[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.179[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1561011153652.jpg (107.05 KB, 292x397, 292:397, 9782818909676.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Some time ago some magazine posted a dry article on #metoo and our culture where people harass and abuse women.
Then the same magazine posted a fun little piece on the new Detective Pikachu movie stating it is a shame that it is all so childfriendly and that Pikachu could be funny as a beer drinking, belching and womanizing critter.

It does raise the question. While most agree hopefully that #metoo shows the disrespect women can get in our society and we should respect personal boundaries a lot more, do you think our culture in sexual comedy etcetera plays a large part into enabling this?
Do we come to a point where we need to review and censor things like that to improve our society?

 No.180

We should certainly criticize and explore flaws in media, in order to make people aware of its problematic aspects.

At the same time it is both good and perhaps necesseary, that we also manage to see what it is about these forms of media, that enjoyable or good.

It is possible to enjoy something, but still be aware of how it contributes negatively to a problem. Through that self-awareness people can retain a greater degree of conscious control, over the ways in which it ends up influencing them.

To me, this trope of men as being lazy womanizers who just drink beer all day, hurts men as a group, because it enables them to slide into these stereotypes with the excuse of 'well this is just how men are, boys will be boys'. Yes, I made innappropriate comments, yes I touched her in places she didn't wanna be touched, but whatareyagonnado, I'm a MAAAN, that's what men do. When I was a kid, this was what we were taught manhood was. This is like, a legitimate defense that men actually use when confronted with their own sexism, and it's one that actually works, because many men were taught this through culture, and it's fucking sad.

We can and should hold men to a higher standard than this. The cultural image of men, should not in some large part be one of men as naturally lazy and transgressive womanizers.

 No.181

File: 1561022492671.jpg (59.67 KB, 1008x822, 168:137, 076892b52b1d86941849cc5751….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>179
No. Usually you're laughing at the guy doing that stuff.
They're the butt of the joke near every single time I've seen.

Incidentally, detective pikachu was a pretty good movie. I don't think sticking a belching beer drinker would help it, though. Maybe that's just me.
Needed more sexy pokemon, though, if I'm honest.

 No.182

Well #metoo is specifically about sexual harassment and sexual assaults. Just being a crude person does not necessarily fall into that category.

That said, yes, I think media is responsible for what they say with that kind of comedy. It can work to normalize certain behaviors without even realizing it, which can be bad. But I don't think that kind of comedy should be completely banned, because the opposite can be true. Like with a character like Johnny Bravo, who's chauvinist attitude was shown as a source of comedy. HE thought he was cool, but everyone around he saw that he was a buffoon and he constantly got his comeuppance for his actions. The comedy is used to show "This is bad, you look like an idiot when you act this way. So don't."


When used this way, I think that the character type can be used to great effect. But I don't think that type of comedy works for Pikachu. I get the desire. It's funny to think of the juxtaposition between the cute character acting crudely. But unless the movie goes out of it's way to show that Pikachu acting that way is bad, then it wouldn't be a good idea. You need to keep the main character likeable. It's a balancing act. Which probably why the pokemon company decided to avoid that kind of thing.

 No.185

>>181
You're just upset sylveon wasn't featured

 No.188

File: 1561060054834.png (197.15 KB, 754x774, 377:387, 0bf2fbb2a5ab72cc3113ceeb97….png) ImgOps Google

>>185
Trying to get a poster to admit they are a certain person and/or accusing them of such is frowned upon on /townhall/. I've suggested to the mods it be made into an official rule, but just keep it in mind.

That said, I'm upset that Sylveon wasn't in the movie.

 No.195

I wouldn't agree that crude comedy about sexist characters creates the culture that #metoo is responding to so much as the vast differences in power and influence between the harrasser/assaulter and the victims.

Remember #metoo is about people in positions of significant power and influence getting away with this kind of stuff because of this power and influence. It's not about men in general it's about people in power and their abuses of that power.

