The women I know best wouldn't dream of setting up an OF account.
How do you know this?
Would you expect them to admit it if they did?
Regardless of the answers, the fact that this is a question that gets asked suggests these girls and women who put themselves in that marketplace are not the norm, despite how it seems.
I'm really no longer sure what "the norm" is, other than all indications are that its trending towards running an Onlyfans being a relatively acceptable practice.
And more to the point, it means any female who wants to figure out how to satisfy male sexual preferences need only check into what some of the top content producers are putting out.
Women now have no real excuse for being unaware of men's sexual preferences.
And guys now get the impression that females are willing to satisfy those preferences even if they claim to find them disgusting and crude.
An equivalent would be normalization of, say, fighting and violence for men.
AH, but I don't think that is equivalent.
Sexuality is often idealized as something to be shared with solely your committed partner, and seeking sexual gratification outside the relationship is considered adulterous.
Hence why having a sexually explicit OF might be a violation of that relationship.
I don't think a man's capacity for violence is something that has the same level of "sacredness" where he is expected to express it solely to his partner.
Although I see your point that we have a social interest in restraining the male tendency to violence.
faceh
11mo ago
If Bud Light had gone out of its way to create a special can for a child molester who was making tik tok videos espousing how fun it is to molest children, that would also not be looked at as "a minor screw up".
But Light went out of their way to put a Trans influencer on the can mere days after a Trans mass shooter killed a bunch of kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting
So in that context... yeah.
faceh
7mo ago
An easily avoided risk if you just apologize and refrain from the behavior in the future.
More directly, the reason I am not particularly put off by this risk is that the whole point is we want to filter the worst actors from the dating pool so as to improve the experience for everyone.
Either the threat of possible violence scares them away, or they get beaten to the point they are permanently maimed and thus are less of a threat overall.
Fine. Maybe they can get a large monetary reward to compensate the suffering, then ban them from dating apps for life.
How often do you think such a maiming would ACTUALLY occur under normal conditions?
faceh
8mo ago
It's a reasonable idea, definitely more feasible, but that's 100 minutes in total. By the 10th fresh opponent you'd be a sitting duck, especially if they're preparing/prepared for the same trial.
In my mind, it's 10 opponents who have already qualified for 'adulthood' and thus know how to pull their punches and know exactly what it is like being on the other end of this treatment.
By the 10th fresh opponent you'd be a sitting duck, especially if they're preparing/prepared for the same trial.
Yes, and that is part of the point. To be exhausted, bruised, hurting (hopefully not actually injured) and barely able to move, and then to have to dig deep and fight on anyhow.
The lesson being that sometimes life is just not fair and when you don't want to go on, quitting is certainly an option (indeed, you can withdraw from the gauntlet at any time you want!) but it won't solve your problems and certainly won't be rewarded.
The difficulty is that making parenthood the benchmark is that it would accord a teenage single mum higher status than a childless man like myself while incentivising the creation of yet more teenage single mums, so I added the educational criteria to tilt the balance back to a range of more long term pro-social outcomes (promoting stable relationships, increased fertility rates, parental responsibility/discipline). Totally unworkable in practice anyway as it would never get support, people would be anywhere between their 30s up to their 70s or even 80s before they were granted status.
Yes, the policies would almost certainly have to be introduced as a full package of changes in order to work, and there will be second-order/unintended effects.
Just have to make it clear that the goal is more intact families and more well-developed children.
faceh
11mo ago
Society often sucks.
Being 'pro-social' means helping it suck less.
I am genuinely certain that this is the most common definition in use by most people when using these terms.
faceh
11mo ago
So from a legal perspective, are we right to criminalize and punish animal cruelty whilst carving out a large exception for the animals we eat?
faceh
19d ago
Yes, I'm just saying that the software is maintained by a company that may not make the best decisions for the end-users because incentives aren't quite aligned.
faceh
1mo ago
I'm now curious as to how much of this has started seeping into Law Review and Bar Journals, or if the standards there are still high enough and the reviewers still attentive enough that they'd get caught before publication.
faceh
1mo ago
Its going to have a direct impact on a particular segment of the population, though.
They're going to feel more a pinch, which will indeed reverberate out, but it'll be their belts that will have to be tightened.
faceh
2mo ago
Yep.
I think we can rigorously define certain behaviors that we don't ever want to become 'acceptable' but there are a lot that will be borderline at best. "Make everybody feel satisfied working 16 hour days 7 days a week" seems far beyond the pale, I don't even know how you'd argue FOR that ideal.
The Brave New World outcome where everyone is in a chemically-induced state of satiation is seeming less likely to me, but the version where Molochian incentives push us all into a very unfortunate part of the payoff matrix seems probable.
(As as aside, this is why I see the AI alignment problem as important. If the AI is 'friendly' but isn't actually in tune with what makes humans/humanity thrive, it'll come up with solutions that are subtly miserable.)
faceh
2mo ago
That's basically my understanding of it as a layman outsider.
Financial Markets are so large and complex and useful information is so dispersed that one trader can notice e.g. an arbitrage opportunity between the price of tea in China vs. Australia that allows them to front-run the market. Or perhaps they catch some more esoteric correlation like how when the tea shipments to a particular Chinese province are delayed, productivity drops by 15% or some such.
