dandelion (she/her)

are you describing a grocery store?

sorry, are men concerned for their safety dating women such that a gender inverted version of this app makes sense? Your ignorance is what I’m talking about here …

yeah, the app has obvious flaws, and the Rate My Professor style approach succeeds or fails depending on the quality of the users and moderators, and could easily be useless or become toxic - either way, I’m not defending this aspect of the app, it’s clearly problematic.

Regardless I understand why women would want a resource like this, and that doesn’t seem true for those in the comments who see the doxxing as deserved for using this app.

Nevermind the rest of the context, like 4chan being a bastion of right-wing, misogynist trolls who would target an app like this for political reasons.

Lemmy users approving 4chan doxxing women is a major red flag … it might have something to do with how many Lemmy users come here due to being banned for their behavior on Reddit. Reddit isn’t sending their best and brightest, and it shows. (This is just my speculation, though.)

of course, the app has obvious problems, but I don’t see that as justifying the gloating and sense of revenge enjoyment happening.

Instead I see a kind of discontent about women I find concerning, which seems ignorant of the widespread violence women experience or what it’s like for women who take risks when dating men.

Men are not all equally problematic or privileged, but they are generally in a position of power relative to women and are acting like the victims here.

They should direct their discontent to patriarchy which creates the situation where violence against women is dismissed or accepted, and which motivates women to use apps to check if the person they are dating has a history of violent behavior.

Patriarchy which perpetuates the narrative that men are natural predators and women natural prey is what victimizes men here, not the women who rightfully fear and feel victimized by the minority of men who are violent.

The app enables the photos to be run through a reverse image search, enabling them to run a basic background check, check against public sex offender databases, and check for photos that might get flagged as being used in “catfishing” — misrepresenting one’s identity online.

The app also features a “Tea Party Group Chat,” which allows users to directly share information about men, and has a rating function, which allows users to share their experiences with Yelp-style reviews, awarding men a “green flag” or a “red flag.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/25/us/tea-app-dating-privacy-cec

It’s a bit like Rate My Professor, but for dating.

Honestly I cyncially expect this kind of app might inevitably exist for rating people of all genders (or that dating apps might incorporate this Uber-style rating system), but the reason this app exists has directly to do with the violence women face from intimate partners.

The point is that men who are enjoying the doxxing of women who have used this app are ignoring the context, or even have a warped sense of the context, as if this is narrowly about (legitimate) privacy concerns and the harms caused by the app.

Even if the concerns about the app are justified, the revenge enjoyment betrays a view much harder to defend, that all the women who used the app are equally cupable, or that doxxing women using the app is equivalent to women doxxing abusive men through the app.

Men are not all equally privileged, but there is a broad inequality both to how violence is distributed and how that plays out in dating situations. Women are not wrong to fear men. One in three women have experienced sexual or physical violence, most of that violence being perpetuated by men.

Since this is the context for the use of this app, it’s not neutral to doxx its users or to claim it’s fair because men feel (legitimate) concerns about the app’s privacy violations.

There is some of that happening, like when women get together and discuss how they’re being treated it’s “gossip” and implied as immoral.

I think some men might read what you’ve said and think you are denying any toxic gossip exists, it’s important to have nuance and not alienate men who otherwise would be allies, but I think overall your point is well taken.

??

so the solution to misogyny is to git gud?

The replies in this thread are disturbing, giving me a sense that Lemmy has a misogyny problem; maybe I was naïve, but I expected outrage about 4chan doxxing women trying to protect one another, instead I see lots of revenge enjoyment as if being doxxed on 4chan is justice for … <checks notes> warning one another about dangerous men they encounter when dating?

The inability to empathize and take seriously the threats posed to women or to understand their motivation to protect one another is alarming.

