@ThisIsSin's banner p


A psychosexual analysis of the worlds and words of George Orwell

1 follower   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC


User ID: 822


A psychosexual analysis of the worlds and words of George Orwell

1 follower   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 822

However, I'm not sure what a world where 99% of the population are volcel males would look like, what kind of political influence they would hold, and what they would do with it.

We already know what a world where a significant chunk of volcel males looks like. They have little political influence; too busy with the video games and porn to acquire money or power. (Also, they were told wanting women was bad, and unfortunately for women by and large listened.)

but most women probably wouldn't find it appealing if almost every man they met had basically no sexual desire

Again, this is already true. Actually, by that token, since Western society considers the definition of "better men" to be "women", you're going to get a heavy female-weighted genetic engineering demand in areas where that's more locally true, and a more even distribution where that isn't.

Sure, it'll probably even out eventually because increased competition for men means women lose relative power over men- but I don't think the ideal gender distribution in a hyperfeminine world is anywhere near the 50/50 it is when the power of men-as-class and women-as-class are more balanced (by the chance circumstances of the local economy).

But you could easily and trivially accuse people for the expansion of black rights to only be in it for the miscegenation.

To enjoy it requires getting into a certain headspace (though the psychological pleasure isn't insignificant)

Looking back, it is absolutely shocking that Demolition Man absolutely nailed this is how female/feminized/progressive sexual pleasure works.

"Getting a blow-job but using a strap-on" is, I think, nearly the ultimate expression of this, and how hilariously it misses the point of what sexual contact is even supposed to be. It's all the cerebral pleasure of masturbation sex but none of the risk [that the "active/top" partner does something that you don't like; pattern matching to "this sexual encounter might end in pregnancy"] or the unprettiness (lots of bodies and the operative body parts are actually kind of ugly, and fluids are messy and smelly and dangerous due to what they can do).

To that end, maybe it's exactly the sort of thing that should be in schools- the problem with men (and traditionalists more generally) is that they do not even understand how female sexuality works much less understand how or why they must combat the toxic parts, and here they are, in their full (in)glory, for them to know the mind of their [class]-enemy. Of course, pornography extolling the virtues of the toxic parts of male sexuality would also need to be available in equal measure; have to present both sides of the argument to represent it fairly, after all (if that's too offensive, removing the porn altogether would be a reasonable compromise).

Won't that lead to crackdowns on speech, and so forth?

Maybe, but maybe not. Non-progressives are basically going for something along the lines of the Fairness Doctrine or the Equal-Time Rule imposed on Big Tech, because over the past 10-15 years progressives have been quickly enclosing the commons (we didn't need a Fairness Doctrine in 1995 or 2005 because the liberals were still pretty firmly in control of Big Tech back then- the iPhone would ultimately break them). Once your enemies start saying "build your own broadcast spectrum" it's not a surprise there are calls to violently reclaim it (which politics is, by other means).

Of course, their being able to articulate that is another matter entirely. But the Supreme Court has overridden amendments before- indeed, that's why those two laws persisted- and I think a solid argument can be levied (at least against ISPs and services that offer DDOS protection) that the "spectrum" is scarce enough to warrant an overriding government interest.

Is that going to make non-progressives as safe as they hope to be? Well, no- there are several vulnerabilities in different places on the OSI model that could allow progressives to claw back control, especially when combined with appliance computing and the DMCA ("iPhones only talk to progressive-approved websites, and removing that restriction is illegal" is always a few months' work away from becoming reality- it already effectively is when you consider how bad the App Store already is- to say nothing of any number of other "please drink verification can" schemes). And it still doesn't affect AI, which is another thing entirely... though it would quite easily be possible to ban sales of high-performance GPUs to US companies that refuse to sell uncensored models much like the US already does with respect to China and doing that doesn't even run into 1A issues.

That's not to say anyone's actually thought about it this much and we're going to get a half-assed measure that still fucks up everything, but a Red congress could get it done.

Is there a wing of the Democratic party that wants to dramatically ramp up shipbuilding capacity?

