HighResolutionSleep
No bio...
User ID: 172
As @raggedy_anthem says below, the sexual revolution was mainly about sexual freedom for men, and any consequences - positive or negative - for women weren't something its proponents cared much about.
Do you have any pieces of evidence to back this up? I've always known sexual liberation to have sprung forth from women's liberation movements as a means of freeing women's sexuality from the heel of men's control, and all the sources I can find seem to support this. It seems to require some justification to suppose that, despite the sexual revolution happening coincident with women's liberation and promoted by a lot of the same people that it's actually men who did it.
I mean, I've long suspected that something like this would happen—backed by seemingly naked reasoning that since it's benefiting men at the expense of women (it isn't—we're just blind to social costs to men in general), that it must have therefore been perpetrated by them. And, like, not all feminists were thrilled about it. It's exactly what I imagined while doomdreaming in English 3 all those years ago, which is weird.
Some men, and I think this is in part behind some of the 'incel' subculture or identity, have seemingly realized that the sexual revolution's free for all buffet clearly often applies primarily to the highest status/most attractive men in a kind of highly unequal romantic economy. But that doesn't mean they didn't 'want it'.
You have never set foot in or read any thinking generated by any incel community—please stop spreading misinformation about what they believe. They have been unambiguously skeptical about the sexual liberation and its consequences for reasons similar if not identical to yours for over a decade now—far before it became a borderline mainstream curiosity—back when they were a nameless, nascent subculture on r9k 1.0. I don't know how long you've been woke on this, but chances are good that's longer than you.
Anyways, while I'm feeling so goddamn ahead of the curve, I'll share my next prophecy: I see little skirmishes going on right now between fringe groups on Twitter about pornography use and how comparable it is to sexual promiscuity in terms of how debasing to one's sexual purity it is. This argument is the future. Right-wingers don't yet know it, but in the coming years they will be joining forces with feminists on this topic. As sexual mores continue to tighten here in straightsville and monogamy becomes more in vogue again, pristine male virgins will start to wonder aloud why they are being asked so expectantly why they aren't hitching it with ran-through born again virgins. Since for many cultural reasons we can't turn the clocks back to virginity being a female-only phenomenon, we'll be in need of a modern, horse-driven-car-frame solution, which this false equivocation offers.
"You defected too, anon."
While (many) women obviously enjoy sex, a cursory glance at even the smuttiest romance fiction easily leads to the conclusion that simply having sex, even with a very attractive man, is not really the attraction for women in the way the inverse is for men. [...] Most young women are not, even 50 years after the sexual revolution, fantasising about fucking around, which is pretty telling.
I simply don't understand how it's possible to persist this belief in a post-Fifty Shades world. Then again, it's become clear to me how impossible it is to dislodge highly load-bearing beliefs with facts, even it's something like the best selling book ever written by human hands. I'd say "excluding religious texts", but it's unclear to me that Fifty Shades of Gray isn't the religious text for the female sexual id. I suppose it's easy for me to see it that way, because I was never burdened with the Female Sexual Purity myth. You see, my secondary stomping grounds as a curious teenager was Tumblr, and if you knew where to look (which I did), you could hear what teenage girls were saying when they thought no one was listening.
And let me tell you, it's rather difficult to maintain an image of girls being somehow "less sexual" or even "more pure" by the time you're not even surprised any more to stumble across a thread with dozens of them waxing licentious about all the ways in which they would love to let fictional video game villain Sephiroth Ragnarok destroy their pussy. I was well aware at the time that a lot of this was essentially femmechismo—girls' locker room talk—but we've never let such considerations get in the way of how we perceive boys and men.
What wasn't as clear to me at the time was how universal this sort of thing actually was and is—but then, of course, Shades happened.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
They weren't married before or after all the fucking they did in the first novel, which is the one that sold so well.
HighResolutionSleep
8mo ago
How much money does the Federal Emergency Management Agency need to be allocated before it starts having some left over with which to manage federal emergencies?
I believe that as much as I believe that guys watch PornHub for the plot.
