It's a pretty good thing that is the case. Most of BDSM is fine. Spank, use whips all you want but choking is legitimately dangerous and can cause permanent brain damage.
I don't understand out of all the fetishes, how is this one so normalised.
If I have to blindly guess, it might be because of visa reasons. If you have citizenship, you know you are going to stay there. You will meet your neighbours, relax a little and take part in community events and lay down roots.
Getting citizenship in USA has gotten harder for Indians. If you are on visa and at any moment you can get randomly kicked out then you will be trying to make bank. There is no point in planning long term if you are not going to stay long term. You would only celebrate the mandatory major festivals which would be Indian festivals from India. I suppose if someone gets incredibly lucky and even gets citizenship, the habits stay. In the working age demographic, most Indians in USA are not citizens.
You need to be an American citizen to be an American after all.
There is also another filter, Indians know how much harder getting citizenship in USA is compared to other places.
Only the people most driven by money would try to enter USA currently. The people who want to live somewhere first world may be deciding to move to Germany or UK.
Testing
6d ago
If felt too political for that, since it is Netanyahu. What thread is best for political jokes anyways?
I posted it because it was funny not because of any political implications or as a dig at Netanyahu. I suppose that can count as low effort here.
Testing
6d ago
Today I learned there exists a person who likes both Hitler and Netanyahu. He likes Hitler because he helped his nation get devloped and was a great leader. He likes Israel because they are defending against terrorism.
I kind of started rambling on but now I think about it, basically the relevant ideas are. SMV has a very bad reputation so people don't engage with it.
If they are fine with it people may not want to compromise on romance because it is not an instrumental goal, if someone wants to eat a sweet apple you can't logically convince them to a eat a unripe apple just because it is still an apple.
You could in the past with lot of social pressure but now women can be happy even without a man.
Even if SMV is true for a lot of people, it doesn't matter for a subset of people because of the reason listed above.
Why waste time and feel bad thinking about SMV when you know your standards are not going to change, that is just going to make you sad.
You don't see a concerned propaganda effort to stop men going to the gym, which is, at least in part, a Red Queen's Race too.
Just to clarify it's complete arm chair philosophising I don't have anything to cite.
It's not fully rational, i think the origin of this feeling from an evolutionary sense was to prevent a race to the bottom but evolution is very dumb and doesn't intellectually understand what a red queen race is. So people get a vague sense of intuition about what things are and are not race to bottom and hence dishonorable.
As a society trading time for health and looks is accepted. Trading slight chance of bad health for looks is not accepted.
Using steroids so they harm your health is also not accepted.
Doing things in general just for signalling is disliked everywhere. Such as reading books just to get girls.
Trading time in general for things is very accepted.
Plastic surgery falls in both signalling and a race to the bottom.
Edit: Actually fashion gets a pass so race to the bottom is the better hypothesis. Plastic surgery doesn't count as signalling.
I don't have any advice about these things one way or other, though if someone came to me and asked me about plastic surgery, i would recommend them not to do it because I have a bias for recommending against something when I am not sure.
Still in truth I am completely neutral to the issue and have no opinion.
Now if it was something which could extend your biological life, you can bet I would fully support it. I am very much in transhumanist camp for living forever, even if you live as a brain in a jar. Don't believe in substrate independence so don't support living in a computer.
Imagine you are a woman, what are your primary concerns?
1)Your partner should love you, even when you face problems he should not abandon you. 2)Your partner should have admirable qualities and should be respectable. (A very simple test, if a woman being told that she is just like her partner would make her feel proud and happy then her partner is respectable) 3) Her partner should not have many bad traits or deal breakers
Asthetic qualities are part of 2.
Good. Now men pursuing women are going to lie and game the system so that they fulfill these criteria, her concern is going to be spot them. This cannot be done on pure reason alone, this needs intuition. It's paramount that the man is not just hiding his negative qualities at the start of the relationship and would show them later.
