Oceans Yet to Burn — silver-and-ivory: I’ve never been catcalled and...

silver-and-ivory

I’ve never been catcalled and it kind of bothers me. Like: why not? Am I just not dressing in the right way? Am I not going to the right places? What do I need to do to have this experience? I already walk home from school every day!

God but I kind of want to be catcalled, if I’m going to be mistaken for a woman at least I want to be a /desirable/ woman.

[insert standard disclaimer about catcalling not being fun]

mitigatedchaos

Might I propose that cat-calling frequency varies a lot by location and local population/culture?

gendpol

More you might like

flakmaniak

@mitigatedchaos how about this sci-fi take on gendpol:

“Men are indeed worse than women in various ways, more antisocial, violent etc…

And we have egg-combining technology so we can make a Lesbian Utopia…

HOWEVER, we should still keep the population at approximately 50:50… For the long-term psychological benefits of romantic interaction, given most women are straight.”

mitigatedchaos

You say this, but I already once did a fake nation writeup where they created a single-sex and it turned out terrible - not because they weren’t gay enough, but rather, because they embraced the worst aspects of both masculinity and femininity simultaneously. (And also, they would have been less bad off if they had just a few teaspoons of Feminism, but that wasn’t going to happen, for Reasons.)

gendpol

Anonymous asked:

I bet you hide your gender because you don't know what it is. Merely being a confused possibly trans person is too normie, I'm guessing there was some kind of mindwipe and on the right stimulus you'll trigger as 2x193ffhg or something, at which point the world is sufficiently Woke to handle such a true form.

Gender, on Tumblr, is a Discourse Attack Surface:

Woman? “Shut the fuck up, you sexist bitch.” “Hush, Karen,” and so on.
Man? Obviously you don’t understand the Lived Experiences of Womyn, you’re an oppressor, you’re coming from a place of privilege, et cetera.
Transwoman? You can’t be a true woman because you were socialized male, and therefore oppressor, at birth. (Or various right-wing criticisms.)
Transman? Why are you trying to become the oppressor gender, you delusional wannabe oppressor?
Nonbinary? Make up your mind / stop trying to escape your obligations to WOMEN

And so on.

Not providing it makes it more difficult for [discourse rival] to avoid engaging with the content of a post by writing it off as written by [enemy gender]. They still can, but they have to assume the gender to do so, which is a discourse liability.

But on some level, you’re right - it’s probably no accident that all my long-term exes are bisexual women of some kind or another.

gendpol still not revealing my gender transphobia cw mitigated future anons asks

diarrheaworldstarhiphop

Anonymous asked:

In response to the trans sex thing I don't think I'll ever understand why liberals are so obsessed with having sex with people who don't like them. It comes off as disingenuous and creepy. "You're not entitled to sex but I am"

diarrheaworldstarhiphop answered:

I mean, that’s pretty on the money in a way. Why should you be fixated on making someone have sex with you if they are inherently intolerant of you?

Unless like, you are a teenager and fucking assholes and getting heartbroken and abused by someone you want to disingenuously like you because of your obsession with the shallow trappings of being in a relationship with a cis person of the opposite sex is your thing.

Validation should come from peace with yourself than from the person who fucks you.

it’s like the guaranteed path to depression and chronic self-loathing.

mitigatedchaos

The lesser form is because there are guys that still flip out and kill people over it. If they go away it should trend downwards towards the more normal “you are wrong not to fuck me” stuff like with weight clothing etc.

gendpol

mitigatedchaos

Anonymous asked:

Why do the autistic rationalists get an exception from "poly is bad"?

mitigatedchaos answered:

When normies practice polygamy, what actually happens is polygyny. It is from polygyny that many of the worst consequences of polygamy arise. The domestic violence, the crowds of unwanted young men with no future and inadequate ties to society, and so on are what happens when polygamy is applied to ordinary gender stuff.

Autistic rationalists do not necessarily conform to the same gender conditions, being a bunch of (lovable!) weird nerds. (I am also a weird nerd, as evidenced by this very blog.)

It is important to understand thresholds of social behavior, which means that weird nerds practicing something does not have the same impact on society as everyone practicing something.

Likewise, exclusively gay men practicing polygamy would not create a mass gender imbalance in the dating ‘market’ that incentivizes bad behavior (including child marriages as desperate straight men try to secure access to women), because they are all gay, so they would not have dated women in the first place.

However, it isn’t politically possible to have “polygamy, but only for LGBTs and weird nerds”, so multiple marriage must remain banned at least until people have the ability to change their sex/sexual orientation cheaply and with few side effects.

Also, the situation where one man has eleven children by eight different women has enormous costs to society and must be discouraged.

Outright stopping poly people from engaging in non-marriage relationships, however, would be much more harmful than beneficial.

