Nerd
I had sex with a vacuum, it sucked.
User ID: 1024
Nerd
21d ago
There is something that bothers me about watching progressive/feminist content on youtube, especially regarding the topic of objectification, and its particularly emphasized in this video, as follows:
So if something doesn't serve a purpose (nudity and sex scenes), it's clear the only purpose it serves is to scratch an itch of the artists. This is something called Chekhov's gun, which is a storytelling principle that says if a gun is shown on screen, it must be fired later in the story. And if it isn't, the filmmaker made a promise to the audience that they didn't keep.
It's absolutely the same with female nudity and violence on screen. If it serves no artistic purpose, then the sole purpose becomes the objectification of women and the normalization of violence.
You know, like that scene where Cassie (Refering to the show euphoria) turns into a giant. Absolutely unnecessary. And it's completely inconsistent with the show's genre, which has no magical elements up until that point. We already got the point that Cassie is defined by her breasts from the 15-minute montage leading up to that scene and the other 200 shots of her naked throughout the show. Like, we got it, right? We got that point.
We actually didn't need you to bend the genre of the show in order to show her boobs in a giant form. In general, the amount of unnecessary nudity and the way that the camera lingers on women's naked bodies, or bodies in general, is beyond what is needed to make the point that they're in a lurid, exploitative industry.
To rehash for someone not familiar, objectification is defined as: the act of treating a person as an object, a commodity, or a tool, rather than as a whole human being with their own agency, feelings, and rights. The most common form, (sexual) occurs when a person is reduced to a mere object of sexual desire. It often involves judging someone solely based on their physical attributes or breaking their body into separate, "consumable" parts (e.g., focusing only on legs or a torso).
The main issue here is that this idea, at least on the surface is that it seems to be fundamentally in conflict with the the sexual revolution and sex positivity of many previous & current progressive movements. Pornography, prostitution, and strip clubs all fit the objectification bill quite neatly, and the data seems to support the authors argument that "sexual objectification" leads to or plays some role in many of these harms:
Sex workers are a vulnerable group of individuals that experience sexual violence on the job, but it is difficult and limiting for workers to report their assault (Sex Workers Project, 2020). Sex workers are adults who receive money or goods in exchange for consensual sexual acts. According to research, globally, sex workers have a 45% to 75% chance of experiencing sexual violence on the job (Sex Workers Project, 2020).
I struggle to see how these individuals may square this perspective that sex work is valid, despite fitting the bill of objectification. Perhaps there is something I'm missing?
Nerd
30d ago
Yeah, that's the plan. I will say this though: I don't want to have children, then have them deal with poverty or a bad mothers. I'd need to find: 1) A good job (working on that, almost there hopefully) 2) finding a women who'd be a good mom (I'll do that once I find the job).
Reproduce, yes. But it should be done responsibly.
Nerd
30d ago
Meh, kind of. But its not like not being able to find someone is all that bad either. Single and non married are a significant and rising portion of the population. At this point, its fairly normal, even if it doesn't give the same social brownie points.
Nerd
30d ago
Why avoid relationships for this? You can just get the tubes tied or snipped in that case.
Nerd
1mo ago
I agree with this for those who actually dont want to have children, however as far as a childless world goes - the main reason for this is because people are not getting into relationships or having sex in the first place. So any policy that tackles childlessness needs to tackle why people arent pairing up to begin with. Perhaps thats an aside, but still something worth pointing out.
Nerd
1mo ago
This actually a really good write up, and not something I thought about. I dont think mothers get a worse deal, but they are definitely under appreciated!
Nerd
1mo ago
that it would be unclean and abominable for anyone to invade or modify your body without your consent
And yet, fascinatingly enough, female genital mutilation is considered evil and immoral, but circumcision is regularly practiced. Tells me all I need to know about the "body is a temple" argument.
Nerd
1mo ago
If a maniac demanded that you rape your preteen daughter or else he'd kill your family, what would you choose?
Its intresting, because I think rape (particularly child rape) might just be a special case. If it was "let me harvest your daughters lung and kidney" or "let me chop off your sons leg", you might get greyer results. And in most cases, as far as I'm aware, murder is punished more severly than organ harvesting, and its about equal to rape in terms of maximum sentencing. The psychological effects of rape are probably what make it really bad, not necessarily the violation of bodily autonomy.
Nerd
1mo ago
And weirdly enough, their logic is looking to actually become true in the near future if AGI and full automation actually happens. Each new person really does just become someone else to share the robots with in that scenario. Why would you ever want to encourage the population to grow if that just means you have to share more?
