Why glomp chatrooms?

aellagirl

Why glomp chatrooms?

aellagirl

There’s this…. aesthetic? I don’t know if that’s the right word. It’s this “style” that pops up in certain internet communities or forums or chatrooms. This style features things like:

* Using lots of action-emoticons like *blushes and nibbles on lip*
* Using cutsey words like “glomp” and “snuggle”
* Innocence and child-like aesthetics, word usage, and attitudes
* High overlap with the kink community, so familiarity or references to things like dom/subbyness.
* Strong affiliation with anime, with avatars and shared images being almost entirely anime.
* High and dispersed “slutty”(?) affectionateness. Anyone may be glomped or tickled, with naughtiness being an assumed hidden but universal trait. Reminds me of the feeling of cuddle parties.
* High sexual undertones, although this generally exists on a spectrum depending on the community. Can range from “innocent” flirting to full on cybering.
* Association with the queer community

I have questions about this but I don’t even know exactly what I want to find out.

Why the high overlap with anime? Why the babylike combination with sexual promiscuity? I feel like I understand “littlespace” kinks, but this seems different for some reason. Why so much glomping, blushing, and arm pinning? And more importantly, why do they all happen together at the same time so often?

It’s such a heavy and permeating style. I’ll see regular chatrooms that operate pretty normally, except everyone talks like that and has anime avatars. Why? I can’t think of any comparable instance where other “regular chatrooms” operate under an aesthetic so pervasive. I’m assuming engaging in this…. not-quite-roleplay? gives some sense of validation or excitement or security or something, but I’m having a lot of trouble figuring out what it is. Can someone help explain?

mitigatedchaos

I mean, I’m assuming your avatar is a picture of you. So you’re attractive and female, which means that:

Your advances will, more often than not, be wanted.
Your advances will usually not be perceived as threatening, even when they aren’t wanted.
Your advances will raise, rather than lower, the social status of the person you approach, unless they’re already very high social status.

These groups are going to involve people whose affection is usually treated as unwanted, undesirable, oppressive, or even evil. But they still have that drive for affection, to want to be loved, to be desirable. A lot of what you’re probably seeing is that the left half of the bell curve for gender presentation for men has been reserved only for gay men, combined with the side effects of (low-status) men being seen as disgusting and a threat.

I’m actually expecting pretty substantial defections from having male or purely male bodies in the early transhuman era, until masculinity performance is so utterly broken by transhuman body choice and bi/pansexuality becomes so normal that the threat narrative collapses and it returns to a more even distribution.

gender politics

More you might like

bambamramfan

slatestarcodex.com

Polyamory Is Not Polygyny

[Content warning: polyamory, brief quote of weird Heartiste stuff] The objections I hear to polyamory tend to separate into two narratives sharing a common thread. The first narrative is supposedly…

bambamramfan

SSC’s latest seems like a classic case of letting gender politics obfuscate power and class issues that cut across gender.

He quotes some PUA:

Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value dudes hording all the pussy.

And then he uses both his intuitive experience and his LW survey data to show that men and women in polyamory date about the same number of people. There’s at least no clear cut numerical advantage to men. My experience also agrees.

But what if we neuter that sentence, and look at it again:

Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value people dudes hording all the dates.

Which is to say, charismatic and confident people of either gender, dating a lot of people, and awkward and introverted people of both genders dating no one, only one person, or being a hanger on in a larger polycule that doesn’t get a lot of attention from the partner regardless.

That sounds… less implausible. It doesn’t exactly match my observed experience, but it’s not super far from it either. I’ve certainly seen in nerdy groups a Queen Bee that is dating half the men, in a way that seems parallel to the alpha-males that PUA’s fear/worship.

It’s not at all clear that this is bad. This seems just as likely to be the result of “some people want more partners, and are more socially outgoing to find them, while some people want less or are less willing to put themselves out there to meet them,” which would be fine. Or it could be this high-value thing. (I detest rat-tumb’s focus on high-status-males as the evil beneficiary of social engineering, which seems both empirically and ontologically unsound, but from a capitalist-critical perspective, “liberalizing trade regimes” often means “the rich people get more stuff and poor people somehow have less.”)

But, I’m also not going to be surprised by the subjective perspective of people low on the social totem pole. Before, they had hope in this pigeon-hole thing, where each person could get at most one partner, so eventually the people as attractive as them would realize their best chance for a life long relationship was with fellow low-class dates like themselves. It was a bad model, but I’m aware people believed in it. Now they worry no one will be left waiting for them, and they’ll be entirely alone forever. So there’s some people who seem to be having a lot of sex (stealing their jouissance) and they aren’t reaping the benefits.

