domain:preview.redd.it
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
5hr ago
Would you then contest the assertion that women are fundamentally lesser than men? I think that @To_Mandalay is essentially correct in this thread about how women have always been considered lower on the Great Chain of Being than men, do you disagree?
I don't hate women at all, though I do empathize with women who seem to hate themselves like this poor soul. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for women to feel trapped by their biology, to despair that their ordained purpose is mere continuance of the species while the men drive forwards the transcendence of Man.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
5hr ago
Fifth was quieter (though not as dead as the first time) and finally had someone on staff read me the riot act/facts of life.
Maybe I'm just too sheltered, but I'm not quite sure what you're insinuating here.
I have a rough time telling how much of that's bisexual or closeted gay rather than prescriptive when it comes to its heterosexuality or just trans chaser, but it's definitely a thing
I have no clue, either. But my read is that the "I'm a femboy and I fuck better than your girlfriend" is a strikingly common fantasy. Yeah, that line may have been used on me once. My take is that straight men are unbothered.
That said, the "I'll just go gay/date a femboy/date trans women" thing seems to have a little purchase, but only in the way that Trump wanting to buy Greenland is. It's a memetic negotiation tactic, a way of asserting "I have power over you no matter what you do!" I don't think the femboys or the trans women have actually been consulted. (But neither was Greenland.)
But also straight men need to be real careful lest they start assuming that twinky femboys are drama-free sex machines.
... I'm still a bit weirded out by that variation. I dunno if it's just my misreading it entirely, or if it's intended as a statement for people with open relationships to protect their primary partner, or what, but it seems like it's inviting people to bad understandings of what PrEP does.
I also thought it was weird, and commented on it at the time. Apparently this wasn't a CDC thing, it was Montgomery county public health. So in the NIH's backyard, though not with any affiliation.
I thought I had taken pictures of the posters, but I guess I took fewer pictures in Maryland than I thought. I did find Montgomery county's website for the overall HIV public health program, though, which has a similar banner, depicting two men and reading "Do it for HIM". Weirdly, the FAQs page for the program has a man hugging two elderly women with the phrase, "do it for THEM" which is mildly funny but also kind of seems to rebut the interpretation that this is advertising PrEP for protecting your partner. ("Do it for your mom?") Another page has a banner with a lesbian couple reading "Do it for HER" -- is HIV a big issue for lesbians? I remember seeing all of these variations at Metro stations in Maryland.
What's particularly strange is this seems to be the overall campaign for HIV prevention, treatment, and testing, but the banners I recall specifically were advertising PrEP. So maybe this was a situation of a generalized campaign being applied to a specific health intervention in a rather silly way -- "get tested for your wife, get treated for your mom, get PrEP for yourself" I guess seems reasonable, but the way in which all the posters I saw were about prophylaxis in particular just didn't make a lot of sense.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
6hr ago
I have indeed done some pondering on the origins of femininity. I think my strongest hypothesis is that female neuroticism largely stems from the zero-sum nature of female intrasexual competition, with utility in childrearing being a highly secondary cause. Agreeableness and consensus-seeking seem to me as less of a socially useful trait and more an adaptation towards self-preservation around potentially hostile men. Others have argued for the social utility of women's agreeableness, but I'm still pretty sure that nothing particularly bad would happen if the agreeableness distribution among women was shifted, say, 30% of the way towards the male distribution.
I largely accept the axiom that the world would be a better place if women acted more like men, though I'm unsure of the optimal delta. There are legitimately complimentary aspects to femininity, but to the extent that women are in fact "like narcissistic children", it would be better if they weren't.
Okay, now you've piqued my curiosity.
I'm afraid it's not very interesting: I was just at the 'willing-to-buy-gay-porn' level of confidence, had completely missed the (then-much-rarer) high school and college actually-social gay environments like whatever-they-called-GSAs back then or marching band, didn't drink alcohol or go to straight bars, and was pretty terminally clueless, so fish out of water is understating things. Absolutely unprepared and uninterested in a hookup, no actual gay friends, and no clue what the expected behavior was beyond hanky code horror stories, and I've got a face for radio and so little self-confidence I wasn't even bring that well. The whole train of logic was just 'gay and bi guys meet in bars, I'm a bi guy, so if I want to talk with other gay and bi guys I should learn how to go to bars'.