Let's say a man starts talking about dating market, this clearly indicates that he is likely to be part of manosphere and right wing. This fails 3 and 1. To the best of her knowledge such men are likely to hate women and are likely to be mercenary. The movement has a very bad reputation.
This completely poisons the well and no romantic feelings are going to emerge because she is worried and couldn't trust the man.
The most important thing is that the man demonstrates that he is trustworthy and has admirable qualities, after that is done then further into the relationship he can talk about dating market.
TLDR: Unless you show yourself to be trustworthy you are going to be judged based on the reputation of your group.
Of course, there is no rule that if people are honest about themselves women would date them. Some people may just be completely undateable.
Romance isn't a means to an end for women, it's an end goal as of itself. You can't logically convince them to do it or accept subpar romance. In the past there was incredible social pressure so some women had to accept it but now there is not.
2 and 3 are not based on some mathematical formula, they are dependent on culture, what is subpar varries.
I feel it is a matter of pride. People are supposed to be proud of how they look, even if they acknowledge that they don't look the best they should still feel some attachment to their face.
Going through a plastic surgery is "humiliating", it shows an willingness to sacrifice parts of yourself for validation from others.
"What kind of man is so desperate for love that he lengthens his leg and does plastic surgery with it's risks just so he would be loved."
This is why people don't mind plastic surgery for those who have been disfigured through accidents, it's not dishonorable for them.
A very very extreme example, similar to this would be like kissing a penis to become beautiful.
Maybe such things exist in human society to prevent a red queen race or to prevent enslavement from stronger people.
Broadly speaking, doing things which can cause race to bottom are supposed to feel humiliating.
This is the origin of terms like, "simp" and "pick me" people do not want race to bottom and would make fun of people who seem to engage in it.
I am just explaining the reasons for what I precieve are people's natural instincts, this is not an endorsement of those instincts.
The word "visibly" is doing heavy lifting there. If you cut off those below 85 IQ in a normal population you would be removing 16% of the population while for autists you would be removing 38.2% of the population.
Autists also have 21.8% above 115 IQ while normal population has 16% in that range.
If you apply same filtering criteria to the normal population and autists, the autists would indeed have higher average IQ than normal population.
In normal professional life you are less likely to meet low functioning autists, so you would observe a positive correlation between IQ and autism.
On average IQ is slightly correlated with having better emotional intelligence too but of course that won't apply to autists.
They are not, there is a slight positive correlation with autism. This is copy pasted from gemini, but you can fact check this trivially. It applies for many diseases, such as schizophrenia and ADHD.
The IQ Distribution in Autism
The intellectual abilities of autistic individuals vary widely. While the general population falls neatly onto a standard bell curve for IQ, the autistic population has a different distribution:
Co-occurring Intellectual Disability: According to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), roughly 30% to 40% of children diagnosed with autism have a co-occurring intellectual disability (an IQ score below 70)[1][3].
Average to Above-Average Intelligence: The remaining 60% to 70% of autistic individuals have average, above-average, or exceptionally high IQs
The people with ADHD, whose ADHD is caused by the group of genes which are correlated with autism tend to have higher IQ. The people with schizophrenia, whose disease is caused by the group of genes which are correlated with bipolar disorder also have higher IQ.
The cases of ADHD and schizophrenia caused by other genes lead to a lower IQ. Because IQ increasing variant is rarer on average these diseases are anticorrelated with IQ but in reality there are two peaks.
Source for the claim about schizophrenia, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-natural-tradeoff-and-failure The average autist, who isn't visibly dumb probably has higher IQ than average.
Finally, we recently observed in a larger sample of patients, who presented in specialized outpatient clinics for ASD, a bimodal IQ distribution within ASD individuals [38.2% below average intelligence (i.e., IQ < 85), 40% with above average intelligence (IQ > 115) and 21.8% with an average intelligence (IQ between 85 and 115)
The uprising thing was in another comment by you
You might call this "accelerationism but for the future incel uprising"
I assumed that by hypergamy you meant something close to the meme where there are ten women who are trying to date one man while rest of nine men are ignored.
