Why does hot coed always refer to a woman?
Because typical straight men value age over status, and typical straight women value status over age.
The male coed has nothing that makes him especially attractive.
You’re bi, however, so your idea of what makes a man attractive doesn’t have to conform.
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.
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.
Anonymous asked:
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.
this would be a better thread if it had less occurrences of the word “dudebro”
but the disagreement over death is really the central issue here.
meh. I agree that the not dealing well with the source material and smugness are issues, and for sure it did have a sense of ‘i’m gonna pick HP because it’s popular’ and the treatment of ron and hermione did kinda suck. I really liked HPMOR overall but it certainly had a ton of flaws. for example, it started out doing stuff like investigating the system of magic and there were allusions to atlantis or the source of magic etc. and then it just…stopped. And that was one of my favourite bits.
but i can’t get over the ‘death is a part of life and thinking death is bad is the REAL bad thing uwu’ stuff here. death is bad and sucks, we can work on improving quality of life sure, but improving quantity of life is not bad because ‘then we don’t appreciate how special the tiny bit of life we actually do have is’. and yeah fuck off with the dudebro bullshit.
I didn’t read all of that but I seriously doubt it could contain anything more insufferable than just being in long-form Twitter.
manverbing is the new manshaming
Pretty sure that I became a liberal for the Beer and Tits more than for the “Liberalism” per see (whatever that actually is) considering that I always opposed Second Wave’s anti porn side.
The proto-rape appoligism from trans activists and “anti-racist” activists is getting extremely old. The anti free speech position, the pro violence position, the pro imprisonment and forced reeducation of people who have moral disagreement with the SJW party line, even when those who disagree are LGBTQ, or non White, or women themselves is getting to be more than I can take.
It is literally, ontologically, impossible to please them with anything less than ceasing to exist if one is straight, cis, and/or White, and even if you are LGBTQ or a PoC, that’s only good enough if you toe the party line completely, erase all evidence that you ever haven’t, keep up to date on the latest terminology and erase all evidence that you ever used old terms in the past, and never piss off someone who is more “disadvantaged” than you or has more social clout.
I can’t keep doing this.
I think that people should be treated based on their actions and the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I think that people should be permitted to love as they will, to form consensual relationship with adults as they will, and that minors should receive accurate information about sex and human reproduction and access to birth control if they so desire and not legally punished for consensual relationships with others of their age.
I think that gender and gender roles have changed, gender reassignment technology has advanced astronomically in the last half century, and our culture is struggling to absorb these changes. I don’t have all the answers for how to best accommodate all the permutations and changes. I do know that, at minimum, people should be permitted to do what they like with their own bodies and make whatever modifications they feel inclined to make, and as long as nobody is misrepresenting the body modifications that they’re selling, it’s not really any business of strangers what body mods other people choose to have.
I’m not sure exactly how all this should best be accommodated or not by schools, medical insurance, or employers though, or to what, if any, degree the government should enforce particular accommodations or forbid them.
I think that people ought to call people what they want to be called, but I also think that occasional accidental misgendering is a regular part of life and not necessarily intentional or meant to be harmful.
I don’t think that there is anything wrong with interracial relationships. (And JFC, WTF is wrong with the world that I’m saying that in 2017 to differentiate myself from LIBERALS?)
I don’t think that anybody is morally obligated to try to change who they are sexually attracted to, although you might be morally obligated to not act on some attractions (eg. Minor attracted people). I’m also pretty sure that attempts to change what you are sexually attracted to don’t work.
I don’t think that anybody has a right to sex with anybody else, whether in general or specific. Marital rape is rape, and you don’t have a right to have sex with x category of people either.
I don’t think that speech that isn’t outright direct “you kill that guy” type incitement has any business being called violence, and DEFINITELY should not be met with violence, but rather more speech.
I think that silencing those you strongly disagree with is a bad strategic move, not merely morally doubtful. If you are so right and they are so wrong, there is nothing to be gained by not publicly debating them.
I believe in freedom of religion, and freedom to not be religious, and freedom to say that other people’s religions are stupid and bad.
And I have to go get lunch now, so that’s where I’ll end for now.
I think most actual liberals are probably closer to you than the people you’re complaining about. I don’t know what your life is like so maybe I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like you’re reacting to social bubble and “the most obnoxious yeller gets heard” effects that create a very distorted picture of what the liberal Overton Window actually looks like.
Knock on the door of your average Democrat voter and my bet is you’ll find a person who has never heard of the Cotton Ceiling, has a basically liberal perspective on anti-racism and feminism and LGBT rights, thinks Hillary Clinton is kind of cool, thinks the rich have too much but doesn’t like communists and doesn’t want revolution, etc.. Heck, go to your average Tumblr leftist and my guess is you’ll find somebody with roughly the opinions you just posted. Opinions like “interracial marriage is actually problematic” get reblogged disproportionately because they’re unusual and therefore interesting.
I mean, Hillary Clinton won the 2016 primary and Bernie Sanders was the maverick outsider who fired the imaginations of the young and radical. Do either of them look like the kind of candidate a hard-core “SJW” type would get excited about to you?
I think this is why hard-core “SJW” types are so frustrated and angry: they know that most people are extremely problematic and unenlightened by their standards and this includes most of their ostensible allies.
This use of the word “Liberal” probably has something to do with the American usage not differentiating “Liberal” and “Leftist.”