First time I showed up alone ten minutes after opening, bought a whole pizza and a diet coke, and had absolutely no idea what was going on. Nobody else there but the staff, and in retrospect they thought either I was stood up by a cheap date or about to run away from home, but about the only context I had was a couple years in high school having worked a family diner so took a hovering and constantly-asking-if-I-was-ok waiter as trying to get an extra dollar tip on a bad night.
The second was later enough in the day there were actually other clients there, but I'm still absolutely clueless and after how badly the first time went I brought a book, so when a guy sat next to me and ordered me a drink I said nope, and while I'd like to pretend that's to avoid leading someone on, I also still genuinely had trouble with the taste of beer and wine, and also had all the various then-prominent stories about never accepting drinks from strangers. And then went back to my book when he didn't start talking anything else. And then went on like that for a good thirty-plus minutes. Third was pretty much the same thing. In retrospect, some of the people on try three were probably trying to flirt, but in terms of social skill I’m not just answering how my day was with actual details of my actual day, but I’m not following up with questions back. I remember one guy complimenting my shirt, and telling him where I bought it.
Fourth was karaoke night. So you've got all that, and now people are much more drunk, and it's loud enough I couldn't hear most of what was going on anyway. Fifth was quieter (though not as dead as the first time) and finally had someone on staff read me the riot act/facts of life.
In some ways, I was pretty lucky that it went that particular failure mode -- despite a pretty subtle appearance and name, the place both oriented toward older crowds and was... much more high-energy than I would have been ready for, so to speak: karaoke night was the shallow end. But I'm glad that there's other options on both 'dating' and homosocial environments options now.
The other thing is that gay men, particularly ones who are interested in companionship more than disposability, often feel trapped by the expectations of gay dating, and are jealous of straight men for whom long-term commitment, exclusivity, and broad social acceptance feel like table stakes. So bisexual men can be "traitors": taking from gay men whatever they can get from them and then fleeing to the arms of a woman when one arises.
Yeah, that's fair. There's a lot of gay guys -- even gay guys that self-identify as sluts -- that want their (primary) relationships to be a lot more serious than a lot of natural equilibrium ends up, and that's a hard problem to solve and an easy problem to get jealous over.
This has been somewhat sexualized lately, with the "femboy bf"/"femboy hooters" meme culture which prompts great recrimination in the ongoing femininine-man/trans-woman civil war, but of course that also comes with the corollary memes of "breaking up with my femboy bf because I met a real woman." (I have no idea what the actual prevalence of this stuff is, I'm just way too extremely online.)
Heh. I have a rough time telling how much of that's bisexual or closeted gay rather than prescriptive when it comes to its heterosexuality or just trans chaser, but it's definitely a thing with variations on both sides of the orientation aisles (for an undeniably gay version: himbo hooters). And there's definitely a whole variety of stuff that's spread around the fantasy of either being so attractive or fucking so well that you redefine what's desirable for someone. ((for furries, jarlium has some great stuff on those themes.))
And, of course, top shortages definitely don't help.
I saw a bunch when I visited DC with my girlfriend. Interestingly, they were generally framed as "use PrEP to protect him" not yourself, like that Simpsons meme about Maggie.
... I'm still a bit weirded out by that variation. I dunno if it's just my misreading it entirely, or if it's intended as a statement for people with open relationships to protect their primary partner, or what, but it seems like it's inviting people to bad understandings of what PrEP does. But probably something the CDC expects to be more effective.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
6hr ago
Don't take this personally but I think this is exactly the sort of modern nonsense that got us into this mess.
People should stay together because they are bound by contract and oath; attraction is the unimportant vaguery of adolescents who don't yet realize all flowers wither.
Sensate pleasures are a child's idea of marriage, which is of course really about children, business and the general rubric of legacy.
Yet of course moderns insist on remaining children their whole lives and attempting to manifest a love story's erotic ideal into a world that can only contenance reality.
Divorce should require more than whim, and adultery should have harsh consequences. Anything less is essentially a return to barbaric norms of sex relations, along with their barbaric consequences.
No amount of social gamesmanship alone cannot maintain society. People respond to incentives.
YE_GUILTY
6hr ago
Indeed. If I saw a parade's worth of Progress Pride flags, I would think "must be a mainline protestant church."
TitaniumButterfly
6hr ago
I do believe that women are to some extent more childish, instinctual, etc. than men, but I also think that this is a highly unfortunate reality, not something to celebrate or appreciate, and hopefully might be ameliorated by whatever means necessary, social or biological.
See, I'd just call that 'hating women'. I like women. I think it's good they're women.
Imagine someone suggesting that we somehow 'fix' children such that they just start as adults!