 No.196

File: 1561097888068.jpg (105.38 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, D769t7WXUAArQwY.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>185
More like Salazzle.
>>195
This is a pretty big one. I think the bigger problems that the whole #metoo thing points out is mostly how those with wealth and influence can rather easily shape things away from any consequences to their actions.

Which, frankly, isn't a matter of any particular gender, as much as it is a class problem.

 No.199

I think censorship is more likely to push people into a defensive position and embolden them to continue such such stereotypes rather than change their demeanor.  It's reasonable to review your writing and restructure it to present something more idealized.  Perhaps doing so would help steer society in a more positive direction.  But it has to come from the self and not from outside forces.

 No.200

>>199
This, pretty much. Censorship doesn't ever actually fix the problems, you ask me. it just makes people upset that they're being censored, and gives him a solid rationalization to claim to be the victim.

Improvements to culture and social items are best done through example, not force. At least in my opinion.

 No.237

>>196
>>196
>Which, frankly, isn't a matter of any particular gender, as much as it is a class problem.

It's both a class and gender issue. The #metoo movement is mostly women speaking up about being sexually abused and harassed by powerful and influential men, something that disproportionately happens to women. Not to say that there aren't men in the #metoo movement as well, but for the most part it's women and for the most part it's also about how almost by default, if an individual women calls out the sexual abuses of a powerful man, she is disbelieved, and this is partly because of the attitude towards women amongst the powerful and influential.

As a friend of mine once pointed out "In Saudi Arabia it takes 2 women to accuse a man of rape before he is arrested. But in America, if you're Bill Cosby, it takes 23 women".

 No.238

>>237
Due to cultural reasons, men don't tend to speak up at all about any harassment they receive, even from other men. As it happens, even when it comes to domestic abuse, people're more inclined to laugh at a man, when it happens.
I don't know if it's anywhere near the same level, when it comes to this stuff, between men and women, as I've never seen any data on it. But, frankly, I feel like we as a society are far too inclined to ignore and actively discourage any men from ever voicing particular issues like these.
If you're a guy, and you say "This lady kept on touching my butt", I don't think most folk are going to be inclined to say "Oh, that's horrible! You should tell the police", essentially. I think most people're going to laugh at you for raising a fuss about it.

 No.239

File: 1561243059500.jpg (84.62 KB, 640x480, 4:3, hen-sitting-on-puppy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>238
>If you're a guy, and you say "This lady kept on touching my butt", I don't think most folk are going to be inclined to say "Oh, that's horrible! You should tell the police", essentially. I think most people're going to laugh at you for raising a fuss about it.
Yes, this.  And in fact, other men, especially men who aren't in a happy sexual relationship, might even feel jealous if the touching woman is even slightly sexually attractive.  And men tend to have lower standards for sexual attraction than do women, since, in humans as well as in most other sexually reproducing animals, males who impregnate many females are favored by natural selection, while females who are more careful in choosing their mates are favored.

 No.240

>>238

True, that's why there are men in the #metoo movement as well.

Doesn't mean that gender isn't also an issue here. Men who are victims of sexual abuse and assault are generally believed, but mocked for considering themselves victims in the first place, whereas women are distrusted if they accuse powerful men.

>>239

I completely disagree with that assessment.

It's not that men who are victims are mocked by jealous men, it's that they are mocked for being perceived as being weak. I mean, men can be sexually abused by other men and still get mocked if they speak up about it.

 No.241

>>240
>Men who are victims of sexual abuse and assault are generally believed, but mocked for considering themselves victims in the first place, whereas women are distrusted if they accuse powerful men.
I don't think I'd agree. But, I guess I've never seen any studies on this particular item.
Still, it seems to me most the time guys who bring up this sort of thing are flatly ignored.

 No.245

>>237
Well, Terry Crews has been an active part of the #metoo movement because of this stigma. He has come out publicly about a (male) producer who grabbed his genitals, to show that even men can be the victims of sexual harassment if it's perpetrated by someone abusing their power.

 No.247

>>245

see >>240

Have you noticed how often Terry gets mocked online for this?

