Our whole society is mired in sexual trauma resulting from people acting out maladaptive behaviours developed in abusive situations.

Tbh, I think the answer is making it easier to talk about sex with people one doesn't want to have sex with. If talking about porn were as simple as talking about a movie, or talking about an erotica was as simple as talking about a scifi novel, or talking about good sex was like talking about good coffee, it would be as easy to talk about sexual assault as it was to talk about physical assault (yes I understand that that is not easy either, but it is easier). The fact is, in the current media climate, it is worse to talk about loving sex than it is to talk about a battlefield strewn bodies. If you don't believe, just look at "family friendly" Disney and the MCU.

What I'm saying is, neither the guns nor the sex is the problem, it's the frame, like most things.

Also, that last bit of "in theory" and "these never work" misses the problem. They never work because we don't have a strong model for it in a system that prioritizes property and the conversion of bodies into property over functional justice. The first step to being kinda good at a thing is being bad at the thing. The important bit is that one keeps trying, otherwise we will /stay/ bad at the thing.

I get that this was a hot take, but nuance helps to expand the conversation beyond the heat.