No? Every dollar spent on the military-industrial complex is a dollar not spent on the education-managerial complex.

And it is the education-managerial complex that's actually on the back foot here because the vast majority of its power rests upon the existence of cheap Chinese manufacturing (both chips and otherwise). Their time is over as soon as the Chinese missiles leave their launchers no matter which way you slice it.

Why invest in a pre-emptive solution that would require you give more power back to the middle class (which is one of the things a large manufacturing base is famous for doing) when you could just do nothing and enrich yourself in the meantime? If China never tries to take back Taiwan, you'll still keep your power and didn't have to spend a dime to do it; if China tries to take back Taiwan and explodes the EMC's money-making machinery, now you've put your political enemy in a more difficult position, which is good because should they win and fix everything they'll be less able to resist you 20 years down the line. Same dynamics as climate change but with the political valence reversed.

Progressives' job is ultimately to convince China to leave their money printer alone specifically because their rule weakens the US. If China disregards that advice and the US ends up turfing its hyper-conservative (as in "no new development ever") ruling class as a result of the financial problems that destruction would create they're going to be a lot harder to fight.

Where it circles back to being totally the domain of gay men

It's media involving gay men, but meant for ostensibly/otherwise straight men (there's way too much of it for the opposite to be true).

Which means that either "it's gay" is missing something important, "the audience is straight" is missing something important, or both are. (And if that's the case, what's missing, why is it missing, and how come nobody notices?)

Further ramblings from downthread:

I presumed it was mostly cope, but from this point of view it apparently is a valid and intended feature, I'm just too normie to see it.

Apologies for the Reddit link.

It's actually kind of interesting to me that, from a certain point of view, you go from 100% masc to 0% masc and then back to 100% masc- from "I wanted a woman and got a woman as far as I know" (full masc) through "pretending not to notice the cracks" to "the illusion is obviously broken but we're fine with it anyway" (totally not masc) to "not even bothering to keep up the illusion" to "this isn't meaningfully distinct from being gay but that's what I wanted anyway" (full masc).

Having sex but putting aside it's not the thing you actually wanted/having to put extra effort in to enjoy it is probably the least masculine thing you could do more or less by definition, and the middle position on that graph is the one that symbolizes that the most.

it can't be just the bi-curiosity in the water supply.

I think our words for how people think about gender are probably still pretty bad here; that's why we can point out that "traps are gay" is incoherent as a concept but not actually be able to explain it any better than that language allows us. Actually, I'm doing the same thing with what "masculinity" is above, too, but this isn't yet the effortpost it needs to be to do this properly.


Futa is honestly really weird and doesn't tend to line up with traps/tomgirls at all; the latter tend to have an intentional de-emphasis on both kinds of secondary sexual characteristics whereas with futa they're both on absolute full blast all the time (proportions range from the large side of normal to wildly exaggerated). Maybe you get a slight hourglass and exaggeration of pecs into breasts with a trap (the meme is "draw a girl, call it a boy" but only the low-effort traps are done like that), but with futa you usually get a wasp waist, massive breasts, and a dick half as long and just as thick as their arms.

culturally evolved substitution

I only say this because I've noticed that the portrayal of traps tends to be more immature/loli-adjacent than the characters that surround them- their faces tend to be rounder, their outfits tend to be closer to what a child would wear or slightly out of place in that direction with respect to the rest of the cast (if applicable), and the context and memes around them is more immature and more evocative of a loli than a "proper" grown woman (the "boys are the best girls" thing, as opposed to normal male sexuality... which is more likely to pattern-match to futa anyway).

I think bara is a fascinating glimpse into what superstimulus for gay men must look like- it's bizarre on a good day, and I've seen some examples that look downright alien.

For that matter, I think the same about yaoi more generally since it focuses on massive hands, very tall and triangular heads, and emphasis on facial features women themselves try to accentuate.

And then we have the otokonoko body types, which are basically just slightly taller lolis (no hourglass figure, small cute face, usually dressed in a manner more suggestive of a girl than a woman but without the outright childish attitude to match) that straight men can use as reasons to be less conflicted about liking that body type.