 No.273

I think it comes down to having to completely dismantle and examine every aspect of heterosexual courtship in western culture. It's changing incredibly rapidly, there's really no consensus about what the correct rules of engagement really are, and there's a lot of misinformation out there, and not a lot of hard data on the issue.

A great start would be to establish what the rules of engagement are. The 2nd would be to actually make those mean something by making sure following said RoE doesn't guarantee romantic/sexual failure. I think one of the problems is that following a code of ethics is, unfortunately, not seen as a very attractive thing for a man to do. Even trying to go about romance with methodolgy is violently frowned upon. https://nypost.com/2012/04/19/banker-rates-dates-in-a-spreadsheet-then-shares-the-file-with-one-of-them/ is a good example. This guy was completely torn to shreds socially for even attempting to organize the maelstrom of chaos. But if we socially insist on chaos and disorganization, then you can't really complain too much when people get it wrong. It's either structured or it isn't. If we refuse to have rules of engagement, we can't really say shit when boundaries are crossed

I think there's a paradox that we ultimately need to pick a side on...
Choice A: We can either eliminate the handsy consent-skitters, choosing to punish overconfidence over punishing structure and "wimpiness" and accept the non-smooth spreadsheet guys, i'll call this the pragmatic side, or...
Choice B: We can eliminate the spreadsheet guys, punishing awkwardness and frankness, and accept the handy churlish people. I'll call this the intuitive side.

As it is now, the expectation is that the pursuer is suppose to intuitively know if the other person is attracted, and is punished for organization or clarification, but is also punished for being bold. So there's no rhyme or reason to anything, and it's all a gigantic clusterfuck. The pursuer is expected to act bold and aggressive, but the moment is steps over anyone's unspoken, unannounced, unknowable boundaries, they're a monster. The exact same behavior declared romantic and idealistic should it happen to play off right. We can't expect anyone to improve under these circumstance. We just need to choose. Are we going to be uncivilized animals, or unsexy people. We have to just make a decision and live with the consequences here.

 No.306

>>273
>Even trying to go about romance with methodolgy is violently frowned upon. https://nypost.com/2012/04/19/banker-rates-dates-in-a-spreadsheet-then-shares-the-file-with-one-of-them/ is a good example. This guy was completely torn to shreds socially for even attempting to organize the maelstrom of chaos.
This dude was not torn to shreds for attempting to organize dating.

He had 12 women going at once, and SENT THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION AND HIS JUDGEMENTS ON THEM, to someone he thought was hot to try and impress them into having sex with him presumably.

He was torn to shreds for making objectifying remarks about the women he was dating in his spreadsheet, for sharing their personal information and for rating them based on appearance on a scale from 1-10. His system belied his views on the women, and his views are what made him seem like a creep, not the fact that he liked to use excel.

>I think it comes down to having to completely dismantle and examine every aspect of heterosexual courtship in western culture. It's changing incredibly rapidly, there's really no consensus about what the correct rules of engagement really are, and there's a lot of misinformation out there, and not a lot of hard data on the issue.
Who says you need hard data on this issue? It's not natural science, it's dating. The best way to understand it is through qualitative means.

>I think there's a paradox that we ultimately need to pick a side on...
>Choice A: We can either eliminate the handsy consent-skitters, choosing to punish overconfidence over punishing structure and "wimpiness" and accept the non-smooth spreadsheet guys, i'll call this the pragmatic side, or...
>Choice B: We can eliminate the spreadsheet guys, punishing awkwardness and frankness, and accept the handy churlish people. I'll call this the intuitive side.
This reads like a very incel-y bad boys over nice guys dichotomy to me. It's ultimately up to individual women, what they want to value, it's not something we can or should try to enforce socially.

Can you imagine if someone told you, you could either choose to either a) punish timid women or b) punish agressive women, because there's uncertainty about the way that women should behave in the workplace, and that's the only way we're going to improve society, is by making sure women know what the right thing to do is? This is what you're essentially proposing.