Ademonera
6hr ago
I find this pretty interesting. I have kind of a retrograde idea of sexuality. When I was young, I was very pretty. Something of a Twink I guess you could say. Looking like this colors your psychology. I used to be called Angelina behind my back as a kid because I had big lips. And as I got older, I realize that there was some small part of me that was interested in men. But it wasn’t the same way that I would obsess over a girl. It was the idea, always in general terms. It was never romantic either. But I never ever took the effort to come out in any way - because functionally I never did anything that was gay. Of course people around you have a ‘gaydar’ but to this day, I’ve never explicitly and publicly mentioned it. I would even say out of principle I’ve decided not to publicly describe my sexuality at all. As a side note, It’s pretty infuriating that historians get to decide some dead person’s sexuality. It’s very, very complicated. I still don’t like calling myself bisexual (even if objectively true) because I feel i am more nuanced. it feels like when people anthromorphize animals to make some point about human behavior. Yes there is real world evidence I did these things, but can’t I choose how I define it?
To a significant other I might mention my experimentation in my teen years - and while that goes over pretty well with liberal women, it’s an eye opener. I never thought about it as the primary motivating factor behind hiding it, but it is real that women think of bisexual men as less than (especially if you are passive). I think women are off-put by the idea of man acting in the feminine role - and have a hard time really processing that, especially when it involves the person you find attractive.
But all that said, I always acted ‘closeted’ - and that’s the way I liked it. I’d get horny in bed, get my fantasy over with, and go back to normal. It was just this little part of myself that I indulged every once in a great while. I did wind up having gay sex a few times and I enjoyed it. I had a tryst in Milan with a guy with a boat.
But that was when I was 19 and now I’m 28. I’m a man with a job and a 401k. I’m not smooth and beautiful anymore - and the whole thing felt like a facsimile for the feminine.
It’s awful but some part of me wishes for community around this. I am at a point where I can build a life and get married, but this old part of me still exists - disconnected from what I am now. Protestant conversation therapy shouldn’t exist probably, but why not have programs to assist me in choosing to live my life as if this didn’t happen? Why tell people this essentialist idea that they are something forever and always - when, at least when you have two genders you are interested in, you can always neglect one? There’s always a chance that I wake up like Phillip morris, but I don’t think I will. I want to actively choose to never indulge in it as I grow old. Can my gay experiences not be a fun teenage experience à la the summer of love? Doesn’t seem to be a lot of room for that in the culture that’s been cultivated over last 15 years ish.
This is a podcast about being gay with your dad
JarJarJedi
6hr ago
I have to work a remote job
You mean you get to work a remote job. I worked in an office and remotely, and I didn't feel any more "integrated into the local community" sitting for hours in a fabric-covered cubicle than I do working from home. Of course, to each its own, but ops and pre-sales are definitely very remote-friendly jobs. Though I guess there are some ops jobs that require physical presence (like being on-site technician in a data center?) but I don't see much "community" potential there. Why not work remotely and find social connections by volunteering, joining local clubs, church, etc.? Beyond that, many small cities have some kind of big employer - corporate HQ, hospital, factory, college, big retail, etc. Those usually have IT departments and may even have their own software development/ops teams. If you insist on in-office job that would be where I'd look.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
7hr ago
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
7hr ago
Please explain (and ideally provide pictures).
He's definitely gloomy about any future peaceful solutions. He paints a picture of perpetual violence and, at the end of the book, predicts no end to the conflict for the foreseeable future. I think one could safely say that the eight years since publication have proven that prediction correct so far.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
7hr ago
It's a multi-factorial issue.
There's a bunch of pro-Israel political donors who'll spend lavishly on Israel supporters/threaten attack ads against perceived hostile politicians. Republicans grovel for the Adelson seal of approval. Media power. Lawyers may well be part of it too.
But these politicians like Cruz also say 'god commands us to support Israel'. Why disbelieve them? Furthermore the US is a special outlier in support for Israel, much more than say Britain or Australia or Canada. The US also has a large evangelical contingent while lawyers are more international. Presumably it's not just about lawyers.
gattsuru
7hr ago
Hey, you don't have to call me out like that!
If it helps, drawing from personal experience myself.
Holy crap, are virginity, the "breeding" kink, and pozzed culture linked psychologically?