In the Transhuman Space Future, some of these conditions will no longer apply, and polygamy is much less of an issue.

mitigatedchaos

@kissingerandpals
I don’t think any of those are the problem with polygamy. The problem with polygamy is that it hurts people emotionally who brainwash themselves into going along with it.

My personal belief is that polyamory and high levels of promiscuity do actually work - for a small, select subset of people, who many people try to convince themselves they are a part of.

I think that the typical human being is more healthy not attempting to be poly, and not being highly promiscuous, and so I recommend not doing either, much like I would recommend limiting just how much porn one watches or how much alcohol one drinks, without banning either porn or alcohol.

gendpol

bambamramfan

Life Under Polyamory Ideology

bambamramfan

There’s a lot of… dialogue about monogamy vs polyamory these days, in our cosmopolitan little bubble. No one wants to tell others which lifestyle you should choose so I wouldn’t call it a debate, but there’s a great deal of defending “how your lifestyle works, and why you’re happy with it” that can’t save itself from becoming discourse about the two main options.

This happens enough that we fail to recognize that no, polyamory just won. We all live in its world now.

Or more accurately, we all live free of monogamous ideology now.

Case in point. I have a friend, and she’s monogamously committed to her boyfriend. Sure, she hangs out with a lot of other boys. She even visits them by herself, and crashes in their bed. She’s generous with hugs and other mild displays of physical affection to men. And she kind of pines after some specific men, wishing for greater emotional attachment. This isn’t even hidden, it’s all openly acknowledged. But, this is the definition of monogamy she and her SO have worked out.

The reaction of people from her social circle, the people from our general social bubble is “fine. Whatever works for the two of you. If that’s what you call monogamy, I have no reason to disagree with you.” There’s no call for us to try to strictly define what monogamy should mean for them.

Let me assure you, this is not how it would work under monogamous ideology. In a society where monogamy was the reigning lifestyle choice, it includes a specific definition of monogamy, and “being too touchy with other men” would definitely violate that. Even with her partner’s consent, she would be found guilty of breaking social taboos. (Which is basically how her non-cosmopolitan co-workers react.)

But none of us (which I assume includes most of my readers) give a fuck. Call yourself polyamorous, monogamish, what the fuck ever. As long as you both are happy what business is it of mine? And that is the true spirit of polyamory - anarchism towards society wide definitions of romantic relationships.

You might individually choose to snuggle with just one person, and hopefully can get that special person to agree. But it’s very different when that’s a private agreement between two people (one which can be altered at any time they want), than when it’s an arrangement coded and enforced by the whole social world. And we just don’t have that in liberal cosmopolitania any more.

After all, one of the main benefits of monogamy was that you don’t have to negotiate shit. You’re together, you’re just dating each other, these are the default rules, and for people who don’t want to process and explicitly lay out their preferences, this is a lot easier. But that’s gone now - any couple does have to figure out whether they are poly or mono, and even if they are mono, where they feel those boundaries lie, because ain’t no one else doing that regulating for them.

fierceawakening

I am… really really troubled by the idea that “monogamous ideology” exists. Or that if you don’t have a bad ideology, you have “poly ideology,” even if you have said “FUCK OFF, I’M NOT POLY” more than once.

Anti-poly ideology exists, yes.

But monogamy can mean anything from “I am attracted to one person at a time” to “I want three girlfriends but think God must hate me” to “more just sounds like a brain-breaking logistical nightmarish time suck, I’m good” to “you know, in practice I only ever dated one person at a time.”

The idea that that adds up to an ideology is why I… feel perhaps more suspicious than I should of loud poly people.

I don’t date one person at a time to spite people who don’t. I do it because I don’t like sensory overload.

bambamramfan

I feel you did not read this post.

The point is not “be monogamous or be polyamorous.”

The point is that ideology is a society wide phenomenon, and it is not located solely in the individual.

Under monogamous ideology, not only were most people monogamous (at least publicly), but what monogamy meant and enforcement of following this code was a public matter.

If you live in a bubble where polyamory is accepted now, then you also live in a bubble where no one is defining monogamy for you. You can make up the definition of monogamy to fit your relationship. It can include “cuddling other people is ok but no sex”, or hell, it can include “having sex with other people is okay but we still call it monogamy because we want to” and no one is really going to criticize you for that.

Guess what. This freedom is new. It’s a result of living under polyamory, which exists outside just the individual.

(It’s also a burden. It means when you start dating someone, you need to clarify whether your relationship is poly or mono, and if it’s mono what those boundaries are. You can no longer just assume the default rules. Some people understandably loathe this.)

Transitioning from “the rules of my romantic relationship are defined by the social structure around me” to “I get to / must choose the rules” is a big step. But it’s a culture-wide step, and can’t exist solely on the individual level, anymore than “I decide to have private property” is a decision solely by the individual. Both need the social structures that support them.