Would having to share even be relevant at that point? You could probably produce enough resources to satisfy pretty much everyone. We already produce enough food to solve world hunger several times over. The pie isn't some limited resource.
"The Russians are coming right now to destroy our country" is an obvious immediate direct threat. If we don't fight right now, it's over as a nation.
Meanwhile "in the next few generations we'll have the same population we did a few decades ago" both isn't obvious or immediate, and to many people isn't even seen as a threat.
Those individuals are wrong in my eyes. South Korea is on track to lose 85% of its population. This is pretty catastrophic, and has negative implications going forward primarily with civilizational downscaling like @professorgerm & @gattsuru has explained. And there isn't much reason to believe that not gonna keep going down the toilet.
For an analogy, here is how i see this. The draft is like getting a seizure, birth rates are like a being obese & eating unhealthy. Obviously, you need to treat a seizure right then there to save the person. But being obese, even if it doesn't end you immediately, is still something you ought to curve because obesity will catch up to you eventually.
But even besides the negative consequences, its just a net bad to see humans and families dwindle, in the same way many mourn and are sad about extinct animals.
Nerd
1mo ago
To me this reads like another of those situations where a hypothetical burden on men, regardless of its actualization, is used to justify oppressing women in a way that does not seem, to me, very justifiable.
According to pew research, Men do feel the pressures of masculinity as mentioned, and they are punished more by society for stepping out the gender expectations. (And yes, women do have the whole "expectations to an involved parent" situation, but I'd wager thats more for a person already in the parenthood position - not having the kids itself.)
The primary point of what bothers me here is this: If you want to remove gendered roles and expectations, ok, we can discuss that (not something I'd agree with but still). But it seems to me that many don't want to be rid of the "patriarchy" and gender norms in reality. Switzerland, for example, had an opportunity to remove the draft via ballot measure, it failed. People like gender norms when it benefits them (or when they benefit women), and actively dislike them when they hurt them (or women). It basically ends in a situation where mens rights are up for grabs, while womens are off limits, because reasons.
Its "justifiable" if you look at it from a fairness standpoint. Either everyone has gendered roles and expectations or no one does.
And for the record here, I'm not in agreement with any crazy islamic style patriarchy, if thats your primary concern.
Nerd
1mo ago
Meh, I kinda see what you’re saying. But going to war and fighting is probably a lot worse morally and on the psyche compared to raising a child.
Nerd
1mo ago
I've been really thinking about this tweet.
Forcibly draft men to die for their country and no one bats an eye
Suggest that women have children for their country and suddenly everyone starts freaking out
We can force men to die, but can't even ask women to become mothers
This point is interesting, and I think rather noteworthy. There were many protests over the Vietnam conscription, Muhammad Ali's being the most famous example, so perhaps saying no backlash at all is a bit hastey. And who could forget our poor friends in Ukraine.
Still, I think she raises an interesting point. Most men still, (both legally and socially). Have to abide by the traditional man script. And this pressure is more on them then womens end of the social contract, which (from what I can see) is basically non existent.
Now the easiest explanation for this double standard is probably just gender bias: we simply have less empathy for men as a whole.
The way I see it, there are a couple of plausible solutions to make things for fair or consistent(any additional ones are welcome):
-
Gender "Equality". Extend "bodily autonomy" rights (for those who are actually consistent and believe in the concept, as a side note, I believe this is just a silly excuse) to men and end the draft, eliminate male disposability. Both men and women ask each other out. Stop valueing men as pure economic units. Men aren't wallets or soldiers, their people! Ect. Basically "Masculism" or some variation of MRA movement.
-
Extend the social contract obligations to women, and all that entails. Basically bring back some (or all) of the "patriarchy".
From what I can tell, 1 has kinda been tried, and has basically failed, probably due to the gender bias mentioned. I imagine Lauren favors the 2nd option, (& I kinda do). Implementing it may be unrealistic, however, due to various political and environmental constraints. I think realistically though, we are probably gonna have take a hard examination at the female end of the social contract at some-point, when birth rates and their implications become more severe and un-ignorable. Maybe we get lucky technology bails us out, but fundementally, I find the prospect of a society with no children, no families, etc, to be deeply dystopian.
I think one thing conscription shows (and the fact that many societies have it) is that, no society really wants to cease to exist. Nor should we. There is something valuable about societies existing, and continuing on into the future, even if we have to make some sacrifices for it. I think one can make a case (and many indeed do!) for extending some modified version of the social contract/roles to women. I've been deep thought about if societies might attempt this in the future, or what a modified variation of feminine roles/obilgations would look like. What do you think?