One can only imagine what it is like to be a straight white male. To go to the movies, enjoy the story fully, and then leave without the necessity to form any kind of emotional attachment to the characters. Why would they? They will find themselves perfectly represented all over again in the next movie they decide to watch, whichever it might be, and the next one, and the next one. Representation to them is not a luxury, it’s a given right.
possibly one of the stupidest things ever written? we may never know. (via argumate)
In which the grass is always greener on the other side of the thinkpiece writer.
urpriest asked:
argumate answered:
It may have begun with frat boys, but it’s clearly metastasised; if you replace all occurrences of dudebro with frat boy the results are incoherent.
but in this year of our lord 2k17 I’m actually genuinely uncertain as to whether describing Japan’s schoolgirl obsession as “kinda messed up” counts as woke or reactionary.
Publicly, woke so they won’t decide to Normalize Schoolgirlhoodphilia or something just to spite reactionaries. Privately? Reactionary.
Anonymous asked:
fierceawakening answered:
Thanks!
Parallel evolution: Unix nerds tell people to read the man pages all the time and often make you prove that you tried to solve it on your own before they help you.
Interestingly, geekfeminism hates it when Unix nerds tell newbs to ask pertinent questions and figure stuff out on their own.
Trolls can get answers from the most jaded and busy hackers by giving the wrong advice.
You can apply this kind of trolling to feminism as well: Ask feminists something trivial about internet feminism 101. Use a sock puppet to give a subtly wrong answer. Tag several online feminists (the ones you asked in the first place maybe) in your “thank you for the answer” tweet. Suddenly it is their job to educate you…
Ah, the irony.
Look, all I’m saying is that while it isn’t a matter of systematic oppression for each man to prefer that his girlfriend get the purring augmentation, if the vast majority of men have a strong preference, this creates a powerful incentive gradient in which any women who don’t will risk a greater chance of loneliness.
Just because popular VR personas use it now does not justify getting an expensive cybernetic implant, especially since it didn’t really hit the big time until about five years ago.
@argumate I thought you weren’t getting enough Discourse, so I got you some from the future
I mean if nothing else, the majority of misogynist men appear to be in sexual relationships with women at various points in their lives, and are hence “getting some” without fundamentally shifting their opinions.
The “dude hates women because he can’t get laid” thing irritates me from a number of directions.
Dudes who get lots of sex from women frequently hate women, dudes who want sex with women but are “volcel” or not interested in “sluts riding the cock carousel” or whatever manosphere redpill grossness is floating around have some weird shit going on and probably need hugs and sympathy for other reasons but that doesn’t excuse the fact that lots of them just hate women.
But that’s just some of the straight dudes.
I’ve known a lot of *deeply* misogynistic/femmephobic/transphobic gay men and at least a couple of very misogynist ace folks. I know a *TREMENDOUS* number of misogynist straight women, who are sexist as fuck and fighting daily battles with their own internalized misogyny but who are certainly not motivated in their contempt and hatred for women by a desire to fuck them. Misogyny in gay men, straight women, and ace folks at least proves that misogyny can be completely divorced from an unfulfilled desire for vaginal sex.
I think the reason we hear the “he’s just mad because he’s not getting any” is because there is a not-insignificant number of men who will be more vocal about their misogyny when they’re single and having trouble “pulling” - that’s where you get stories from women in bars who get called stuck-up bitches or who are told all women are the same gold-digging whores and whatever, because some dude tried to hit on them and got shut down. I heard an awful lot of this kind of thing as a comforting shoulder to many a geek who wanted to know what was wrong with him and why girls didn’t like him and went for the jock or the dude with the motorcycle or the asshole with the tattoos. But I also ran LGBT clubs and was the shoulder for a lot of gay men discussing how disgusting vaginas are and how they don’t even want women around (and I understand that a lot of that probably is a defense mechanism for young men being pressured into performing heteronormativity who are totally uninterested in women and ambivalence can easily become revulsion when you’re pressured into doing things you don’t want to that aren’t right for you; I feel less sympathy and understanding for older gay men I know now who continue to regularly discuss how icky vaginas are and how women are cock-hungry because they’ve got penis envy and aren’t whole without a dick in them somewhere, what the fuck you sound like radfems)
I’m rambling too much, but here’s what I’m trying to get down to: many women hear the most vocal, vicious, misogynist things from men they’ve just turned down or from men whose catcalls they’ve ignored. I think the reason a lot of women default to “you just can’t get laid” as an insult to misogynists is because their mental picture of “misogynist” is “that guy who chased me for two blocks because I wouldn’t smile” or “that guy who screamed at me in the bar” or “that guy who called me a bitch in science class because I didn’t accept his promposal” or “that asshole who said I put him in the friendzone when I wouldn’t sleep with him after a breakup because I just thought he was my friend.”
I’m not saying that it’s right or it’s good that people default to “wants and can’t attain straight sex” as the handwave for misogyny, I’m saying we should figure out where this is coming from. Homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality are probably a significant part of the answer, but lived experience of women being personally attacked (either verbally or physically) by men whom they’ve rejected is probably another part.
And, yeah, a lot of this ends up throwing LGBTQIA folks under the bus - an adult who menstruates and is freaked out by tampons is assumed to be childish or a prude instead of sex-repulsed or penetration-averse or experiencing dysphoria; an adult who doesn’t seek (primarily straight) sex is assumed to be broken.
And that’s all fucked up.
So yeah, feminist folks, you are perpetuating the cycle of toxic masculinity when you use “this loser can’t get laid” as an insult (also when you use “prude” as an insult - there are lots of good reasons people aren’t interested in sex or aren’t interested in hearing about sex in lots of contexts, oversharing when someone is uncomfortable with it is violating their consent).
And I’ll just end my rant with “can we just try not to be jerks to each other? That’d be swell.”
So you have that, but also there is a conflation of “what straight women want or find attractive” with “good” which this is a part of.