It's not like anyone incapable of making a spreadsheet is churlish either. There are actually ways to be respectful to women in dating, without categorizing them from 1-10 in collums, even though that might be hard to believe. I think that's really what we should all aim for. Because everyone deserves a little respect. There are ways to be the reserved banker, who dates women, without messing it up.

 No.309

>>306
I will note, though, that I don't think the dude should necessearily be socially punished to the degree that he was.

I think it's really bad what he did, but it's really quite insignificant of an action, compared to the actions that go unchallenged by many men.

It would be good if he and others were taught better, and if someone explained to him, why this is not a good approach to dating.

 No.312

>>306
>He was torn to shreds for making objectifying remarks about the women
I don't get what this is or why it is considered bad.  People have sexual fantasies, and they shouldn't be shamed for talking about them.

>for sharing their personal information
OK, that one is bad.

>for rating them based on appearance on a scale from 1-10.
Why is that bad?  We all subconsciously rate people's attractiveness.  What's wrong with writing this down?  Some people don't have such great memory and need to write things down.

 No.313

>>312
>I don't get what this is or why it is considered bad.  People have sexual fantasies, and they shouldn't be shamed for talking about them.
This has nothing to do with objectifying women. You can totally have sexual fantasies and desires, and not objectify people. What he did was not simply having fantasies and desires. He pursued that sexuality to the exclusion of humanity. The women were objects of desire to him. The only thing he cared about about them was, how attractive were they and where they willing to go on dates with him, and what would it take for him to get them to do that. He literally cared so little about anything else, that this was the only things he wrote down. Completely reducing the humanity of women in his mind, and trying to liken them to a simple input-output equation.

And yes, maybe he didn't have the time to engage on a more complex level with them, but then you take the time, or you don't have 12 women going at the same time, you stick with one or two, so that you can get to know them, or at least remember their humanity.

>OK, that one is bad.
I know

>Why is that bad?  We all subconsciously rate people's attractiveness.  What's wrong with writing this down?  Some people don't have such great memory and need to write things down.
The 1-10 system is particularly barf-inducing. Like I say in the other part of this post, it relegates women's value to that of sex objects. The rest of the spreadsheet had only very minor details about who the women were as people. Actually, had no details. The impression you get, is that this dude didn't care enough to remember anything about these women, because he wanted to put in the minimal amount of effort, and this rating system shows that. It takes all of 2 seconds to come up with a score, when really there's so much more to discover about a person, so much more to engage with. A person's value shouldn't be determined by their appearance, you should keep your mind open, be interested in them, curious who they are, feel compassion for them, empathy and understanding, and try to create a connection. Not just go for whichever prize will look best when you show it to the boys at the water cooler the next day. Which is essentially what this score is developed to do.

'Hey, I banged a chick last night'.
'Oh how hot?'
'7'

In the same way that being labelled a nigger, makes it hard for a black dude to ever achieve humanity in the eyes of the person who applies this label to them, because it inherently otherizes the black person and relegates them to another category, a 7 otherizes and relegates a woman to a distinct category of being. If you're a 7, you don't date investment bankers, you're not good enough. This is the kind of easy reduction that can be made with this kind of categorization. It lends itself to it, because our brains are good at detecting differences between categories, real or imagined, and applying them within categories, whether those applications are valid or not. A """7""" could easily be the most amazing person in the world for you, but you'll never see it, if instead of thinking of her as a person, you think of her as a number, and think you oculd probably do better, like maybe getting an 8. Conversely, if you engage with the 8, and she's actually really great and wonderful, you might not notice that, or you forget to appreciate it and seek it out, beacuse your method of valuing women, relies primarily on appearances.

If you instead of calling them a 7, try to understand them as they are, with their unending nuance of qualities, you end up treating them with a lot more respect, and you achieve more of a connection with them as a person as well.

Women are not pleasure objects, they're not housewives, they're not 7's 8's or 5's, and they're not decoration, right. They're complex beings with aspirations, interests, needs and desires of their own, who want to be met and understood for who they are.