The answers they come up with are usually dumb, but they are at least seeing/feeling a thing.

mitigatedchaos

Bambam honey darling kun, and also @slatestarscratchpad friend,

I love weird nerds but weird nerds aren’t a representative sample for the behavior of typical relationship norms.

A better example for normies applying this would be all the other countries, territories and communities where polygamy is practiced, as well as communities within the US where one man will have 11 kids by 8 different women.

No full poly until Tranhumanism makes it possible to ‘defect’ from both your sex and sexual orientation, pls.

gender politics

Anonymous asked:

Can you read all your posts under “gender politics” tag and truthfully say that you want to live when the life is like that? I couldn't.

Dearest Anon-kun,

My representation is a bit more dire than how I actually interpret the situation, in part because it’s intended as a counter-balance to mainstream feminism, which strips women of their agency and refuses to critically examine their role in the social dynamics which create these situations.

“Women are powerless” is really quite deeply normalized almost everywhere! It’s very insidious.

Comments regarding even cishet neurotypical women should be regarded as generalizations that do not uniformly apply to the population, and many subgroups don’t necessarily fit them. Additionally, low-status women also exist. In fact, women that don’t fit this mold are more common in my subcultures!

Additionally,

1) I have a reasonable shot at making it to the Transhuman era.

2) I have a close relationship to my ex WRT expressed vulnerability & female companionship, though not sexually.

3) Have you observed the number of self-identified “traps” and other such individuals among the Alt Right? I believe this represents a sign of an impending Male Gender Meltdown, the consequences of which are hard to predict. Overall, I do think progress is being made, as indicated by the appearance of multiple male gender movements.

Also,

All my exes are bisexual (and therefore have no set reason to behave in a certain pattern of attraction), and this blog will continue to not disclose my sex/gender.

Kind Regards,
Miti

P.S. If you are secretly the tumblr user known as BA, this blog hopes for your swift recovery regardless of whether that is low in probability. If you are secretly tumblr user RO, this blog hopes for an increase in your available useful energy.

gender politics

argumate

Mulan is Problematic

argumate

Let’s get down to business
- capitalism stifles human flourishing

to defeat
- war is the problem not the solution

the Huns
- an oppressed group of impoverished herders

Did they send me daughters
- misogyny

when I asked for sons
- male privilege

You’re the saddest bunch I ever met
- trivialising depression

But you can bet before we’re through
- encouraging gambling

Mister I’ll make a man out of you
- sexism, misogyny, transmisogyny, I literally can’t even

mitigatedchaos

MRAs should like Mulan over the other Disney movies, since it depicts masculinity in a more complete and nuanced way. Therefore, Mulan is Problematic.

gender politics shtpost

Sex Shaming & Status War

The road to ending “slut shaming” of women probably goes through the town of “destroy the norm of giving men status for being sexually successful, and of treating male virgins as disgusting losers”.

I say this because I think some of the desire to enforce sex norms on women relates to the nature of sexual access as a status good for men.

If a low-partner man gets into a relationship with a high-partner woman, he is considered lower status for it, under multiple frameworks. Under a “promiscuous women are low-value” framework, it lowers his value by suggesting he had to ‘settle’ for a woman other men could extract sex from but didn’t consider worthy of commitment. Under a “anyone having a high partner count means they are high-value” framework, it suggests that the woman is higher value than he is (which is risky if men are judged more on status than women are), and that the way for him to raise his value is to have lots of meaningless sex with lots of people.

If a low-partner man and a high-partner man are in the same community, the low-partner man is lower status than the high-partner man is, since masculinity is contingent on success, and success with women is counted as one category of success. (In fact, one of the socially damaging aspects of virginity / lower partner count is that it is considered “unmasculine”.)

This creates a strong motivation for status war. If low-partner men can attack promiscuity in women, they can create a situation where women have partner counts closer to their own. Failing that, they can lower the status of such women so that they’re at least not higher status than themselves.

Unless their sexual success is decoupled from their social status, men will always have a motivation to wage status war through “slut shaming”.

The way to alter the status of high-partner men is not through straight men themselves, since their value in this respect is conferred by women. (Low-partner men are already low status, so they have less social power to alter these very norms.) It’s through the actions of women.