On that note, I'm not convinced Boku no Pico is otokonoko. I think shotacon creates a corner case for the categories; I'm pretty sure that not only was it yaoi (that cover picture is the exact opposite of otokonoko dress, lmao), but it was yaoi intended for straight men. That paradox is probably half to blame for why it's still a meme (and the other half is that famous reaction video).

not yet a genre of gay male smut aimed at lesbian women.

Is there a genre of lesbian female smut aimed at gay men? (For that matter, is there a genre of lesbian female smut aimed at lesbians?)

Even among very intelligent people it’s rare, and some degree of significant intelligence is likely a prerequisite, so we’re talking about less than 1% of people.

They're also intelligent enough to keep quiet about it and are probably too busy enjoying the sex to post about it; you're more likely to hear it as "friends with benefits" from them... because they're usually also smart enough to know saying "poly" is a blunt instrument typically used by the people who are doing it for the bad reason I mentioned in the other comment.

(Same thing with every sexual expression that isn't "I'm straight and normal", really; the phrase to expose the other capabilities is probably more along the lines of "but if it's you, it's OK".)

In this case, "enjoying the stability (emotional, financial) of a husband/wife relationship" and "fucking whoever I want on the side".

In other words, the people for whom "poly/open relationship" means "cheating is bad only because it's not discussed up front; I don't like you enough to commit exclusively but I still want you to pay my bills". It's an attempt to actively exploit a power imbalance in the relationship and people who do that are generally bad people.

This is why "swinging" is generally viewed slightly more positively than "poly", since it can be a good-faith attempt to fix marital problems (age related and otherwise) and implies an already established track record of "turning my partner into their best selves"... whereas poly is [currently] the "cash up front" equivalent.

I wonder if polygamists have fewer children because they aren’t very likeable?

Well, there's poly for the right reasons ("because I actually am a high-decoupler and am unironically capable of treating sex as a toy or tool"), and then there's poly for the wrong reasons ("because I'm not attracted to -> don't want to primarily pair-bond with my husband or wife, I just want to be able to have my cake and eat it too, and my partner doesn't have enough self-respect to call me out for doing it").

I think there are significantly more people who are poly for the wrong reasons- and people who are just trying to get out of doing the work they're supposed to be doing tend to be substandard partners. As for the people who are poly for the right reasons, their standards for a partner are going to be higher than normal, so they're going to pair up -> have kids less.

Gura, the shark girl. Male-coded interests, male-coded avatar, male-coded lack of disgust/manners/candor, male-coded memes (some of them are harder to catch, but c'mon, titling your video referencing "pee is stored in the balls"?)

It's not necessarily a 1:1 example because, well, tomboy... but there's something qualitatively different between her and the other girl streamers in that the whole "men and women are different" thing is minimized [even if it is an act, or specifically engineered to do that, you can't tell]. It's the "girl you used to be friends with a long time ago at the age before men and women naturally drift into their own spheres of influence" thing- and while all of the streamers do this to some extent, she just happens to do it better.

I don't know much about MLP but it is a very girly show, by design.

Gen 4 is Gen X girly ("girly isn't anything out of the ordinary; guys could engage with these things too but simply choose not to"), not Boomer girly like Gen 1-3 ("girly means absurd immature diabetes fuel") or Millennial girly like Gen 5 ("girly means 'that which alienates anyone who isn't a girl'").

Gen X girly is also referred to by "cute girls doing cute things" when the context is anime. Fooling around, story stakes, and conflict resolution in a way typical to girls, basically; something that boys know exists but don't have the time or opportunity to explore.

Since when has any man written a fanfic about One Direction or Twilight?

It still never fails to impress me that one of the more well-known movies in the 2010s is literally just Twilight fanfiction with the names changed.

Even the smut on FFN leans more toward male fantasy than female fantasy.

What do you even consider "male fantasy"? I'm pretty sure that "Hermione gets raped by Draco" is mostly a female fantasy (written by women, for women); while I'm sure you could self-insert as Draco I don't think that's the point. Yaoi fanfic is also female fantasy; you can tell because the dom/sub dynamic is pegged at 11 from the first word (the stuff that's actually intended for gay men is... different).

