A Warning to Women Regarding A Prominent Valley Climber

trailridgewrote:

There is nothing homophobic in his post. The main point is clearly about male passivity and how modern men have become too nonconfrontational, leading to online mob justice and exaggerated accusations. He’s also calling out hypocrisy and selective outrage: the idea that the same behavior would be ignored if the person were gay or trans.  

You don't have to agree with him but immediately labeling it "homophobic" is lazy and misses the actual point.

Oh, no, I think it's really blatant in its homophobia. Also, it's factually false. People have been getting upset about gay priests and schoolteachers and coaches sexually abusing people for at least 40 years. Way back into that time of "macho men" that Andy is so nostalgic for. Back when women couldn't get a credit card or a bank account. And child sex abuse wasn't even a crime in many states. 

The post isn't homophobic. It's highlighting a current double standard: in today's progressive scenes, creepy behavior by straight men gets turned into a 30-year witch hunt and mob justice, while the same (or worse) from gay or trans individuals is often ignored or downplayed to avoid "phobia" accusations. That's the point of the "if Pete was gay or trans".

Priest scandals and old pedophile cases are unrelated, those were actual crimes against kids, condemned by pretty much everyone, including traditional masculine types. The original post is about adult social dynamics and passive modern men who no longer police bad behavior in real time.

Slapping "blatant homophobia" on an observation about hypocrisy doesn't make the hypocrisy disappear.

trailridgewrote:

The post isn't homophobic. It's highlighting a current double standard: in today's progressive scenes, creepy behavior by straight men gets turned into a 30-year witch hunt and mob justice, while the same (or worse) from gay or trans individuals is often ignored or downplayed to avoid 'phobia' accusations. That's the point of the "if Pete was gay or trans".

Priest scandals and old pedophile cases are unrelated, those were actual crimes against kids, condemned by pretty much everyone, including traditional masculine types. The original post is about adult social dynamics and passive modern men who no longer police bad behavior in real time.

Slapping "blatant homophobia" on an observation about hypocrisy doesn't make the hypocrisy disappear.

I challenge to you to point to a single example of "the same or worse from gay or trans individuals is often ignored..." Like, name names, cite instances. Just like this thread did. 

You might want to talk to Kevin Spacey if you think sexual harassment of men by gay men is given a pass. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/2026/03/19/kevin-spacey-settles-lawsuits-sexual-assault/89223972007/

My comment about priests was not limited to pedos. Plenty of priests have harassed non-minors. But, yeah, also, for decades entire communities looked the other way while "Father John" was known for being handsy with the boys. So much for the good old days! 

L take, Andy. The men right now are the ones calling it out, not the men of the past.

trailridgewrote:

The post isn't homophobic. It's highlighting a current double standard: in today's progressive scenes, creepy behavior by straight men gets turned into a 30-year witch hunt and mob justice, while the same (or worse) from gay or trans individuals is often ignored or downplayed to avoid "phobia" accusations. That's the point of the "if Pete was gay or trans".

Priest scandals and old pedophile cases are unrelated, those were actual crimes against kids, condemned by pretty much everyone, including traditional masculine types. The original post is about adult social dynamics and passive modern men who no longer police bad behavior in real time.

Slapping "blatant homophobia" on an observation about hypocrisy doesn't make the hypocrisy disappear.

Calling that post “not homophobic” is like insisting a dog whistle is just “high-pitched music”—you can pretend all you want, but everyone hears what it’s actually doing.

There isn’t some secret progressive conspiracy where queer people get a free pass to be “creepy.” That’s a fantasy built out of cherry-picked anecdotes and a heavy dose of confirmation bias. In reality, inappropriate behavior—by anyone—gets called out constantly, and often more harshly in queer spaces because those communities have spent decades dealing with stigma and are hyper-aware of consent and boundaries.

The whole “straight men get witch-hunted for 30 years” line is especially rich. Most victims of harassment or assault struggle to be believed at all, and many cases go nowhere. Acting like society is just itching to ruin straight men’s lives at the slightest misstep is detached from how things actually play out.

And the “if Pete was gay or trans” framing isn’t some clever thought experiment—it’s a tell. It’s a way of pre-loading the conclusion that queer people are protected predators while straight men are unfairly targeted victims. That’s not pointing out hypocrisy; it’s manufacturing it.

As for the nostalgic bit about “men policing behavior,” that’s just romanticizing a time when plenty of bad behavior was ignored, excused, or buried—as long as it fit the right mold. The idea that things were somehow more just because a few guys might throw a punch now and then is less “code of honor” and more “selective enforcement with extra violence.”

So no, slapping a veneer of “I’m just noticing hypocrisy” on it doesn’t make it insightful—it just makes the bias sound slightly more dressed up.