Some women preferring to date men richer and more successful than them is a much weaker assertion.
Testing
9d ago
I did say in the post itself that I wasn't serious.
Note I am not serious here
I mostly wrote it to hear intresting moral arguments against it or for it.
I am not posting it to convince anyone to do it but because it's a good starting prompt for philosophy and a fun writing excercise.
Aren't there very few women promiscuous which have sex with chads? Most women have relatively few dating partners. The promiscuous women are selecting for superficial features since they are in for sex and pleasure. Normal women are just not having that much sex and are not available on dating apps since they are taken.
So it gives an appearance that all women are very shallow since only the very shallow women are available for dating.
| Number of Partners | Men (%) | Women (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 1 partner | 29.8% | 25.1% |
| 2 to 4 partners | 29.5% | 34.6% |
| 5 to 9 partners | 19.3% | 23.3% |
| 10 or more partners | 12.5% | 9.5% |
How would an incel uprising work in this context? Normal men and women are pairing up. Promiscuous women are choosing to have sex for pleasure instead of dating the bottom 20% since they don't have any societal pressure to do so.
If we lived in a gender reversed world lots of incels would indeed be having sex with female equivalent of chads who are readily available instead of getting in permanent relationship with ugly women.
In this gender reversed world, there would be few hot women who are satisfying lot of medicore men and there would be lot of fat women which are never picked.
This is not even a new thing by the way, even in 1800s there were still an lowerclass of men who never reproduced.
In places like Britain, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the early United States, the rate of adults who lived to old age without having children was shockingly high—between 15% and 20%
Even then women were not dating poor men and preferred living alone than that.
The behaviour simply makes sense from game theory and evolutionary perspective.
Testing
9d ago
Also you are completely correct about fisher. In a free society if a such a cultural movement arose women who are not selecting against male embryos would gain an enormous evolutionary advantage. The genes which make people not want to abort male babies would propagate and this society would go back to normal.
It's probably trivial to write a simulation to prove this.
Maybe it would take baby vats or something like that to keep the society going.
Well it certainly isn't practically feasible. I am not arguing on that. It's more of an argument against eugenics, most people who consider themselves eugenicists would say there is something wrong with this but not normal eugenics. (Ignoring for the moment the obviously evil state repression which would be required for actually implementing eugenics)
I am thinking what is morally wrong with this plan or is it even wrong? Provided you can somehow convince everyone to follow it, should you? One poster pointed out that this can lead to demonization of men which can be a super small minority. That is one moral problem.
I also posted this because this seemed like the type of policy which would be supported by the most radical of feminists and incels both. Which I find pretty comedic.
Testing
9d ago
Any future where goverment is this powerful and uses it for such pointless bullshit is a complete dystopia. This assumes a scenario where very different cultural movements have won out and people are choosing to do this.
An elegant solution to all the male crisises, embryonic sex selection. https://mistakesweremade.substack.com/p/the-y-chromosome-is-dysgenic
Men commit far more crime than women, they are more prone to diseases and they live shorter lives.
There may be more variation in men's IQ scores and they are more common in STEM, so we would certainly need some men for new discoveries and the like but what is the need for 1:1 sex ratio?
Most people don't work on intellectual tasks in civilization which need constant innovation and incredible time spent on them with a singular focus. Most jobs are mundane and of maintaince variety. We can just have few men which work on hard research type jobs where vast majority of population is women. Maybe with lack of men female researchers would lead. Besides if super intelligence arrives we may not need men working at these jobs at all.
This would solve the incel problem since men are rarer, this would solve the problem of dangerous men preying on women.
Note I am not serious here, but talking about this hypothetical seems like fun. It does seem obviously wrong but I can't pinpoint any specific moral principle it might violate.
Surely there is something wrong with this argument but what is it? It seems fine from an purely utalitarian perspective.
Edit: i am again restating that I am not seriously considering this. It's starting prompt for philosophy and a fun writing excercise. No serious person would start their message with "An elegant solution".