If nothing else, I'd consider yuri fanfic to be mostly by/for men; women aren't as interested in lesbians as men are. Most MLP fics (both porny and not) were probably written by twentysomething men (I don't think the target demographic for the show is that interested in seeing Pinkie Pie turn Rainbow Dash into cupcakes or meme about "Applejack pregnancy scare").

Then they can understand the full horror

I still don't understand why people consider this unusual. "I can imagine attractive character from the show doing the sex to me in a way I don't have to feel otherwise morally conflicted about liking, also doing something nasty but not catastrophic to the character the reader is supposed to identify with means he would like me more than her" is arguably one of the more vanilla fantasies (and the more extreme variation of that, being "also, the self-insert doesn't survive the encounter", is an overwhelmingly-female favored fetish anyway).

Her level of tactical experience doing law enforcement operations doesn’t particularly effect her ability at grappling.

But it does make the non-stop screaming just as irritating as it was in her role in Gravity (bonus points for accomplishing nothing without a man present in that movie, too).

The very obvious explanation is that neither men nor most women actually enjoy watching a woman act like a man.

Anime and other interactive media has quite a bit of this going on already; perhaps you just need to watch more of it. Popular examples include Gunsmith Cats (both the MCs do this), Gunslinger Girl, Ghost in the Shell, Upotte, Re:Zero, Made in Abyss (more 'girl acts like a boy', but she definitely gets beat to shit), Ranma 1/2 (and all the gender-bending anime that would follow in its footsteps; bonus points for female author), Genshin Impact, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy, the Persona series, Fate/Stay Night (and the Nasuverse in general), You're Under Arrest!, Hunter x Hunter, Trigun, Nier: Automata, Bayonetta, Half-Life 2, and every other shooter video game or RPG that allows you to pick a female player character (the usual answer is "actually, I'd prefer to stare at a girl's ass in third person", but come on). Western examples include Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Alien, The Matrix, Kill Bill, Terminator/2, and the X-Files. For rarer 2010s examples, all the movies in the Kingsmen series have female antagonists; Edge of Tomorrow had an action girl right out of the '80s but that's an adaptation of an earlier manga so maybe it doesn't count. Also the most popular Vtuber in the world is a woman who acts like a man. This isn't an exhaustive list.

Of course, I'd actually say that in a good number of these cases the women aren't actually acting like men, but then that generates the "what's 'acting like a woman' mean?" question (in the same way as "what's 'acting white'?"). Gynosupremacists (and black supremacists) are by definition going to answer that question as selfishly as possible- and in so doing miss the truth that nobody has a monopoly on acting constructively (in fiction or in real life), most constructive (and destructive) actions don't have a gender, and all successful writers understand this. Now, it might be the case that the more flashy constructive/destructive actions do tend to go to characters on the right end of the population distribution- which is why they tend to be white and male- but the choice to just not do that is always there (the problem comes from progressives wanting it for free, hence the desire to colonize previous works rather than creating something out of whole cloth- this is the root of corruption).

The best example of "wants it for free" I think I've ever seen is the opening to Terminator 6; where it's literally "fuck you, we're killing off the whole reason for the plot in the first place; this series is now about (if memory serves correctly) some random interracial lesbian couple".

To the extent that True Detective challenges this dynamic by treating two women as Mary Sues who just have victory outright handed to them, it's doomed to fail.

Beauty cannot come from corruption. The reason all the competent female characters come from the '80s and '90s is because feminism and gynosupremacism weren't quite yet the same thing for the average writer (or investor); that's no longer true, so all they can possibly write are Mary Sues. Places that don't have a culture of open gender warfare are less likely to suffer from this, though Japanese media also tends to have weird out-of-character things like "lost a fight, time to go back to the kitchen" (Sloot's DBZ example) so you have to contend with that instead.

Just everyone talking down to each other, using passive aggressive laziness to evade the modhats - but not even making it entertaining, it's just talking points vs talking points.

