it is actually really annoying that feminist porn requires so much emotional labor from its performers. like, I don’t really care if it is your authentic and empowered sexuality, I think it is weird and entitled to think that I as a porn consumer deserve to have access to your authentic and empowered sexuality, I just want to pay for some porn where I can feel confident that the workers earned a decent wage and weren’t coerced into anything.
Sometimes irony hurts.
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.
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.
(”Straight men have a thing for women, it’s terrible! They pigeonhole them as either submissive delicate flowers or raging tough bitches and exotify them in ways which contribute to an oppressive culture of-” oh wait that’s Asian women, sorry got my stereotype stereotypes mixed up there for a second).
I mean that’s kind of true according to that frame without the readjustment to a subgroup at the end. There are people that treat male heterosexuality like it is some sort of perverse and oppressive kink for itself, and that’s before we get into “everyone is secretly bi” territory.
It really seems like a lot of the resistance to sex positivity comes from a desire to be able to appeal to a set of socially agreed-upon standards rather than do the work of asserting boundaries. Or, less charitably, out of a desire to artificially increase your dating pool by making people feel like they’re morally obligated to adhere to your standards for a desirable partner.
Higher partner count correlates with lower marriage success rate. Men have also had to deal with paternal uncertainty for millenia. Both are going to have a warping effect. And women are still so protected that men cannot unilaterally order a paternity test in France, so that isn’t going away.
the camgirl discourse is interesting because it bumps into all these subterranean intuitions about women lacking power and moral agency which date back to when women were explicitly denied power and moral agency, plus the usual slut-shaming which typically lies beneath a thin veneer of weak sex positivity.
so when women choose to do sex work as independent operators without the traditional threat of male violence (pimps, street harassment, cops) and use the internet to cut out the middleman and simultaneously keep their customers at a safe distance, it completely upsets the apple cart.
the result tends to be discourse flailing around trying to find a patriarchal reason for why they feel compelled to engage in sex work in the first place, instead of doing something more meaningful and rewarding and yes less slutty dammit
Legalize prostitution, ban adultery.
Now, more seriously, online, gender presentation is a sign of social intent. Under Transhumanism, it can become a sign of social intent as well, but that will change what it means into something new. Fascinating, tbh.
Ok but this is actually the most succinct argument on why the friend zone is bad I’ve ever seen
Succinct and wrong.
Men (and women! who do exist!) who complain about being stuck in the friend zone aren’t lamenting that it’s shitty to have friends who are the gender they’re attracted to but who aren’t romantic or sexual partners; they’re lamenting that it’s shitty to *not have any romantic and)or sexual partners*, even if they have friends (of the gender they’re attracted to or otherwise).
And some people who engage in such lamentation have shitty views about the psychology of the opposite sex. Some have views that aren’t particularly shitty, but are simply *factually wrong*. And some don’t.
(The tendency of some people, mainly women, to explain their lack of romantic interest in very “ladder theory”–like terms in a misguided attempt to “let ‘em down easy” is pretty clearly the fundamental cause of many of the incorrect ideas here, although at this point a number of them have taken on a life of their own, sometimes in strange, mutant forms. In fact, I’d argue that ladder theory is nothing more than what you get when a bunch of straight men take multiple straight women’s “white lies” at face value, and then (over)generalize the resulting conclusions from “many women, including all the ones I’ve gotten up the courage to ask out, are like this” to “all women are like this.” But that’s a distinctly secondary point.)
I would rather (continue to) have any of my female friends as friends than not have them as any of friends, sexual partners , or girlfriends. If this weren’t the case, I wouldn’t be friends with them in the first place.
But out of those of them who aren’t close relatives, underage, or taken, I would still prefer to have *any* of them as friends + (happy) girlfriends and/or sex partners (ideally both) than as friends alone, absent specific and compelling reasons not to. I’m frankly kind of confused as to why anyone (who is sexually attracted to women) wouldn’t.
That doesn’t imply that I don’t value their friendship, absent anything more! It doesn’t even suggest it!
And yes, it is frustrating that some of these women like me as a friend, are single, *and* are attracted to men, and yet don’t want to at least give dating and/or having sex with me a shot to see how they (and I) like it. If I imagine their brains as working similarly to mine as regards romantic and sexual desire, then it seems like they logically should. But in fact, they don’t. And that is what being in the friend zone means, fundamentally, and it does, in fact, suck. It sucks *less* than having neither (platonic) female friends nor a girlfriend — precisely because I *do* value their friendship, even if it will never lead to anything more — but it still sucks.
And the more you try to argue that it doesn’t, and that only some caricature of am entitled misogynist would think that it does, the more you’re going to (1) hurt decent people who don’t in any way deserve that and (2) drive the people you’re hurting into the arms of your anyone that’s willing to risk bring called the full litany of feminist insults to take a stand against you.
If you’re *lucky*, that will be someone like me, or @slatestarscratchpad, or @theunitofcaring, or @funereal-disease. Someone, in short, who recognizes the cyanide in your Kool-Aid for what it is, and who believes in egalitarianism and basic human decency.
But if you’re not, it will be redpillers, or worse.
And yeah, a guy who *lets* himself be driven into the arms of redpillers is morally responsible for that. But you sure as hell bear some responsibility too.
Tumblr funnymen: omg gamer dudes are the absolute worst and garbage pedophile and they sexuallize characters
Meanwhile in the shipping side of tumblr:
“Let’s turn all friendship and emotional intimacy between men into a sign of androsexuality (even though anecdotal reports indicate that straight women are not interested in bisexual men).”
Like, I get that the fujoshis love to ship men, that’s okay, but a healthy media marketplace will contain examples of men deeply relating to each other that are entirely straight, even though it will also include gay men.
I see posts like if you are a WOMAN attracted RUBY ROSE then you are not a LESBIAN because she is GENDERFLUID and I’m like hmm, that creates a weird quantum dependency between attraction and gender identity.
See you in the club and think damn, that person is hot. But wait, I don’t know their gender identity, which means my own sexuality is now a mystery to me!
Awkwardly, you are also attracted to me, and feel your gender identity shifting to take into account this new and unforeseen attraction! Except you don’t know my gender identity, leaving you stranded in ambiguity.
Tragically we lose sight of each other in the crowd, and never see each other again, leaving our sexualities indeterminate for all time.
legitimately could not tell if “ruby rose” was referring to a real person or a gem fusion
this is Tumblr, it could go either way.
I want to complain about people who send messages containing only ‘hi’ or something similar. This happens mostly on dating sites, but it happens on Tumblr too.
Like, what do you think will happen? Do you think I will also say ‘hi’ back and then you will be like ‘how are you’ and I will be like ‘pretty good how about you’ and you will be like ‘i like your stuff’ and I will be like ‘your blog is pretty cool too’ and then you will be like ‘yeah lol’ and i will be like ‘do you wanna have sex’?
It’s annoying, but it’s better than those people who don’t send messages at all, and just expect to receive them.
Disagree unless they can actually make that expectation relevant to you.
There was a hilarious dating site a while ago (whose name I forgot and which might well still exist) where the concept was that only women could initiate conversation. The consequence was that women would send hot men empty messages so they could initiate.
Apparently reality is more exaggerated than even my own beliefs.
