Oceans Yet to Burn — slartibartfastibast: mailadreapta: ...

slartibartfastibast

the-grey-tribe

If there is a gay gene, gay marriage and adoption will pull it out of circulation soon.

mailadreapta

This is the usual and obvious response to people who say that gayitude can’t be genetic because otherwise it would have been selected out already. Bruh, before we had gay liberation being gay was not a major knock on fertility since you would probably be having kids anyway. Fortunately, now we do have gay liberation so we can weed the queers out of the gene pool as Darwin intended.

mailadreapta

Cochran goes off against the “gay uncle” theory and other cockamamie schemes which claim that gayness is not selected out of the population because of some offsetting benefit, by making the entirely true point that the benefits to your family have to huge in order to compensate for taking you out of the gene pool entirely. However, this objection loses a lot of its force if the fertility loss from homosexuality is small. If homosexuals reproduce at rates similar to heterosexuals, then having the gay gene becomes all-upside from a Darwinian perspective.

Seen in this light, homophobia is a eugenic cultural institution which keeps gay genes in the gene pool by forcing even obligate homosexuals to marry and have children.

slartibartfastibast

Personal anecdote indicates that Cochran is probably on so something:

http://slartibartfastibast.com/post/159672281259/i-imagine-one-of-those-big-complex-things-being

It’s semi-heritable but non-genetic:

http://slartibartfastibast.com/post/114665865499/being-suspicious-of-gmos-is-only-irrational-if-you

I think it’s an alternative developmental trajectory that can reduce intermale competition for mates or something. Seems like it could be more influenced by early environmental triggers than anybody wants to admit. In-utero tuning to the parental environment is probably part of it. Cochran goes so far as to say that it has to be partly communicable, which would upset a lot of people.

I mean, Alzheimer’s is apparently bacterial/microbiomic in origin, but nobody treats it like it’s communicable because it really doesn’t look like it is. The vector would have to be extremely convoluted and indirect.

Also, humans are probs eusocial:

http://slartibartfastibast.com/post/160728219904/contra-scott-alexander-on-prestige

mitigatedchaos

I don’t think we’ll lose the gays for another reason - by the end of the century, we will have figured out how to make new people gay or bisexual on purpose. That has to be factored in to the calculations.

Source: the-grey-tribe 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

ranma-official

silver-and-ivory

I had an idea. What if we just stop gendering toys?

I had LEGOs and they came in boy colors, but I didn’t know, I was five years old and I thought they were fun to play with! What if we gave kids functional toys and imaginative toys and anything in between, and just ignored gender?

ranma-official

Less profitable.

Lego started selling girl Legos and got such a massive surge in profits you would think three new Star wars movies came out. Not that Legos were boy only in the first place.

mitigatedchaos

This is actually the reason they started the whole “Girl LEGOs” thing in the first place. The LEGO sets for girls are the result of a lot of focus group testing in addition to market research, if I remember correctly. It isn’t actually arbitrary. The things make bank, and the previous ones just didn’t sell as many kits to girls.

Source: silver-and-ivory gender politics

ranma-official

Anonymous asked:

Wait... do you think ace people aren't LGBT? :/

afloweroutofstone answered:

A lot of ace people are LGBTQ. I typically go with the standard definition of “if you experience any significant same-sex attraction, you’re LGBTQ,” and just being asexual or aromantic doesn’t disqualify you from that. I would also consider people who experience no attraction at all (asexual and aromantic) as LGBTQ too, but that’s just me personally. But people who are asexual and heteroromantic or aromantic and heterosexual are not LGBTQ.

What I really objected to in that post was the idea of categorizing an HIV activism blog as “aphobic”

ranma-official

i think asexuality is obviously automatically included in category of People Who Do This Gender Thing Weird

afloweroutofstone

That’s fine. Others would object to defining LGBTQ like that, but my opinion on this topic isn’t too strong, honestly.

ranma-official

basically, there are basically “LGBT as identity” and “LGBT as community” and maybe the third “LGBT as labels”.

Allies are in the second but not the first and might be in the third. asexuals are definitely in the third. The problem is when people try to draw huge equal signs between the three.

The third also has a whole bunch of different categories of people that many people from the second are mortified to even acknowledge.

mitigatedchaos

When it comes down to it, people tend to use “LGBTQ” to mean “gender and sexual minorities”. Asexuality qualifies as a sexual minority, especially if it’s permanent or more-or-less someone’s default state.

Source: afloweroutofstone gender politics

aellagirl

gender politics gender

silver-and-ivory

argumate

I mean Donald Trump has married a succession of models, just sayin’.

So either he’s not a true asshole or “assholes don’t get dates” has a ton of mitigating factors, as assholes are well aware.

silver-and-ivory

wasn’t it more like “assholes get all the dates”?

mitigatedchaos

The people who use shaming for people who don’t get dates don’t believe that. They frequently denounce anyone who does. This is the problem with applying moral weight to whether someone is dateable. Even Adolf managed to have dates, but the average dateless slob that is complained about is multiple orders of magnitude less evil. This is because attraction is nearly orthogonal to whether someone is a good person.

Source: argumate gender politics

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

wirehead-wannabe

haraii haraii

christmas eve what about christmas adam

kowka kowka

happy christmas adam to all men’s rights activists

forfuturereferenceonly forfuturereferenceonly

Please stop pestering us with things like this. This has nothing to do with men fighting for their rights. Eve is short for ‘evening’. Please don’t turn activism into a joke. Thanks.

reindeerplaydate reindeerplaydate

Someone isn’t having a good christmas adam

theguilteaparty

Christmas Adam: December 23rd. Comes before Christmas Eve and is generally unsatisfying.

mitigatedchaos

Christmas Adam is like so many other jokes and “jokes” - it’s only funny when someone you know isn’t saying it as an attack is saying it. Otherwise it’s no better than… honestly I can’t think of a good gender-flipped example right now. Same thing with 95% of X Tears memes. If it’s a demographic being targetted and not something like “Console Peasant Tears”, then it isn’t really “ironic”, it’s just a flat-out attack against which they are permitted to defend themselves.

Source: zobb gender politics

ranma-official

Anonymous asked:

No one advocates corrective rape for asexual people. Corrective rape is used against gay men and lesbian women.

ranma-official answered:

No one except for the people who advocate it!

mitigatedchaos

Considering that refusing sex is still considered “abusive” in some institutional texts on relationships, it’s about as believable that the same sort of people who advocated “corrective” rape for gays and lesbians would advocate it for asexuals. If they don’t it’s probably because they’re unaware of asexuals, not that they actually respect them or their wishes.

gender politics rape cw

funereal-disease

the-real-seebs

Okay, I think this needs to be clarified, since apparently people have sort of overlooked it:

It does not matter whether someone’s reasons for not wanting to have sex with you are good enough. They get to say no. Period. No exceptions. You don’t get to attack them or shame them for it. They just get to say “no”. It doesn’t matter whether they’re being transphobic, or racist, or sexist, or whatever else you think is wrong with their reasons. It doesn’t matter whether they’re crass and shallow and materialistic, or holding the world to unreasonable standards, or anything else.

If someone doesn’t want to have sex with you, you do not get to harass them for being wrong.

iopele

if they don’t consent, that is the end of it!

funereal-disease

Caveat: you never get to harass someone for the act of saying no, but you can certainly call out any hurtful actions they take in the process of saying no. If someone says “of course I’d never fuck you, you [slur]”, it’s not wrong to say “I respect your ‘no’, but that was nasty and uncalled for.”

Source: the-real-seebs gender politics

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

More you might like

Polyamory Is Not Polygyny

Sex Shaming & Status War