I've also noticed that I tend to have trouble getting engagement with posts I consider well-written (and tend to get more engagement when I'm not sending my best). It depresses me that I get AAQCs with literally zero follow-on comments and maybe one that spawned more than one; sure, I get upvoted from time to time, but I'm looking to sharpen my knife further, not merely be praised with a show of hands that believe it is already sharp.

The few users with a worldview most starkly different from everyone else's barely post here anyway, which is unfortunate because I think they had facets of a clearer picture of certain things this board tends to concern itself with CW-wise (though not everyone is capable of hearing them since we wouldn't be treading the same ground were they taken seriously).

Maybe I just have myself to blame for expecting any different results from parrotting Orwell to a group of Winstons.

uBlock Origin. For my personal systems I also install SponsorBlock, I Don't Care About Cookies, and a script that removes Shorts from all the YouTube pages that have them.

Mostly, it's all just anti-ad (things I want to buy are never advertised) and anti-frustration stuff. Most of my interactions with computers these days are inherently mouse-driven anyway so having to use one doesn't bother me, and I buy laptops that have the mouse in the middle of the keyboard rather than having to remember keyboard shortcuts that were out of date 40 years ago so all the ostensible benefits of "you don't have to leave the home row" extend to every application I use passively.

They even cite the inflation number for food, which was considerably higher than average.

Everyone has to buy food, energy, and shelter.

Everything else is optional. If those three things have a higher-than-average inflation rate, and they do (the asset price bubble doesn't help with respect to shelter, of course), the politically-active citizens are much more likely to notice and complain, have a common nucleation point around which to complain, and most importantly can reclaim the moral high ground of "making things more expensive than they need to be is anti-poor" and in so doing split the lower class against the upper (which is one place where the normal strategy of "high and low against the middle" fails).

The trick about artificially making things more expensive is that it doesn't come without cost, the people doing the artificial increases have already leveraged all of their socioeconomic credit, can't pay the interest on the exercise of that power, and their social credit has been downgraded as a consequence.

The economy will find them something to do.

Or if not, the politicians will. Or they can't/won't and a civil war breaks out (probably something about developing resources that the federal government would prefer not be developed; environmentalism has always been a "let them eat cake"-type of philosophy), but even more things need to go wrong in order for that to happen.

It's worth noting that tens of millions of people unemployed with nothing to their name and nothing to lose was a pretty good description of the political situation in the US nearly 100 years ago; "welfare", "unemployment insurance", and "minimum wage" (all of which were implemented around that time) form the bulk of what us moderns call "UBI".

Arguing that one ought to be friends with people of a different race/sex/gender/etc. is the progressive position.

It's also the traditionalist position, but with slightly different answers to the "ought" part of the equation.

I don't know why Americans are still so anal about underage drinking under adult supervision

I think HBD is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this: the people who left Europe had a genetic predilection to have problems with vices (you only get a stick up your ass about alcohol in 2 circumstances- either your God tells you it's bad, or you can't handle it yourself and have the opportunity to leave for a land where there isn't any), and the natives never evolved the genes that down-regulate alcohol addiction. Mix them together and you get a temperance movement strong enough to enshrine itself into the toughest law in the nation to change.

Americans also have a general hatred of the underaged for some reason and I haven't fully managed to figure out why that is yet- maybe a combination of parents being worried about the above effects in their children, a genetic predilection to overreact to anything risky/fun (Puritanism), and being fans of Old Testament-style property rights over children due to the dominant religion espousing them for most of the country's history?

If you're defining "their country" that way then yeah, I guess you could say the number was actually about 3%. Maybe they were under-counting the Taliban; I don't think they even get cell reception out there (that isn't via a drone pretending to be a tower to launch missiles at devices that try to connect to it).

or does anyone else feel that way about their homeland?

I'd feel that way if my homeland was as free, and its society as well-regulated, as the US is.

It is not.

I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt; in 2021 we saw that a stunning 0% of Afghanis were willing to fight for "their country", which is nowhere near the 76% the survey says.