Testing
12d ago
I don't know if it would be for better or for worse. I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive.
As for your points, I think you are overestimating how disenfrinched the average male is. I don't think there is going to be gender war or slow crumbling of society. South Korea still lives on.
No matter how disenfrichesed men get, it won't matter because I am betting on AGI.
I am not even saying woman are acting rationally in their own interests for happiness.
My main opinion is that a lot of people are going to be very unemployed and die without ever having kids.
A lot of cultural change is going to happen because cultures where men and women reproduce survive.
I also don't think much can be done about this.
Honestly this low reproduction rate seems like an artifact of rapid technological advancement and cultural change which is going to fix itself eventually in a century.
Testing
12d ago
Well that's even better isn't it. With gene engeneering we would have humans which would age slowly, get sick less, have higher IQ and fitness. Even if somehow HBD turns out to be true we will simply fix it.
People might just start to have AI companions for romance and human race continues in baby fabs.
Though I find it unlikely, doesn't seem culturally feasible yet but maybe in two centuries.
Seems fine to me and it seems like a self solving problem. Women have more negotiating power and they are using it.
Eventually the next generation would have woman with lower standards and males with superior genes. Because everyone else would have died off.
This would also lead to cultural shifts so that both sexes are more accepting of each other.
Hell it may even improve women genetically because only the hottest women would get laid with hottest men.
Sadly since genes for autism and IQ are correlated we may see a slight decrease.
It's a single generation so it should not matter much.
With AGI lots of people are not needed. I don't see any wealth redistribution happening. People with money would have kids and equally distribute their wealth among them.
Besides in south korea the wealthy have a high fertility rate not replacement level but it's double the normal average.
Eventually a better culture would emerge out of all this, especially with AGI because the remaining people won't need to work that hard and maybe they would have more time for family and romance with a cultural inclination for those things.
Well unless we go extinct which is pretty likely too.
I thought a bit more about it. Calling it embarassing is inaccurate. There is another primary reason for it.
It's a matter of honor even though people would never word it that way. It is dishonorable to let insults against your friends/family/group stand. HBD etc is insulting to minorities. Christians generally used to dislike their god being insulted. This "honor" is something I find is natural but only emerges when it is encouraged in the society. This can be completely suppressed depending on who your friends are and what is your culture.
Well also people dislike not being echo chambers and being with people like you is far more pleasant. I can't discount that.
Honor doesn't exist for a utalitarian reason, it is a thing in itself.
The social embarassment is for people who don't feel that "honor" feeling intrinsically.
Well only close friends but my close friends are basically indifferent to what I do unless I am causing real harm to someone. We follow a very live and let live philosophy.
Though I generally don't share my username, I do share screenshots of the website.
Engaging with very right wing ideas such as HBD is socially embarassing. The ick is a natural response to that.
If person X has many accounts and one of them happens to be on the motte then a subset of people would judge them. "What kind of person has a stormfront, 4chan, incels.is etc account." This is the main reason for lack of leftists.
Now the common argument is just don't tell your peers you have an account but unfortunately psychology doesn't work like that, people want to be liked for all they are and dislike keeping secrets.
So they must decide if they must bear the psychological burden of keeping a secret to keep browsing the motte.
This isn't really concious but I assume that is what practically happens.
This process bleeds leftist dry from a platform and without them the discourse becomes too one sided and of lower quality. So even more people leave till you end with a mostly center right website.
Same, I knew my kinks before I even understood how sex happened, without having seen anything even vaguely pornographic at all, without any internet access. It was incredibly natural.
For better or worse, i feel like humans have a bias for believing that their environment shapes them far more than it actually does.
Of course, having rich parents getting nutrition etc does significantly affect your life but I think personality and mental traits are less affected by environment (provided it's an typical environment and not an extreme case). Maybe how they are expressed is affected by environment.
It's not entirely genetics, it might be stochastic random process of how neurons happened to develop in someone's brain.
More options
Context Copy link