To some extent and some forms, yeah. Strictly speaking the infection version only ties you to the culture of the infecting actor (whether infection is literal HIV or vampirism or latex monster), where pregnancy or virginity loss draws a permanent connection to a specific person, but I'm not sure they're even distinct on that point from inside the fantasy. You see it a decent amount in kink, even in pretty free-use-styled kink across a variety of genders and orientations: A/B/O with mating bites are female-reader coded and a lot of slavery-themed stuff with these conventions are gay-for-gay-themed, but assigned mate is overwhelmingly het guy-oriented.
In the extreme case, womb markers for pregnancy and biohazard markers for poz-themed stuff has a lot of parallels.
It's not the only driver even for those kinks, and there's a lot that doesn't get remotely near it (eg, glory hole isn't about the tops being interchangeable, but it's definitely about impermanence), but it's a really non-obvious bit that explains a lot where present.
durdenhobbes
7hr ago
This is maybe the funniest comment I've seen in all my years on SSC/CWR/Motte
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
7hr ago
I also think that this is a highly unfortunate reality, not something to celebrate or appreciate, and hopefully might be ameliorated by whatever means necessary, social or biological
Before jumping to such conclusions, have you seriously considered why nature saw fit to select this reality?
thrownaway24e89172
Death is the inevitable and only true freedom
7hr ago
As WhiningCoil expresses above, the redpill perspective on women essentially considers them as men's lessers, baser creatures driven primarily by instinct. This is a perspective with strong cultural precedent, and its echoes persist to this day, even in aspirationally egalitarian societies. When feminists keep talking about wanting men and women to be equal, despite their equality before the law and the outright preference shown towards women by our cultural institutions, this is what they mean.
And that is evidence that feminists are either too incompetent (they aren't...) to understand the reason for this or are deliberately maintaining (or feigning) ignorance for social manipulation. The idea that men are by nature baser creatures driven primarily by their instincts (eg, "They think their dicks.") is widespread in culture just as it is for women. Men are not seen as inherently better than women; people who control themselves and don't give in to their base instincts are seen as better than people who don't. Society expects this of men in a way it doesn't of women and in return grants them greater status for achieving it, as well as punishing them much more harshly for not. Feminists typically focus on eliminating the greater status granted men without eliminating (often rather reinforcing) the greater pressure nor the greater punishment.
I like your perspective. Particularly this:
Viewed through the lens of purely analytic sexual gamesmanship, both men and women seem like horrible creatures whom no-one would really want to be with other than for a cheap temporary bodily satisfaction, an ego boost, perhaps money... just not for the joy of being with them.
That's what it feels like to read a lot of the more negativistic takes on dating, from both men and women. At some point I just wonder whether they even like the opposite sex in any sense whatsoever. I see so much talking about status and power and affirmation and sex, and almost nothing about a connection where you see yourself in the other and realize you're not so different as you thought, or the physical pleasure of a cuddle, or the joy of making your partner laugh after they had a bad day, or the calm peacefulness of a weekend spent living domestic life with your partner, or what it's like to look into someone's eyes and see them dilate and soften as they look at you. I would cut off my dick and throw it away before I gave up these things.
In particular, a lot of takes from men on the dating scene, even those I see on the motte, sound like they were written by people from a completely different planet from me -- men don't pair bond, men don't talk about their feelings, men are only interested in harem-building, men are only monogamous because women make them, romance is a game that men generate to get sexual access from women. I don't know to what extent this is just posturing, machismo, or a real difference in psychological experience. But those things just... don't describe me.
I guess I never went through a redpill phase. I certainly went through a phase where I realized that you do need to make your romantic intentions known early on with a woman, and trying to build a relationship on top of a friendship just doesn't work. But I only rarely encountered women who were "hooking up with alphas" as I was trying to date them; okay, maybe a couple times, but it was obvious pretty quickly that those ladies were emotionally troubled anyway, and a relationship with them would simply be unstable.
But I've also had women ask me out, women hunt me down or drop notes in my locker or use mutual friends to try and get me to ask her out, when I was back in school. In college I was asked out once, and had a few women who seemed eager for me to ask them out. Not every woman who's been interested in me has been my type -- but most of them were perfectly normal, stable people, and the relationships I've had, though fewer than perhaps I'd like, have been founded in mutual vulnerability and intimacy. I could always share my emotions with my partner, and we looked out for each other and cared for one another. When my relationships have ended, it was either because of a natural falling-apart (moving away, mutual loss of interest) or it was my fault. So the stereotypes of what male-female pairings are like, in TV sitcoms and motte posts and redpill guides isn't my experience of love.
