And how is rape somehow different than almost every other crime on earth? If you go on an adventure with Harrison Ford in your dreams and tell your friend can they report you for imaginary kidnapping because Harrison Ford didn’t consent to it; or can you be sued for IP infringement? Or does that fall under some sort of public domain? Of course being in public doesn’t grant license for sexualization does it? Many places have laws against filming people even if they are clothed- especially for sexual purposes. But here we enter an odd area no?

I’m not here telling people what to think or not. We can’t always help what we think either. Sometimes we get random thoughts. It’s well documented that new parents often picture hurting their babies. Does that make them child abusers?
Like I said- this all gets a touch complex doesn’t it? Here’s a thought- what about twins? If you marry an identical twin and fantasize about your spouse are you violating their twin because you’re picturing their body? I think most would say obviously not. But then… what if you are fantasizing about a twin or look alike or shape shifter that looks like a certain real person but isn’t? Factually we can argue that isn’t the “same” person even if they look the same- but it’s your fantasy so we go back to “your spouse trapped in the body of…”

Tell everyone they think if that they picture them and masturbate right? It’s a bit like saying that if you steal someone’s money but that person never realizes it was gone you didn’t commit a crime. Is what makes it wrong that the person finds out or that you did it? And if it isn’t wrong to picture someone while you masturbate- why is it wrong to tell them?
Try that one. Picture your boss or immediate subordinate and masturbate, then go tell them about it. Do that 3 times in the same month and come tell me what the results were. For science. Or perhaps I can already guess? Perhaps you can guess- because you already know that is harassment. It isn’t that it is illegal to think about them- it is illegal to let them know you did it. Isn’t that itself odd?

I don’t even want to bother with this because I realized halfway through writing it that sadly my tongue in cheek sarcastic reply about “when in history has <the sort of thinking and arguments popular to the sort of people who hold these views> ever gone wrong?” Might actually be read by some as serious and not obvious satire of the logical and overall cognitive failings and ridiculousness of the entire “quit shoving acceptance down our throats!” Crowd. I don’t know what argument could possibly reach them anyway. I think most or all sane and level minded people are aware that some version of “supérate but equal” “there but not seen” “sick and needing help” “fundamentally wrong and wicked in their ways” etc. is the current behind so many shameful and horrible things in history.
That no justification or couched statements can make it ok to say that you have a problem with the equal existence of someone who is just different in some minor ways than you.

The worst part is that might not be the “best” result. It’s a pointless thought experiment unless the worst case happens- but there have been numerous speculations. As a “what if,” if he dies, an ensuing power vacuum could create a Russia ran by very tactically effective leadership with similar or worse visions of a Soviet state- or we could find leadership that lacks tactical ability but through “luck” or operational effectiveness could sew devastation on unprecedented scale and depth even if they are short lived engineering- civil, political, mechanical- often favor the problem you know to the one you do not. That is to say- attempting a well meaning solution in a live environment can create worse issues than the ones you are trying to fix.

Taco Tuesday?

In that scenario the problem isn’t the person standing up, it’s the aggressor being stood up to.
Now these things are often more complicated- but these same problems get echoed into modern times and it seems our proximity to the events shapes our opinions. Rebels killed a protected person so in response war was declared on a nation. In recent history we’ve seen similar with terrorists such as the American involvement in Afghanistan.
The moral quandary is this- if you can expect your involvement will escalate a situation, but failure to involve yourself will result in harm or death to one or few compared to many- prudently, few lives are not worth many, but philosophically if everyone knows that no one will stand for the weak or transgressed upon if the cost is deemed greater than their lives- the weak and undervalued instantly become prey.
Those who have seen the horrors of war have their own feelings on the matter usually.

In my view any fault by the Russians in the matter hinges on their failure to promptly respond to German communications on the matter of mobilization.
Austrio Hungary declared war against Serbia, Russia was an ally. The predictable consequence of declaring or entering war with someone’s ally is that they are going to offer assistance.
I don’t see at as any different than in the modern day, people trying to blame the United States for the conflict in Ukraine. Or a less politically charged example- if a child is bullying another and the bullied child goes to a teacher for help and the bully is expelled. Should the bully or their parents be able to come back and say: “it’s all your fault for ruining our boys life. If you just let them do whatever they want including murder you, this never would have happened!” Well I mean… that’s not necessarily wrong… but in what world is someone expected to stand by and be murdered or give you anything you demand so they don’t risk causing problems?

You are a treasure.

So last of the ideas and traits that tend to attract people to the concept of someone who is isolated or inept etc. don’t hold up well in reality. They are still a person and they aren’t likely to be a static character.