The key thing to observe here is that Twilight, the version without the hot sex, was outsold by Fifty Shades, the version with the hot sex.
Are you going to tell me that the romance was that much better?
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
I've been seeing this rhetoric from certain factions of the right recently, but now I suppose it's being espoused by someone whose attention may be accessible to me—so maybe you can help me out understanding this one.
Who, pray tell, is the audience for this statement? Cads who are looking to get married and start a family? Married men who are looking to fuck around?
What is the thesis of this rant? "Sorry fellas, as long as there are promiscuous men out there, your married ass can't expect fair treatment from family courts."
I am deeply confused.
HighResolutionSleep
15d ago
Men who were elected mostly by women. Who want gibs.
This "women never do anything" perspective is one of the major pillars holding the status quo in place.
HighResolutionSleep
10mo ago
I think this is a good description of the story the modern blue tribe tells about itself, and if it were true to form I'd probably have less of a bone to pick with that side of the isle's treatment of my sex. But like many autobiographies, it gives itself too much credit.
I think you'll find that in practice, very little scorn is offered to wives who decide for themselves that having another baby is "right for her", and very little lenience to husbands who aren't prepared to quickly get with that program.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
sitting here with the horrifying realization that between its natively predictive-generative nature and massively expanded context window if i really wanted to and didn't care i could probably feed some logs into claude-3 and talk to her again
HighResolutionSleep
7d ago
One word that has more or less dropped out of common parlance is seducer. It means, roughly, a man who lures women in on false pretenses.
Big problem with this analysis and those like it: these men don't seem to be promising anything, like at all, and these women are still laying with them.
I understand what is supposed to happen. My concern is what happens when something goes wrong.
Blue tribe is happy to hand wave away men's vulnerability to women's overwhelming reproductive power as "biological" in origin. I am unsure how biology writes our laws in any sense other than the most reductive and worthless—but on the other hand, I am not opposed to the implementation of cultural protections in lieu of legal ones where the latter may be too unwieldy. Blues would insist that any legal protection for men is impossible to practically implement. I may mostly disagree, but I can see how it might be hard to implement within a marriage context. Cultural protections may be appropriate here.
The problem is that this form of protection isn't offered to men by blue tribe in nearly enough volume to justify the power differential. Blue tribe culture may be willing to condemn reproductive coercion of men by women as being kinda mean, and wag a finger at women who do it, but that isn't nearly enough, and proves that blues don't really care about this abuse of power.
If we're taking this seriously, reproductive coercion of men by women really ought to be considered at a similar level of transgression as infidelity. This is a good example of a love crime that we do actually take quite seriously, and offer serious cultural protection against in lieu of legal protection. If we were to apply this kind of protection as a safeguard against women's reproductive power, things would look very, very different. It would look like blue tribe looking at a sobbing woman whose husband left her because she tried forcing another baby on him dead in the face, and, shedding no pity whatsoever, assuring her that all this ruin is only what she wrought upon herself. It would look like, in the other timeline, blue tribe lionizing a husband as downright saintly for finding it in himself to forgive this kind of transgression, given to an individual wholly undeserving of mercy, even if the true intended beneficiaries are the children.
But in the current blue milieu, unexpected babies in marriage are something that just kinda happen. Like, it's a little bad if the woman is being deceptive, but comon dude, shit happens. You need to move on and focus on making room for the new kid. I don't even want to know how much of the asshole he would be if he up and left due to this betrayal. Sticking around is simply being a decent human being and awards no cookies.
Again, I'd have less of a bone to pick with Blue Culture if the protections it claims to offer to men were real, but as it stands right now calling it a fig leaf would be offering too much credit.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Yes, there are a thousand differences between the two novels—but let's not be silly here. Porn isn't a feature you take or leave with a piece of media. It's either primarily what you want or you don't consume the material. It's not a matter of statistical chance that the most popular piece of women's media ever is such a hardcore piece of smut.
There is no Playboy for women.