And the problem then is how do you bring enough capital to bear quickly enough to seize the opportunity without alerting other actors, and, ideally, turn it into a repeatable (algorithmic) bet to pump money out of the system.
faceh
4mo ago
This strategy seems pretty dependent on never becoming somebody who the IRS might eventually target.
That is, if your income grows over time, you have a real chance of becoming a big enough fish that they'll find it worthwhile to target you. And if they can target you for years or decades of back taxes, that's a pretty heavy hand they can bring slamming down.
Tax liens are not fun to deal with.
faceh
6mo ago
It's about the best they can muster under current circumstances.
I would just wait to see if there is any indication of a phase 2 to the plan.
faceh
6mo ago
So why would it be confusing that Hamas might YOLO in a similar situation where they are fighting against an inevitable outcome?
faceh
6mo ago
The smart phones didn't destroy the physical, real time connection, though. Not by mere dint of existing, that is.
I think a lot of factors contributed to that, and smart phones provided an alternative to such physical connections that managed to capture the masses as those physical connections deteriorated.
faceh
6mo ago
I can be sympathetic to that view, although I'd say social media is the real problem there.
But I don't see how you can suggest that smartphones, and the ability to have a computer with access to the near-sum of total human knowledge, hasn't been a boon for mankind in general, creating tons of value across the planet.
I might prefer to live in a world where Social Media was banned or never invented, wouldn't say the same for smartphones in general.
faceh
6mo ago
I just categorically disagree that this logic holds as a means to not care about the future.
I can say, that if the records existed, I, personally would like to search my genetic ancestry back 1000 years (at least!) and learn a bit about every single human being whose genes ended up in my genome.
And, we pretty much have the necessary technology such that, in 1000 years, someone in the future could look up information about YOU and thereby 'remember' your existence well beyond 2 generations out.
And there are certainly things you can do now to bump up the odds that someone will remember you further out.
Yes, that doesn't 'matter' to you once you're dead, but taking this nihilist position doesn't give you any reason to prefer any outcome over any other!
So hey, I won't try and convince you that one outcome matters over the other. I'll continue working to marginally increase the chances that the outcomes I prefer come about. From your logic, it's no more a waste of time to do that than to live for the present.
In short, accepting that life is ephemeral is one thing, but choosing to live as though the future won't exist is, if you believe what I do, a COPE.
Anyhow, I leave you with some distilled Hopium: Isaac Asimov's 'The Last Question.'
faceh
8mo ago
faceh
8mo ago
but in the end all I care about is that people acknowledge that there's somebody out there who will choose the blue pill through no fault of their own
I can acknowledge that there's a chance such a person exists in the game.
If the blue side can acknowledge that there's a chance that such a person does not actually exist in the game, since we don't have that information at the time we make the decision.
But if we've acknowledged such a person exists, it suggests that we should be designing our systems specifically to keep these people VERY FAR AWAY from any buttons that might hurt them or others.
And I think the uncomfortable implication, which blue-pickers will have to deal with, is that there may be a lot of these people who THINK of themselves as rational and intelligent, and will insist on being included in future decisions too.
(Yes, this is going towards an analogy about voting, in real life)
If your theory is:
I believe it to be virtually guaranteed that, given a poll size of a few billion people, there are a few small children who have answered the poll by accident and gotten involved. But putting that aside, people are just really dumb.
Then I am going to insist that if blue meets its threshold. and these people survive, we're going to have to take steps to forbid them from being involved in such decisions in the future for the sake of everybody else.
I remind you, my theory is that the vast majority of people are both intelligent enough and self-interested enough to pick red/survival when presented with the choice in a vacuum.
Yours is that there are dummies who will do stupid things like pick blue without thinking.
If I accept your theory, we are now left with the question of what to do about those dummies.
Yes, although you don't need charity if there are some rules of decorum and perhaps a moderator to prevent things devolving too much.
I kinda want both sides to be going for the throat, but things have to be temperate enough to allow arguments to be heard and understood, not two people shouting past each other.
faceh
9mo ago
I'd be surprised that this case has hung around this long, but I imagine it was getting appeals at EVERY STEP where each appeal can add a year or so by itself.
faceh
10mo ago
It think the issue is that this will be subject to a power law distribution, not a normal distribution.
It won't be the case where if a guy is at least moderately attractive/charismatic, puts in constant efforts and is reasonably intelligent he will on average land a six figure job by 27. It's going to be more like a 20% chance he lands a massively high paying job, another 20% he lands something paying high-five to low-six figs, and like a 60% chance he ends up in a standard job paying 'enough' but not extravagantly. (Figures are blatantly asspulled at this point, can look for actual figures later)
There's just so many pitfalls that can prevent a guy from breaking through to true wealth early on.
And of course consider that a guy who busts his ass to this extent in his early life might actually hamper his dating chances during that time because he won't be nearly as fun for women since he works all the time.
So what you're proposing sounds like it could be a recipe for creating the older, established guy who leverages his wealth in his late 30's to play around with the younger women he couldn't get when he was younger.
Now, I agree it's a good ideal to strive for, but I'm pretty sure that the only way there's actual change in norms is to reign in female behavior somehow.
Question then is, do you see anything wrong with abusing, torturing, or otherwise putting animals to other 'inhumane' uses.
Since once you've accepted that killing them for sustenance is permissible, seemingly anything else is on the table.
More options
Context Copy link