erin

joined 2 years ago
[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's a big difference between the weed shop I can walk to down the corner and the nearest safe use site/casino. I think people should be free to engage in whatever recreational activity they choose to, and the existence of addiction doesn't give the government the right to infringe on those freedoms. Safe use sites and social programs can exist without a semi-dystopian puritan system. I don't understand why addiction is so huge a problem that it requires such insane overreach. Without capitalist exploitation, addiction wouldn't be monetized. A different form of government and legalization do a far better job at managing addiction than creating a black market with draconian laws.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

A drug casino doesn't solve those problems though. Better social services for addicts can. Addiction is impossible to eradicate, all you can do is provide good social services for addicts and recovery programs (which aren't judgemental and Christian). Requiring transportation to go get and use drugs is the same thing as criminalizing it for many people.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

Neither does making a drug house that people need transportation to get to. That's the same as criminalizing it for many people.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago (7 children)

I feel like you have issues with the way capitalism takes advantage of people's vices and you blamed half of it on the vices. If it wasn't exploited, and drugs weren't criminalized, with normal and healthy social standards taught instead of total abstinence creating an attractive taboo, none of that would be an issue.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Excellent question, but I have no idea. She tears the medicine labels off for some reason so I'll ask her when she gets home and edit with more info. It's a capsule and a tiny pill, taken morning and night respectively, if that means anything to you.

Edit: Phentermine and topiramate

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

My parents and my fiancee have gotten on an equivalent of Ozempic specifically for weight loss and covered by insurance. It seems to be easier now than it was, because if my fiancee wasn't covered we absolutely couldn't afford it.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Is this true? I thought with things like danger to oneself or others they're mandated reporters.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

I wouldn't say either. Sex is way more intimate than just hugging. I'd say it's like "making out" but better. It's lots of fun, and I don't care about the societal norms restricting it between romantic partners. Pregnancy isn't a risk for me, and I'm very careful to avoid STDs. I haven't had sex with someone without a recent STD panel, and I use protection when necessary. My fiancee feels the same way, so I have sex with my friends all the time

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

For context I guess, here's my views on the list you posted, as someone who is very much not religious and dated plenty before finding my fiancee:

  • Marriage might be awesome for some, but it's also not for everyone, and there are far too many bad marriages that could've been good casual relationships

  • Standards are definitely good to have, but I guarantee mine are very different than the average Catholic

  • No shame in being single. Better to be single than in a toxic relationship just for the sake of a relationship.

  • I probably couldn't see myself marrying a religious person, but if their beliefs don't infringe on other's rights then I guess they can do them.

  • Sex is just sex, cohabitation is convenient, cheaper, and pleasant. I've never been married and I've lived more of my adult life with a roommate or partner than not. I also don't believe sex needs to be confined within the boundaries of a relationship either, and I have sex with people that aren't my fiancee, both with and without her, though that's definitely uncommon and always done with the full consent of all parties.

  • Dating could be for finding a future spouse. It could also just be for fun, or for a casual relationship, or a long term relationship with no intent to marry.

  • Relatively wide variety in how long people date before marriage, if ever. I never planned on it for years, but I met my fiancee and changed my mind. We dated for a year before getting engaged.

  • Normal to date in highschool.

Obviously this is only my perspective. No judgement, to each their own. Other than the views on polyamory (though more accurately, just sex. Open relationship? I don't have a label for it), these opinions seem very common among the average dating population. My sample may be skewed since I'm bisexual and over half my relationships have been gay.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't love the take "men dressing feminine is a fetish." Are tomboys a fetish? Just because some people choose to engage in fetish and also are femboys doesn't make it "in and of itself" a fetish. It isn't.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago

Right. Both I and my fiancee voted against Trump. These tariffs are already making our financial situation untenable, and we were one missed paycheck from flat broke before Trump. Do we deserve to suffer too? Do our community, who also opposed Trump? Do we need to be "educated" about the economic hurt we knew was coming, or the tariffs we knew were a stupid fucking idea? You sound hateful in the same way as the MAGA supporters are. Let those I'm better than burn because I can take it.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago

Wait until you find out where fish and dolphins poop!

view more: ‹ prev next ›