For those (presumably straight men) who think "the gays" have been getting it easy for all these years, I'll remind you that it was only in 2003 that consensual gay sexual activity was legalized nationally in the USA. Until then, people could be and were, arrested for their own private business in places like Texas...

Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court Decision

The privileged are starting to flood the zone to get everyone to take their eyes off the ball. 

Fail Fallingwrote:

The privileged are starting to flood the zone  

you mean anybody that climbs for sport? Or anybody with time and an internet connection?

Jay Crewwrote:

you mean anybody that climbs for sport? Or anybody with time and an internet connection?

For the circular jargon cultists, merely asking this question reveals your “implicit bias” (lol) and confirms that you are indeed “privileged.”

Daniel Shivelywrote:

For the circular jargon cultists, merely asking this question reveals your “implicit bias” (lol) and confirms that you are indeed “privileged.”

cutting through the jargon... by my own definition, I am indeed privileged, just like everyone else on this forum

Jay Crewwrote:

cutting through the jargon... by my own definition, I am indeed privileged, just like everyone else on this forum

I’m extremely privileged too, and while I enjoy the privilege of assisting less fortunate souls, I refuse to succumb to ressentiment of souls more fortunate than myself. 

Etienne basks in his privilege. 

Daniel Shivelywrote:

I’m extremely privileged too, and while I enjoy the privilege of assisting less fortunate souls, I refuse to succumb to ressentiment of souls more fortunate than myself. 

Etienne basks in his privilege. 

Gives puppy tummy rubs if they want some . . .

Chad Millerwrote:

Gives puppy tummy rubs if they want some . . .

Will do! He loves the chest rubs the most. I hope that your recovery is progressing well. 

Daniel Shivelywrote:

Will do! He loves the chest rubs the most. I hope that your recovery is progressing well. 

Dog doesn't like tummy rubs, yikes he might be homophobic.  

trailridgewrote:

Dog doesn't like tummy rubs, yikes he might be homophobic.  

You're not edgy, it’s just lazy, bigoted thinking dressed up as a joke. You took a completely normal boundary—“don’t touch someone who doesn’t want it”—and somehow twisted it into a weird rant about gay people and “weak men.” That says a lot more about your own hang-ups than anything happening in this discussion.

If your worldview can be summed up as “respect = weakness” and “consent = some kind of conspiracy,” you’re not making a bold point—you’re just advertising that you don’t understand basic social behavior or basic decency. The rest of us learned that in kindergarten, not from whatever comment section you crawled out of.

Try harder. 

I read most of this thread to Etienne, and he had a confused look on his face. As I consoled him with a nice long session of chest and neck rubs (he’s all chest and neck with a tiny hairless belly), he looked into my eyes and said, “people seem crazy and make weird drama about simple human concepts, let’s go chase rabbits.” So that’s what we did. 

Protect what you love and respect individual autonomy. 

I must say, reading most of this thread to Etienne is flat-out animal abuse. No amount of chest and neck rubs can compensate. And a rabbit hunt is just a distraction from the psychic damage you've caused. You should be ashamed of yourself.

My psychic damage is self-imposed. It's a uniquely human thing to love fascinated horror and slow-motion train wrecks. But the poor dog....

Chad Millerwrote:

You're not edgy, it’s just lazy, bigoted thinking dressed up as a joke. You took a completely normal boundary—“don’t touch someone who doesn’t want it”—and somehow twisted it into a weird rant about gay people and “weak men.” That says a lot more about your own hang-ups than anything happening in this discussion.

If your worldview can be summed up as “respect = weakness” and “consent = some kind of conspiracy,” you’re not making a bold point—you’re just advertising that you don’t understand basic social behavior or basic decency. The rest of us learned that in kindergarten, not from whatever comment section you crawled out of.

Try harder. 

Thanks Chadgpt. 

trailridgewrote:

Thanks Chadgpt. 

Trailridge, you never responded to this request from me. "I challenge to you to point to a single example of 'the same or worse from gay or trans individuals is often ignored...' Like, name names, cite instances. Just like this thread did."

Do you have anything? 

Richard Jensenwrote:

I must say, reading most of this thread to Etienne is flat-out animal abuse. No amount of chest and neck rubs can compensate. And a rabbit hunt is just a distraction from the psychic damage you've caused. You should be ashamed of yourself.

My psychic damage is self-imposed. It's a uniquely human thing to love fascinated horror and slow-motion train wrecks. But the poor dog....

Lol. Etienne is mature and curious about how I utilize my precious time. I warned him before sharing any of the content and he assured me that he is mentally prepared for anything. He told me that from his years of pursuing big Sierra peaks, he has realized that words are essentially meaningless and actions are what really matter. I wish you luck in repairing your psyche.