I guess my few interactions with women who seem like the redpill stereotype involved me bouncing off them -- I don't play games, and I don't chase skirts. I don't sit for shit-tests and I don't like coquettishness. My yes is my yes and my no is my no. If women want to create drama for the sake of drama or engage in verbal sparring like a Jane Austin character, well, they're welcome to find this somewhere else. So I suppose my romantic style heavily filters against manipulation, and firmly towards well-adjusted, romantically decisive women. I intend to keep it this way.
jkf
8hr ago
Fair. If I had to come up with the no-gay-guy-would-wear-this setup, it'd probably involve an emphasis on frumpy and especially too-large clothing, but that's neither actionable nor useful advice for anyone in the real world.
Don't tell the President!
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
8hr ago
Replying to this, will also quote the exchange with @Tree to point out why posters are pointing out issues with your perspective.
There's no "lothario problem", pua is literally a dead underground thing and even the few who did go out here probably used tactics from two decades ago.
All "lotharios" are chads as the word Chad was used by incels to describe what pickup artists called naturals, naturals are people who get laid regularly. They don't "damage" women as women explicitly seek such men. Every single piece of smut has a girl vying for a guy who looks like he is a few minutes from beating the breaks off her going by how gruff he is.
They like the lying, they want drama and they'll always choose a guy who gives them drama over Mr nice guy.
The Incels don't need to win against all Chads or even most Chads. The problem is not Chad, it's Lothario.
No, it's men who allowed emancipation, the one thing you wouldn't blame which has caused all of this.
Look, I've said it a billion times on this thread and others, my problem is not with guys who can lock down hotter girls than me (although I would be lying if I said I wasn't jealous).
Good that you are honest
It's with guys who churn through tens or hundreds of girls by lying about their intentions, making those girls slightly less dateable for a healthy Chad, and with standards that make relatively normal dudes invisible.
The sex that lies the most ain't the one that fights wars. You have made up a fake dichotomy in your head wherein you have the stereotypical rom com protagonist on one hand and your roommate James on the other. You can't handle James doing what he can since your perception of the world is based on physical attraction and the nice guy things women claim to like. James gets girls because he can cheat, same for all the Chads. Women are damaged because they are allowed to run free, they explicitly want the rolleecoaster of emotions that lotharios offer.
Bedding a girl isn't done via false promises of commitment, lying about commitment is less damaging than the cold blooded women do daily to hundreds of guys, you'd be horrified by what happens in a girls text inbox.
In this case forced marriage, followed by castration when there's adultery, doesn't actually seem that far outside of the historical wheelhouse as a way to rein these guys in.
It is outside of historical wheelhouse because emancipation was never a thing in the past, you would have men go to whore houses or have their own harems. Anything beyond tackling the issue of emancipation is misdirection, shotgun marriage cannot work if you cna no fault divorce and alimonycuck your husband with zero consequences.
Your issue isn't some righteous war of ideology, it's bitterness towards your roommates those like him who get women regularly. If you took a step back, you'd realise that he is not at fault here, it's the modern soyciety that allows him to do what he wants. Emancipation isn't going away for a while and I really like meeting new girls, others should do the same.
jkf
8hr ago
"Like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are fervent lips with an evil heart."
I'm pretty sure the "glazing over the truth" sense is comfortably pre-bukkake -- quite a nice motto for the coming Jihad to boot.
anti_dan
8hr ago
This is way too much words and speculation. The actual reasons are quite simple: Muslim Arabs did 9/11; Muslim Arabs would do 10k 9/11s if they were capable of doing so, they say so themselves; Muslim Arabs also hate Israel and sometimes divert their hate in that direction; Muslim Arabs also disrupt other important interests to normal people like international boating trade; Muslim Arabs that have been allowed into America or borne to such people statistically disfavor the Republican party.
There is no reason for a Republican to be in favor of any Muslim Arab until you get to the "they hate Jews" dregs level. Instead, what the actual question is why would anyone support Palestine ever. They are losers who lose, and they lose while intentionally killing civilians. It is hard to think of a valid reason to support not just Hamas, but ANY Palestinian. They elected Hamas after all. Hamas continues to sustain support at levels unheard of in the US for a political party.
So it is all odd, probably nonsensical, arguments to convince anyone on the American right that Palestinians aren't bad. I certainly think that there is good evidence that they are deserving of a nuke to the face and subsequent scattering if not deserving in a full elimination.
Most people under discussion here barely experienced that. Don't known what they're missing.
More options
Context Copy link