One way to do this is for women to start treating promiscuous men the way promiscuous women were treated in the past. If women started treating high-partner men like hot potatoes that are disgusting, low-status (like male virgins are now), and aren’t worthy of sex (not just commitment, as getting a woman to commit isn’t considered special), it would radically alter the status dynamic in male communities.

Another possibility is if commitment from women somehow became more difficult to get, and thus was considered special and more valuable than sex, but it’s unclear under what conditions this would emerge as a stable equilibrium. Current conditions don’t favor it or any obvious paths to it. The traditional norm is the opposite - women trade sex to get commitment. If this could be changed, it would increase the status of a man the woman finally ‘settled’ for. (It appears to be true in the opposite direction currently.)

Another way to do it is to treat low-partner and high-partner men the same in a very noticeable way so that men will start internalizing that being high-partner isn’t the same as getting the “approval from women” they need to prove their masculinity and raise their status. This doesn’t mean in fields unrelated to sex. The status comes from sex, so they have to be treated as equally sexually desirable, perhaps even the virgins.

All of these courses of action have their own problems. Depending on the balance of nature vs nurture, some or all of them may not even be feasible. They may do secondary damage. They may just not be enjoyable to a lot of people.

gender politics flagpost

argumate

the gay marriage will lead to polygamy slippery slope argument makes it sound like homophobes are more worried about a dude marrying two women than another dude.

mitigatedchaos

It isn’t obvious, Argumate, dear old boy? It’s trying to trade against the greater remaining taboo value of the second to stop the first. The ideological tools to pass the first will be used to try to allow the second, even though gay marriage is most likely pro-civic while polygamy is very likely anti-civic. (The civicness is not the argument being used, after all!)

gender politics

ms-demeanor

Anonymous asked:

Okay heres what makes me dead on curious about this indie game about someone who only cares about the feelings of men (boohoo)... How do you make a feminist cyberpunk future? Isn't that kind of like the opposite?

cyberpunkpixeljunk answered:

Nah, just make sure the women in the setting fit the setting. Plus, what do we know about this game? It could be just fine.

mitigatedchaos

@ms-demeanor: <long post>

Honestly, I think once you start creating a Feminism that isn’t a gender war munition (e.g., one that actually deconstructs the threat narrative around men and so on), it stops being Feminism and starts being something else. But I don’t have a whole lot of intellectual charity left for Feminism or SJ in general.

I think a lot of people absolutely underestimate the amount of totally useless medical problem bullshit that already exists and is not any kind of sublime commentary on the nature of humanity.

I think you’ve got it wrong on MGTOWs (and I’ll note you said them and not MRAs - good, since they aren’t identical). MGTOWs aren’t an activist movement, they’re debris from problems we aren’t supposed to notice or talk about. That 1 in 1,000 woman that hit all the problems in her life from bad man after bad man? MGTOWs are the male version of that.

Source: cyberpunkpixeljunk gender politics

argumate

electronconf.com

ElectronConf Seattle 2017

ranma-official

Github eliminated gender bias in selecting conference speakers for ElectronConf by using randomized blind review, 100% of selected speakers turned out to be men, so they are cancelling the conference

amazing

argumate

now reveal the demographic breakdown of the reviewers

mitigatedchaos

For diversity purposes in tech companies, Asians count as white. So obviously majority white, ofc.

I mean, you think I’m shitposting, but most of my shitposts are not completely groundless - there was a criticism of diversity levels at some Silicon Valley tech company a while back, and they conveniently left out that like 30% of the staff were Asian.

(And from what I’ve read, it’s Asians that take the actual brunt of Affirmative Action policies in schools… overall I’m not sure how long the political alignment will hold out. The true racists are split on this matter from what I’ve seen.)

Source: ranma-official race politics gender politics

obiternihili

argumate

dudebro is just a terrible word for any kind of progressive purpose given that it entirely concedes masculinity to the opposition.

blackblocberniebros

I think we’re more than prepared to concede masculinity to the opposition. What redeeming qualities does it have? Everything I’ve seen masculinity be is aggression, envy, or pride, all of which are, uh, mortal sins.

mitigatedchaos

…are you joking?

Or have you just already defined masculinity as everything you hate?

If it turns out that a significant number of straight women actually like masculine men and haven’t been brainwashed into it, what is your plan?