There’s no escaping this. It’s not saying “polyamory is an ideology yay”, but rather “your society is going to have an ideology about how much freedom people can expect in defining their relationships.” This has always been true, and will be true in the future.

You can say “FUCK OFF I’M NOT POLY” all you want, but I bet if your partner cheats on you none of your friends are going to immediately tell you (at least, as compared to how likely they were to under monogamy), because that’s now your business and not theirs to enforce. This is the anarchy I am talking about.

(And obviously, the current polyamory acceptance only exists in a few very specific bubbles, and monogamous ideology holds sway in most of America and the world still.)

mitigatedchaos

I can and will tell anyone if I find their partner cheating. I can and will ostracize people from my social groups for cheating. I can and will abandon anyone that knows if my partner is cheating and fails to inform me. Fuck the ideology. I’m physically instantiating my own reality, whether they want me to or not.

The people behind this shift have no idea what it is that they’re unleashing.

gendpol

the-grey-tribe

I was asked once “Why do you even want to have a girlfriend? What do you want to do with her? What do you want her to do?“

I replied “You know, the usual. You know?“

The guy who asked had a deep point to make, but I know he could not have answered this himself to his own satisfaction.

mitigatedchaos

“Redundancy,” I answered. “Two mammals are more likely to reach task completion than one, as their failures are unlikely to overlap, significantly boosting performance as compared to one mammal.”

“The real girlfriend is the girlfriend that was inside you all along,” I answered. He rolled his eyes at my pre-mocking of his deep point.

“Vulnerability,” I answered. “Relationships are a cycle of mutually-increasing vulnerability, something that is dangerous in this world, and intimate physical contact builds bonding and trust, in addition to creating mutual vulnerability.” He was silent for a moment, but then opened his his mouth. “Well, *Actually” he says…

shtpost gendpol

Anonymous asked:

Why do the autistic rationalists get an exception from "poly is bad"?

Autistic rationalists do not necessarily conform to the same gender conditions, being a bunch of (lovable!) weird nerds. (I am also a weird nerd, as evidenced by this very blog.)

It is important to understand thresholds of social behavior, which means that weird nerds practicing something does not have the same impact on society as everyone practicing something.

Also, the situation where one man has eleven children by eight different women has enormous costs to society and must be discouraged.

Outright stopping poly people from engaging in non-marriage relationships, however, would be much more harmful than beneficial.

In the Transhuman Space Future, some of these conditions will no longer apply, and polygamy is much less of an issue.

gendpol

kontextmaschine

trashgender-neurotica

kontextmaschine

like I’m supposed to respect genuine human connection from someone who couldn’t face me in a fair fight

mitigatedchaos

This is why all men date only wrestlers and MMA fighters, a practice I approve of in my quest to create the ultimate Brazilian Jiu Jitsu martial artist.

Source: trashgender-neurotica shtpost this is a joke gendpol supervillain

isaacsapphire

theage.com.au

Marrying down: why more women are doing it now

Hot news: it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single woman in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a husband.

Jenna Price

argumate

The reason? Women are now far more likely to be well-educated and earn more, but not the blokes with whom they mate. Yes, women are marrying down more than ever before. For men, it’s hypergamy, the concept of marrying above your station. Women are pitching their sights a lot lower, hypogamy. Both of these risk the long-term stability of relationships and the answer is monogamy. Joke. It’s actually homogamy. More about that later.

damn those hypergamous men!

seriously though these numbers require very careful handling

silver-and-ivory

regression to the mean

(actually this is the exact example used by Thinking, Fast and Slow)

2357911131719

Is regression to the mean sufficient as an explanation? If we assume that marriage partners aren’t selected for income at all, we’d expect women to marry up more than they married down due to the pay gap, so it seems to me that there remains something to be explained when we find that the exact opposite is occurring.

isaacsapphire

Have you accounted for the higher rates of both incarceration and homosexuality in men? Oh, and dying off faster too. Basically, there are fewer “eligible” men than women.

mitigatedchaos

Hmn… no doubt this situation will be described as sexist later on. (”A net transfer of wealth to men! How dare they! Where have all the good men gone!”) Though while in my extended family an executive married a blue collar man, said blue collar man was still a very manly type (and fairly sharp, had his own business at one point). Big, tall, works with his hands, likes hunting and fishing, and other things I can’t quite describe.

(Unlike a few other members of the extended family, I approved of this relationship. He’s a pretty good guy. Trustworthy.)

I’ve talked about women wanting status in men, and I think the trick is actually in that gender segregation of professions everyone hates so much. If the career track has no women in it, or few women in it, then it still works for proving masculinity even if it’s low-earning. (It’s a status track that he’s further along that she isn’t, as compared to her being better than him at literally everything.)

Though now I’m wondering about the death rates of lesbians and bisexual women relative to men.

Source: argumate gendpol