But why shouldn't you ban weapons that are easily concealable, much more destructive or have some other bad property that doesn't increase their productive use?
Many of these weapons can also be used for self defense. My ex girlfriend has a revolver at home that she actually had to use once to protect herself from sexual assault. I think if one lives in a dangerous area or is particularly vulnerable having a concealed weapon is beneficial.
Nerd
1mo ago
I mean, if you take a look at the evidence, far more people die of handguns than the big bad rifles you see used in those shootings. Even if someone could mow down 100's of people hypothetically, thats not really something that happens statistically. 5 guys killing 2 or 3 with a revolver every now and again happens way more often than one dude mowing down 25 people and you'd be saving far more if you just banned hand guns.
Nerd
1mo ago
A simple argument against gun control.
For context here, they are playing chess.
Mr. Terrific: I’m trying to map the multiverse. There are infinite Earths, each with their own history based on choices our other selves have made.
Mr. Terrific: So what do you need?
Superman: More of your T-Spheres.
Mr. Terrific: May I ask why?
Superman: I want to get rid of guns.
Mr. Terrific: For use around the world 24×7, you’d need to replicate the T-Spheres on a massive scale.
Superman: I’m only concerned about one. Actually, while we designate our Earth “Earth One,” it stands to reason that our other selves would do the same. Interesting, don’t you think?
Mr. Terrific: Still, you could never get rid of all the guns.
Superman: But most. You know we could.
Mr. Terrific: Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. People would resent us.
Superman: And they’d be alive to do that. Check. Think of the lives we’d save.
Mr. Terrific: Check. Smoking.
Superman: What?
Mr. Terrific: Cigarettes kill far more people. People keep smoking even though they know what’s killing them. Their families can only watch them die, and you want to save lives?
Jail everyone who smokes. Check.
And imprison anyone who speeds. Traffic fatalities are huge. Check.
Lock up everyone who leaves a dangerous dog unchained. Check.
Finally, we kill anyone who doesn’t recycle. Checkmate.
Superman: You’re not going to help me, are you?
Mr. Terrific: No sir, I am not.
I find this reasoning really interesting, because Mr.Terrific points out how selective much of the things that are being banned for killing people actually is.
Here are some other weapons that are banned or restricted in certain states in the US, and some countries:
Switchblades, butterfly knives are banned in places like the UK, and in some states like Minnesota & Massachusetts.
Brass Knuckles are banned in about 20 states, also in the UK and Canada.
The real issue I have with these bans and restrictions on guns, and even brass knuckles or knives, is that, the outrage seems to be selective. You can probably find pocket knives that'll do the job stabbing someone to death fairly easily, you could do it with a hunting knife or a kitchen knife. You could beat someone to death with a baseball bat, (or hell, you could make brass knuckles out of some nuts from Home Depot). And as stated, some of these kill far more people than other things, that are actually meant to harm, per the fbi, a kitchen knife has likely killed more people than brass knuckles have (for this, we'll say brass knuckles would probably fall into the "blunt objects" category). And as stated by Terrific, smoking kills far more than guns.
Perhaps the argument here is just to say: Look, bro, hunting knives - tobacco - cars, etc, aren't meant to kill people, so we aren't as interested in targeting them, but thats not personally how I judge (or others) would judge these situations. If I have a psychopath, who stabs someone to death with a kitchen knife vs one who does it with a switchblade. I'm not looking to judge them off the murder weapon in a trial. The dead person before me is what actually matters. Why should we care about the means of death? Its the ends that we are passing judgment for.
Nerd
1mo ago
Intresting, so what are the actually "races" genetically speaking? Is it just, black people, whites, than asians? How is it classified?
Nerd
1mo ago
For those with knowledge/believers of HBD, what does it have to say about Indians (East Asia), Arabs, & Hispanics (IQ wise)? I've been living in my city and I've noticed Indians tend to live in the nicer neighborhoods. Perhaps just selection effects from immigration? Hispanics have similar problems as black people, what does HBD say about them? Arabs?
Nerd
1mo ago
The best argument I can think of is that someone needs to pay for the kid. The state will do whatever possible to avoid taking that task. Partly due to the economic expense, partly for the sake of the kid.
Its fascinating to me that the state paying for other people, such as the sick and the elderly, is accepted, but paying for our children is somehow a bridge too far. Why? Its not like the government begins to regulate the behavior of old people to my knowledge, or prevents life saving healthcare, etc. I don't see a problem with them paying for the kid, but leaving how they are raised up to parents. Thats not even getting into the fact that we already have entities like CPS and the education system that play some part in how children are raised.