How can a male build a healthy self-identity if to be male is nothing more than to be a flawed woman?

obiternihili

In that last line, being male and being a Man™ are different things. You can be male or female and you can be you by having your own goddamn identity and thinking for yourself instead of bullying the sick weak nerdy kid into it for not conforming to some arbitrary set of interests

like I might disagree with bbb on this because being a real man to me is just being an adult. But being a Man™ or even the subset of Men™, the dudebro - is giving up defining my own identity and giving up making maturity, not interests or the way I express myself, the performative element.

dudebro was pretty much always meant to refer the kinds of people we think of as stereotypical frat boys anyways. Dumbasses who don’t give a shit about consent or abuse or anything like that except fucking people ±over. That’s not being a man. That’s being garbage.

And if a lot of women are attracted to abuse, why? And are we sure? Are we sure underlying factors aren’t distorting the really important values?

And like if definitions differ definitions differ. Get over it. The line beginning with “Or” is not actually a point however smugly it’s phrased.

mitigatedchaos

Have you considered that maybe it’s your conception of masculinity which is very narrow and culturally limited, here?

There is more than one way to be masculine and exploring and normalizing new masculinities could be very helpful (and still attractive to cishet women and thus not self-erasing on the long-term). Conceding masculinity to the opposition is a terrible idea.

Source: argumate gender politics

argumate

Against all reason I’m fascinated by the friendzone discourse, seriously.

It’s closely related to something you hear less about: the bonezone, which despite its name is not opposite the friendzone, but rather adjacent to it, not far from relationship town; someone’s really gotta diagram this stuff out.

“I can’t believe they put me in the friendzone!”

This complaint can have layers of meaning, but it starts with disappointment. The speaker was hoping to make it to relationship town, or maybe just a quick visit to the bonezone, but instead ended up in the friendzone, where they’ve already been many times before. It’s identical to a similar complaint that is also very common, although typically not in these words:

“I can’t believe they put me in the bonezone!”

The speaker was dreaming of relationship town, or perhaps a long stay in the friendzone, and had a rude awakening to find themselves here instead. Logic suggests a third complaint which you also may have heard:

“I can’t believe they want to take me to relationship town!”

The implications of this one are obvious.

But why does disappointment over mismatched expectations around friendship, sex, and relationships, attract so much heated debate?

The first wrinkle is that disappointment can turn to angry accusations. They led you on! They were deliberately ambiguous about the destination! They have ulterior motives!

While miscommunication is regrettable and sad, deliberately deceptive conduct can be infuriating; no one wants to have their time wasted and their emotions toyed with by someone who isn’t being honest with them.

But this is self-evident, why would it attract debate? Unless…

mitigatedchaos

Consider: dating and relationships often run on subtext in which actually revealing your hand is a huge turn-off, unless you’re dating some kind of nerd or other unusually direct person.

gender politics

obiternihili

argumate

dudebro is just a terrible word for any kind of progressive purpose given that it entirely concedes masculinity to the opposition.

blackblocberniebros

mitigatedchaos

…are you joking?

Or have you just already defined masculinity as everything you hate?

If it turns out that a significant number of straight women actually like masculine men and haven’t been brainwashed into it, what is your plan?

How can a male build a healthy self-identity if to be male is nothing more than to be a flawed woman?

obiternihili

And if a lot of women are attracted to abuse, why? And are we sure? Are we sure underlying factors aren’t distorting the really important values?

And like if definitions differ definitions differ. Get over it. The line beginning with “Or” is not actually a point however smugly it’s phrased.

mitigatedchaos

Have you considered that maybe it’s your conception of masculinity which is very narrow and culturally limited, here?

obiternihili

I fail to see something better that convinces me to change it.

But it sounds like you’re widening the definition past the point of coherence, in which case we’re in the same camp but different labels.

mitigatedchaos

I’m not widening it past coherence.

There are multiple paths which are congruent with the male gendered trait cluster and are compatible with cishet sexuality. Dudebroism in its original meaning and not a generic misandrist or outgroup insult is only one of them. We can take the same colors and paint a different image.

It only appears incoherent if you already pre-define masculinity as only the “dudebro” version, which is a terrible idea if your goal is better men that are willing to work with your movement.

Of course, men themselves will have to build these new identities mostly. Feminism cannot do so for them. But you don’t want them to think Feminism is incompatible with them being masculine. Remember the post I was responding to said masculinity was seen to be only of sins and just fine to let the opposition monopolize.

Source: argumate gender politics

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.