ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
32m ago
Female sexuality should not be looked at thru a rationalist brain.
Why not? It's just the mirror image of stuff men do that women haven't correctly communicated when to and not to do, like that whole "take them seriously but not literally, also ignore half the things she says because that's how the emotional spam filter works [and the 'attractive self-respect' thing comes from the 'doesn't respond to every emotional outburst about X']" thing.
It's not a direct counterpart, but men and women are different and start from initial conditions (inherent scarcity, etc.), so it's going to be expressed differently. Men (especially straight ones- it gets complicated when they're not) don't really have the circuitry to appreciate why you'd want a Cluster B werewolf billionaire, so it's difficult to know when to act like one (re: PUA, which as I understand it sums up to 'treat them like they're in a porno'; women will do the same thing to men sometimes, but less often because it's [socially] costlier for women to do that).
ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
1hr ago
· Edited 1hr ago
According to research, globally, sex workers have a 45% to 75% chance of experiencing sexual violence on the job
That's one hell of an error bar, so the research is garbage.
many previous & current progressive movements
Repeat after me: progressives are not liberals. I get that it's very confusing, especially if you're in certain bubbles that made much hay claiming they were the same (because in large degree the marriage of convenience between the two was still running at the time). The difference is that liberals actually like sex and aren't turbo-butthurt about its existence, while progressives are existentially threatened by anyone else but them controlling sex and sexual expression (because it is all the value they offer- that's part of why they're so attached to education as an alternate path). Needless to say this is mostly a thing with female progressives; the men might parrot it but they don't truly understand it (the ones that do tend to be traditionalists, which is just progressivism with the opposite gender valence).
I struggle to see how these individuals may square this perspective that sex work is valid, despite fitting the bill of objectification.
The clue is that progressives tend to believe it should be legal to sell sex, but illegal to buy it, which takes the price of sex up to infinity. Any sex (or sexual expression) that occurs must be maximally monetized, or it's offering an alternative to that monopoly.
This is why progressives get extremely angry about older men dating younger women: the motte cope is "she's being taken advantage of", the bailey truth is "she's getting more money for the sex than I ever would, which drives the price I can get for my sex down".
When women say the existence of something "devalues sex", they're being literal because it actually does.
So it's not the sexual objectification they're objecting to, it's getting around the fee they feel is due. Sexual labor (which for women is "being observed while sexually desirable") without pay. Progressives don't like sex work because it makes that fee legible, which is a threat; its legality is generally a compromise they struck with the liberals in the original anti-traditionalist compact. They do reserve the right to play at sexual labor, though, which is how they justify to themselves having made that deal, and is also why they don't really have much problem with non-straight sex (it's orthogonal to the market).
Which is why it's also important to identify what kind of feminist you're dealing with- some are just happy not to be under traditionalism (and will deploy patriarchy and equality arguments to that end- that's who they originally came from, and still have some truth to them), while others are trying to impose a matriarchy instead (and generally using the descriptive liberal arguments as prescriptive weapons).
ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
5hr ago
· Edited 5hr ago
People use the term "predator" indistinguishably from "men" (and "straight" and "white", to a lesser degree). Again, no evolved memetic defense system against this; it was reality that kept this from getting out of control. Kind of like how in US politics you get extreme rhetoric but the Constitution prevents it from getting too out of hand.
Now that reality no longer gives men that advantage, you get both barrels, it's that simple. Of course there are a few societies that can avoid this, so you find things that seem strange to Western ears where women defend certain extremes of male sexuality (re: female politicians defending loli), but they also aren't Western, and they still can't reproduce above replacement.
ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
12hr ago
Perhaps, then, that's a part of why the ingroup vs. outgroup behaviors really evolved: if you have one ingroup and 5 outgroup tied to the track, you can sleep easy not pulling the lever specifically because they are your outgroup. Remember, humanity didn't even invent 'love your enemies'-style accountability, and even that's pretty vague in terms of what you're actually required to do there.
Most of the equivocation about this topic mostly comes down to the fact that in this situation, and in psychologically-normal human beings (the sociopaths are going to sleep easy regardless), a justification will be found to either pull or not pull the lever, because the decision must be made.
Honestly, why shouldn't we define "economic violence" that way?
Stealing sexual value is to women like stealing economic value is to men (for control over that is what that sex uses to impress the other), so a regime that treated men and women equally should logically treat both just as seriously.
More options
Context Copy link