Sure, and there's no Fifty Shades for men. Girl lust and boy lust don't look exactly the same but there's no reason to think that one is inherently more conducive to monogamy than the other.
Look, I’m not claiming women are “purer” or uninterested in sex.
Okay, so what's your point in objecting to anything I said? Well that's obvious: because you do disagree that women are no more pure in their sexual intent. You just spent the previous paragraph praising the virtues of women's sexual gaze, how it's all about relationships and all that. We're talking about non-monogamy and its consequences for the human race. You posted about how specifically men's sexual vices are destroying our societies—the vice of sexual liberalism and the men who pushed it for their own gain: the gain of having less attached sex with women. The gain that men got at the expense of women. Men's ill-gotten gain against women.
Do you think I'm stupid?
HighResolutionSleep
8mo ago
What I'm asking is how much money do we need to shovel into this organization before it starts having enough left over after migrant expenses for hurricane response. The money we're allocating now isn't enough for the hurricane budget after other expenses. How much more money do we need to give before there's enough?
I don't think people do actually have much sympathy for a woman whose partner leaves her because she wants a(nother) child and he doesn't. It's just an unfortunate irreconcilable difference.
Let's keep things in scope and specify that this is happening within an otherwise stable marriage and there's an unexpected pregnancy. If you're still willing to assert this, I'm open to reviewing evidence, but as it stands I'm believing my own eyes.
He's still financially responsible for any children he produces, though.
I'd like to point out that men don't produce children, but I realize that the definition of "producing" always shuffles around based on who and whom. When it's calculating who bears the most bodily cost and therefore who ought to have the say, she's doing the producing. When it comes to who pays, well it bears his genes so it's 50-50. (Even if he said no to the sex, because why not.)
That's an ever-present potential consequence of having sex that both parties have to live with.
It's a risk for one party, but a choice for the other. I will continue to point this out until I am blue in the face, shouting into the abyss, probably until the day I die.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
As others have noted, the sexual revolution is slowly being reversed
Anything but. We're not witnessing the "reverse-engineering traditional sexual norms". They're reverse-engineering the half where men are 100% responsible for everything that happens before, during, and after sex. That's it.
Notice that there's no restrictions on women or power over them by men being "rediscovered". It's just the parts where men are responsible for everything.
If it was mine, I deleted it because on second read I didn't feel like it added a whole lot to the conversation and was essentially navel-gazing. Here it was, just in case:
Need a quick vibe check on this. I don't know if I was reverse Born in Le Wrong Generation, but I feel like the world has always been like this. Or, rather, this is the only world I have ever known. But I'm saying this as someone who came of age in the late 2000s, and am what would be probably considered an oldhead by most youth.
Was I ahead of the awfulness curve? Or does intergenerational understanding really take decades to percolate upward?
It's funny, as I make this post I got an e-mail response from a job application telling me in automated corpospeak that, yes, my resume is being reviewed by an AI bot and yes, I will be ghosted if she doesn't like it.
I applied to this job not because I really need it, but because I am essentially a perfect fit that checks 14/15 boxes on their Preferred Qualifications wish list. Funny to think their unicorn candidate might not even get a screening call because they are too lazy to review resumes.
Or maybe it isn't that. Maybe they won't reach me because they are flooded with resumes that look just like mine, not because there are so many people like me out there, but because so many are using their own AI bot to generate the perfect resume for every job in a 100 mile radius and aren't particularly concerned if they're full of lies.
What a horrifying tragedy of the commons. While it's always been horrible, I'll agree that things have clearly gotten worse. Somethings gotta give. Regulation, or something. In the meantime, maybe this is a good indicator that it's time to abandon any remaining vestige of K-selected application strategy, no matter how promising the outlook.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Eye-opening event. Seeing some mantras being repeated that I simply can't believe:
-
You can't expect her to stop being a bachelorette simply because you married her.
-
It's "controlling behavior" to have standards in a relationship.
Anyways, shoutouts to this whole debacle for rekindling my fear of women, and quenching my fear of missing out.