There is no good faith extended, but also no evidence presented that instead of safety the app was just for gossip, it’s just taken as assumed that women are wrong for using Tea and they all deserve to be doxxed.

from the article:

Several users received an error message that says “The following are not allowed: no zionist, no zionists,” when they tried to add the phrases to their bios on Thursday. I tested this myself on a new Grindr account, and received the same error message. I was able to add “Zionist” to my profile (without “no”), however, and could also add any phrase I could think of: “no Arabs,” “no Blacks,” “no Palestinians,” “no Muslims,” “no Christians,” “no Jews,” “no trans,” “no Republicans,” “no Democrats,” and so on. “No Zionist[s]” was the only phrase that was blocked in my testing.

that was so hard to believe I checked the article myself, and here’s the quote:

Several users received an error message that says “The following are not allowed: no zionist, no zionists,” when they tried to add the phrases to their bios on Thursday. I tested this myself on a new Grindr account, and received the same error message. I was able to add “Zionist” to my profile (without “no”), however, and could also add any phrase I could think of: “no Arabs,” “no Blacks,” “no Palestinians,” “no Muslims,” “no Christians,” “no Jews,” “no trans,” “no Republicans,” “no Democrats,” and so on. “No Zionist[s]” was the only phrase that was blocked in my testing.

There are a few clarifications I would like to make:

Having an erection does not require the person to have sex, and is not the same as being horny or desiring sex.

Having a penis does not guarantee you have erections (let alone involuntary erections, which is what you seem to be talking about). People with penises who are testosterone dominant do have involuntary erections, but even so, see my first point for why that’s not relevant.

Your claim was about being horny being a bigger problem for people with penises, which is a fair assumption but has more to do with testosterone than the penis (like you’ve pointed out, trans men can be very horny without a “penis” - though it should be noted here that male and female genitalia are more similar than dissimilar and have the same structures of a phallus and glans, just in different configurations).

so it’s already suggesting that it’s not a myth.

The myth is the belief that men are horny while women are not, the reality is that it varies significantly by person. with significant overlap between the sexes. There is a difference on average, but it’s not as large or total as people commonly believe.

And finally, as you have pointed out the social context will skew the data significantly with fewer women being comfortable with sex than men, fewer women having learned to masturbate than men, and fewer women willing to discuss or disclose their sexual feelings or behavior than men. These differences in how sex is treated socially means whatever biological differences there are is muddled, especially when what was measured was self-reporting on frequency of masturbation. It’s possible that men and women are far more similar than dissimilar than even the current evidence we have points to.

that’s a common belief, but it varies a lot by individual, with many women having higher sex drives than men

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/202212/do-men-really-have-stronger-sex-drives-than-women

literally came to comments to say Sirona Ryan, lol

In the film there is a villain character named Buffalo Bill who murders young women and harvests their skin to make a woman suit they can wear to feel like a woman, presented as a sexual fetish (this is a debunked pseudoscience concept of “autogynephilia”). The character does this after being rejected by gender-affirming clinics for being mentally unstable and not being a “true transexual”.

There is a famous scene where Buffalo Bill has abducted a woman and keeps her in a well, and a basket with lotion is sent down and Buffalo Bill says a now famous line: “It rubs lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.” This is a threat to get her to moisturize and take care of her skin, since that’s what is intended to be harvested from her.

There’s another iconic scene when Buffalo Bill is putting on makeup and jewelry and in the mirror saying “Would you fuck me? … I would fuck me. I would fuck me. I would fuck me so hard.” Then Buffalo Bill dances in front of a camera wearing the skin of women while dressed in women’s clothes.

This is perhaps one of the most impactful instances of transphobia in film, and served as an anchor in the 1990s for how people thought about trans women, as deranged psychopathic perverts (similar to how at the time all gay men were believed to be pedophile rapists).

There were even protests held against the film at the time.

Since OP’s post is about lotion and criminality, my assumption is that some Silence of the Lambs joke is inevitable, so I thought I’d get ahead of it.

EDIT: I missed that the top comment response was a Silence of the Lambs joke. Oops.

I’m sure a cock champion can be found on Tinder with minimal effort.

oof

something something transphobic Silence of the Lambs joke

^ketamine

Möth craves your lööps