Nerd
1mo ago
Does anyone here work in the IT industry? Would anyone happen to know of anything someone can do to get a leg up potentially become full time during an internship (Network Engineering).
Nerd
1mo ago
In this system I’m suggesting all parties as stated will adhere to some extent to one of these three positions, and those who are opposed to it will have to be disbanded or reformed to be eligible to participate in elections. Similarly, the creation of new parties must require the approval of an office capable of judging the conformity of these new groups, and former leaders within disbanded organisations must be monitored to ascertain that they pose no threat to the state or the people it’s sworn to protect.
Ahh, yes. Using anti-democratic means to defeat (supposedly) anti-democratic parties. You have to see how this is hypocritical, right? Is this not the same behavior you would be hating the big bad fascist for? If people are electing populist-far right parties, how about you take a look at why thats happening and try to appeal to voters on things they care about, instead of betraying your beloved liberal principles?
Nerd
1mo ago
I mean.... I posted other stuff like this before, if you think that this post is bad, your welcome to point out why.
Nerd
1mo ago
I wouldn't be surprised if this contributed. But I'm not convinced that this is the main reason for what happened.
Nerd
1mo ago
You go on to propose that black men should be encouraged to be less masculine, basically. In other words you are trying to bring him down to a level where you can compete with him as you are a non-black man.
Um, Im not? This is largely in their interests. Black mens variation of masculinity does have an element of clear toxicity, driven by historical, societal circumstances, and governmental policy (and maybe we'll say here that HBD might be playing a role, but I'd like to focus on what we can control here). This clearly doesn't make them very attractive mates, a la them being more likely to be single. It actively damages their relationships.
Women find both masculine and "feminine" qualities attractive in men. Again, no ones arguing against being manly, I'm merely arguing for a slight tweak in masculinity to include some of these softer elements, that would aid in keeping a mate in the long term. If you insist on a slightly manlier variation of this, the comic-book hero Superman fits the bill fairly well.
We shouldnt be overstating womens preference for masculinity. Yes, women are looking for elements of masculinity when selecting mates, but the man in questions cant be too masculine, because that risks turning the strength aggression on her and the children.
Again there actually are black pretty boys. Usher is pretty.
I actually stand corrected! Excellent. For the record I actually forgot about Usher and RnB black men existed for a second (& sadly, we don't see them that much in the mainstream anymore). I'd like to see more!
So I think the problem is women need to stop desiring dominance or rather they need to stop putting themselves in positions that require dominant positions. I have a friend who happens to be an obese Black woman. I have experience with weight loss so she sometimes asks me for advice about it. One time she confided in me that she had been thinner in the past, but that she was "afraid people would beat her up."
This is counter-productive in almost all cases. A fit in shape person is gonna give a fat-ass an proper ass-whooping 99% of the time. Size matters to a point, but there is a distinction between sumo wrestler 200lbs, & Brock Lesnar 200lbs. But sure, inner city violence incentivizes masculint behaviour, fair enough. Solution? Crack down & lock them up.
This attitude is so arrogant to me, people do what they're programmed to do, why are you trying to socially engineer their behavior to begin with? She can choose the more sexy masculine dominant male over the really sweet guy, the problem isn't her, the really sweet guy if he's such a great partner needs to man up and express his masculinity in addition to his ability to take care of his mate and offspring at the same time. If someone whose brain is designed to opt for a masculine dominant mate who are you to encourage her to go against her millennia of programming in favor of you and your preferences, the less dominant male? What's in it for anyone but you?
Again, this is a false dichotomy. The goal is for our sweet guy to have both traits, that's basically the whole point of this post. I care for the black community, and I'd like to see them succeed. Having children "raised" by pookey and ray ray is counter productive to this end goal. Do I need emphasize that women aren't only attracted to just the hyper-manly health inspector?
Nerd
2mo ago
as far as I can tell women are, generally, into pretty masculine men.
I mean, yeah, but I'm not really denying this. My point here is that, black men in particular are hyper masculine to a substantially detrimental degree. They feel the need to do dumb shit like this. I think, with the correct social policy and guidance, they can become the men i linked previously. Yeah, pretty soft guys, but you can hardly say they arent masculine either.
This isnt exactly a slam dunk argument, though? Bringing it into the light arguably legitimizes the industry and the harms it brings.
More options
Context Copy link