 No.314

>>306
>He was torn to shreds for making objectifying remarks about the women he was dating in his spreadsheet, for sharing their personal information and for rating them based on appearance on a scale from 1-10. His system belied his views on the women, and his views are what made him seem like a creep, not the fact that he liked to use excel.

None of the headlines mention the objectification, only the spreadsheet. Would it be romantic then if his spreadsheet was about socially acceptable things to be attracted to? "Sandra was really considerate" or "anne was super funny"? Do you think making a spreadsheet would be accepted as good by society at large? I don't think so. The doxing was pretty unacceptable tho.

>Who says you need hard data on this issue? It's not natural science, it's dating. The best way to understand it is through qualitative means.

I think that puts way too much faith in intuition. It's easy for people to get lost in a moment or a fleeting feeling and make really bad mistakes. If you don't at least include some level of cold analytics, then you're bound to hit a lot of pitfalls you could have avoided.

>This reads like a very incel-y bad boys over nice guys dichotomy to me. It's ultimately up to individual women, what they want to value, it's not something we can or should try to enforce socially.

So you think #metoo is a bad idea then? because that's enforcing socially the behavior of "bad boys". Ideally, yes, it would be up to individual women, but there's just too severe a communication barrier.
Men often don't know when a women is trying to attract them or trying to attract the guy next to him, or not trying to attract anyone. Slut shaming basically gauruntees that a woman isn't socially allowed to communicate in a way that has a reasonable degree of success to be understood.

>Can you imagine if someone told you, you could either choose to either a) punish timid women or b) punish agressive women, because there's uncertainty about the way that women should behave in the workplace, and that's the only way we're going to improve society, is by making sure women know what the right thing to do is? This is what you're essentially proposing.

Yea, i can imagine it. People being expected to act a certain way in different spaces and different contexts is commonplace, and they can and do get punished for acting outside those expectations. People are expected to behave within a different scopes of behavior in different environments. That's not unreasonable or absurd, that's very standard. The only difference is that instead of "reading the room", the rules of the room are written down. It's just like the spreadsheet thing. You're punishing lack of intuition. You're punishing people for trying to lay out pragmatic, easy-to-understand guidelines instead of "taking hints" "reading the room" or "measuring the mood". The guidelines are still there, they've always been there, you just don't like that they've been written down, and i really don't get why.

>It's not like anyone incapable of making a spreadsheet is churlish either. There are actually ways to be respectful to women in dating, without categorizing them from 1-10 in collums, even though that might be hard to believe.

That's called being a platonic friend. I've never head of a woman getting turned on by how respectful a man was. No woman ever has said "he was so considerate of my boundaries, that's so fucking hot!".

>I think that's really what we should all aim for. Because everyone deserves a little respect. There are ways to be the reserved banker, who dates women, without messing it up.

The banker gets away with it because he has money. I don't fault people for being attracted to money, it's a sensible thing to be attracted to. But even men smiling turns out to be a major turn-off for women.
http://ubc-emotionlab.ca/wp-content/files_mf/tracybeall2011emotion.pdf
women find men who show pride or shame to be rated more attractive on average than smiling men, even if it's the same man doing it. So a man either having lots of wealth (pride) or knowing his place (shame) is shown to be more attractive than kindness (smiling). It's admittedly a lot of extrapolation on my part, but it's a lot more than your baseless claims. Hell, as another argument, i'll ask you this. If being kind and respectful is so attractive, than why do fuckboys exist? Why would people be so confused if it was so simple? Why would the very concept of negging exist? The friendzone would be an impossibility. As none of these are the case, I think it's safe to assume your argument doesn't hold much water.

