(I think the fight over "pervert glasses" as a term, on the side of defending the term "pervert" to oppose shame-by-conflating-antisocial-behavior-to-weird-sex, is kinda losing (I know I saw some people being concerned about that previously), but so I think that's /largely/ fine, I don't think the use of "pervert" as a negative part of that phrase is necessarily going to spread out to much more general usage outside of that phrase, from there. This is just vibes but it doesn't feel like that's likely to me. Maybe 'cause it's so specifically ties to the noun, and we already have "glasshole" for the person. Again, just vibes tho.)
@gaditb i mean, the point of calling them pervert glasses is to emphasize their already confirmed to be frequent usage as a tool for sexual harassment and assault and as far as creating a definition of sexual deviancy which i would agree with condemning “sexual harassment and assault” seems pretty solid?
@Satsuma Yeah but in contrast to e.g. "nonce specs", the British-English version.
But the criticism was that it's davka not the DEVIANCE of the sexuality that's the issue, it's the PREDATORY-ness of the sexuality.