And sorry to all the fans with ideas of this “perfect stunted” wifu but…. They don’t always stay completely shrouded in trauma and neglect. Unless you are emotionally abusive and controlling, as you date they’ll likely start to feel more comfortable and secure over time. Even a little. They’ll start to probably make fiends at least among your social group, they might get a job and get work friends as they realize they maybe can connect with at least certain people. Or they may slowly become more bitter at the world and people. Either way they will probably change over time. At the least the novelty and joy of having ANYONE to spend time with and who will pay attention to them will generally wear off a bit and they might not act like a little puppy that’s just happy someone will pet it.

.. or at your sick mothers side in the hospital and you get a minute to make a quick call to say hi or let them know what is going on but you not picking up triggered an insecurity or reminded them of how someone pulled away in the past. You better be ready for 1-3 hours of talking right now wherever you are because until they are satisfied you don’t hate them or not want to talk… you’re on the hook. Be ready for lots of “why are you with me..?” And then not trusting your answers or affirmations.

Indeed. People romanticize the idea and maybe it works for some people but most people don’t realize what it is like to be a persons pretty much only point of social interaction. It’s also the case that people often romanticize the idea that they’d be “extra special” or treated that way but the truth is that just because someone is your only social contact doesn’t mean that you’re always sweet and pliant like many envision it. Resentment, anger, unreasonable demands and expectations- there is nothing that guarantees the “clingy” party won’t go that way- in fact they are generally prone to it. Like a toddler. If work is keeping you from giving them attention when they want it, your family, an emergency, and accident- you’ll often be the target of their blame. Be ready for many, long, emotional conversations listening to their woes about their life or reassuring them that you or society don’t hate them. Be ready for all the times you can’t answer your phone because you are on a plane..

Native exports. Also, thank you for shedding light on that.

So it is interesting how even little things like this can not only tell us a bit about someone, but how across cultures and values systems they can be a bigger or lesser deal and can be interpreted so differently.

So there are all sorts of subtle ways to discern things about peoples socio economic and other cultural background statuses, and in the car there are white a few including how they perceive the seats.
In many cultures and sub cultures to place an elder or parent in the front seat might be an insult or a humiliation. If the driver and parent come from a culture where the “VIP” seat is the front and the third passenger comes from a culture where the “VIP” sits in the back, having the parent sit in front wouldn't generally make the third passenger think they got the best seat so much as it would be likely to make them feel uncomfortable because being seen in the back with an elder up front from their perspective would make them look bad. Like they took or demanded the seat of “honor” and forced the more honored person to sit up front, or like they have an elderly servant they are forcing to tend to them or such.

People who are used to servants aren’t awkward around them generally. They aren’t hesitant or apologetic or uncomfortable. They know the “rules” and not only let, but facilitate servants doing their jobs properly. In general old money has a reputation for being more courteous and polite when speaking directly to servants than new. Old money generally doesn’t need to and doesn’t make a habit of intentionally calling attention to their wealth. They are wealthy. They know it. You know it. They don’t really care if you know it. They care about getting and doing what they want. New money is more prone to intentionally or unintentionally flashing and broadcasting their status. Tips are seldom discreet, gestures are often grand and conspicuous, they tend to be immodest and perhaps too forward or truthful about their finances and status to others.

As a general statement new money is more prone to conspicuous consumption in trendy fashions. Old money can be quite conspicuous but when so they tend to do so through things like “tasteful quality.”
Extensive use of exotic and high end materials that tend towards the sedate- hard woods and “real” furniture, complex weaves of high quality or heavy fabrics, clothing and furniture and items that can last lifetimes. The rest of the time they tend to be prudent. They don’t but because of a name brand, they buy name brand because of the reputation for quality or features they want. Old money usually will pay a lot for brands most have never heard of or artisan goods. New money ends to buy or pass off things as brands you likely know and are often only or mainly concerned with the brand being known as expensive or exclusive.

That can be one tell concerning a persons background or socioeconomic status- which seat they are accustomed to or gravitate towards. So it is especially true in places where servants are or, among those generations were, more common that a person from such a place or background would see the front seat as generally for “help” or junior or subordinate persons. We can use slang- “old money” vs. “New money” might be one way to put it. You can generally tell in “service environments” who is or is not used to having money and being served; and you can often tell “old money” from “new money” by how they behave.

A major difference between more affluent people and the “average person” or even those of some wealth is that often the “most important person” in a car is the driver- it is custom among most of the population that the owner of the vehicle is most often the operator “my car my rules” vs. More common to more salient sorts that the owner of the car is them or is a car service and they are the “captain” and the driver is a hired service person or subordinate.

When you see “VIP’s” in transit such as royalty, heads of state, and corporate executives, they almost always sit in the rear seat. The rear seat is often most comfortable and largest, and the rear seat is often the safest seat (hence why most advisories say to place children and child seats in the rear and why rear seats are often designed to accommodate child seats.)
This is obviously not generally true of two door cars with four seats or compacts and economy cars and such, but the rear seat is actually generally the seat functionally best suited for the “most important passenger.” The front seat provides a better view through the forward window and in most cars proximity to the driver and control surfaces.