HighResolutionSleep
10mo ago
I can't say I have seen your scenario often enough to say who's right about frequency of reactions
I'm willing to agree to disagree on this point. Your reaction provides a good enough working example.
my opinion if an otherwise stable marriage ended because she suddenly decided she wants a child and he doesn't would be "I'm sorry, that sucks" to both parties.
Right, and I'm saying that's not good enough and proves you're unserious about protecting men from women's disproportionate reproductive power. Your reaction to this abuse of power needs to not be "oopsies, oh well shit happens", but rather, "you suck, fuck you".
As for risk and choice, it's obviously a risk for both parties.
No, it is a choice for women. A baby does not fall out of a woman's uterus immediately after sex. It is the finished product of a long and in this day and age deliberate process, that only one party has any official control over. This reality simply cannot be rhetorically smoothed over and ignored.
(And if "he said no to the sex" - are you talking about a man being raped by a woman and having to pay child support? I guess that has happened a time or two. About as often as a woman having a rapist's baby and having to share custody, perhaps.)
Sure, and notice how that the cavalry arrived for one of these people and not the other. This is a cultural problem.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Really? No posts on Wellness Wednesday? Any wellers in chat?
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
The double standard is one enforced by biology.
It's really strange how when this subject comes up so many people transform into BASED proponents of natural law.
Rape should be legal. Why would men be stronger than women if it wasn't to physically dominate them?
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
She's a 10, there's absolutely nothing wrong with her, you managed to bring her home with you, and she's a little tipsy. But you just noticed that on your bookshelf behind her there's an exposed and visible hardcover copy of Ted Cruz's Unwoke. What do you do?
HighResolutionSleep
15d ago
Your point being?
HighResolutionSleep
2mo ago
Every indication is that every effort was made to give this man due process, and that a procedural shortcoming prevented the third opinion from preventing the deportation.
If the cops pick me up and toss me in jail because they have a warrant for my arrest they didn't know was cancelled, my due process rights are not being violated. I am a victim of a procedural deficiency. To say that my right to due process has been violated would be incorrect.
When you combine this with the sensational rhetoric of "this could happen to anyone" etc, this incorrectness becomes undeniably malicious. It is a lie.
People are telling this lie because they want to paint the image of the Trump administration as an unhinged and tyrannical force. People getting the wrong idea when hearing these lies is a feature, not a bug.
HighResolutionSleep
3mo ago
It's not obvious to me that the European states are, or to my knowledge ever were, interested in behaving like good vassals to the American empire.
My mental model of 'vassalage in all but name' is the Warsaw pact. If the USSR asked one of its satellites for eggs, then my understanding is that you'd damn well better have sent them some eggs.
I also can't imagine that the Soviet empire would have tolerated its vassals becoming any shade of friendly with capitalist states.
HighResolutionSleep
10mo ago
By "abuse of power" are you talking about a woman who baby-traps an unwilling man with a surprise pregnancy
Any time a woman in a marriage decides to go and have a baby without mutual consent. Sure, for reasons of bodily autonomy or whatever she can still choose to betray the privileged trust of marriage and stab him in the back, but the cultural and social consequences for exercising this choice need to be dire.
As for your edge cases, no, the most extreme and unlikely scenarios you can imagine are not societal problems.
Let's keep things on rails: I said that the broader reaction to it is a cultural problem, which is anything but an "edge case". Not the anomalous event itself.
They don't. They are simply lying. Yes, it is my belief that to say Garcia was "denied due process" is a lie.
I spent the first few days or so believing that the Trump administration had simply picked up someone off the street who looked brown enough to be an illegal immigrant and sent them off to El Salvamo without so much as a leaf of paperwork. No due process. No oversight.
I was lied to, and the lies had their intended effect of planting a false understanding of the facts into my mind. "This could happen to any citizen!" Please.
I'm most disappointed in myself. After eight years of this shit I still haven't learned to assume every negative thing I hear about Trump is an outright lie until I see it with my own eyes.
More options
Context Copy link