>>313
>The 1-10 system is particularly barf-inducing. Like I say in the other part of this post, it relegates women's value to that of sex objects. The rest of the spreadsheet had only very minor details about who the women were as people. Actually, had no details. The impression you get, is that this dude didn't care enough to remember anything about these women, because he wanted to put in the minimal amount of effort, and this rating system shows that. It takes all of 2 seconds to come up with a score, when really there's so much more to discover about a person, so much more to engage with. A person's value shouldn't be determined by their appearance, you should keep your mind open, be interested in them, curious who they are, feel compassion for them, empathy and understanding, and try to create a connection. Not just go for whichever prize will look best when you show it to the boys at the water cooler the next day. Which is essentially what this score is developed to do.

>'Hey, I banged a chick last night'.
>'Oh how hot?'
>'7'

Thing is, people kindof are sex objects in a certain sense. The overwhelming majority of human sexual attraction is aimed squarely at other humans. That doesn't mean we aren't people, that we aren't complex. It just means one of those many, many layers is being sexually attractive to each other on a physical level. You can see someone as being hot af and still know that they're complex, multifaceted people. I don't see why base attraction is assumed to dismiss other aspects of a person. If i call someone kind, that doesn't mean i'm dismissive of their physical attractiveness? If not, why is it assumed in the reverse?

>Women are not pleasure objects, they're not housewives, they're not 7's 8's or 5's, and they're not decoration, right. They're complex beings with aspirations, interests, needs and desires of their own, who want to be met and understood for who they are.

While this is of course true, i do think that it's not really realistic to expect everyone to humanize every single person they interact with. I don't find out what the hopes and dreams are of every clerk i buy stuff from. It would be an intrusion if i did. We pick and choose who we are intimate with, and i don't think it's unreasonable to not yet really get a sense of who a person is on a first date. We have to start somewhere, and physical appearance and innate physical attraction are a lot easier to get a read on than someone's soul. So it's not an unreasonable place to start.

 No.315

>>314

1/?

>None of the headlines mention the objectification
The articles do, though..., and the spreadsheet clearly indicates the same.

If he had written those specific things, not necessearily more socially acceptable things, because a lot of awful things are socially acceptable, that would have been a start towards something more humanizing, yes.

I agree, that the blowback was overdone, but some level of blowback was not unwarranted

>I think that puts way too much faith in intuition. It's easy for people to get lost in a moment or a fleeting feeling and make really bad mistakes. If you don't at least include some level of cold analytics, then you're bound to hit a lot of pitfalls you could have avoided.
Qualitative means are not just intuition. They can be analytic and cold. Just read Simone de Beauvoir, Naomi Wolf, or anyone like this, and you'll realize that the arguments made within are corroborated by sound means, and arrive at conclusions that could have never been reached quantitatively.

>So you think #metoo is a bad idea then? because that's enforcing socially the behavior of "bad boys". Ideally, yes, it would be up to individual women, but there's just too severe a communication barrier.
I don't agree that it does this. You'd have to show me a sound line of reasoning that shows why, #metoo as a movement does this.

>Men often don't know when a women is trying to attract them or trying to attract the guy next to him, or not trying to attract anyone. Slut shaming basically gauruntees that a woman isn't socially allowed to communicate in a way that has a reasonable degree of success to be understood.
If there's any degree of uncertainty, then you don't go for it. This is pretty obvious. If this makes it hard for you personally, you have to get better at picking up on people's intentions, or just... ask them?

Slut shaming is certainly a problem, though, one that ideally should be dealt with.

Basically, 'playing the slots' and forcing yourself on a woman in some way in the hopes that she happens to like you enough to accept this, this doesn't seem like a good idea, no matter the outcome. You should never do this, as a man, there's a chance it works, but it's just unethical.

>Yea, i can imagine it. People being expected to act a certain way in different spaces and different contexts is commonplace, and they can and do get punished for acting outside those expectations. People are expected to behave within a different scopes of behavior in different environments. That's not unreasonable or absurd, that's very standard. The only difference is that instead of "reading the room", the rules of the room are written down. It's just like the spreadsheet thing. You're punishing lack of intuition. You're punishing people for trying to lay out pragmatic, easy-to-understand guidelines instead of "taking hints" "reading the room" or "measuring the mood". The guidelines are still there, they've always been there, you just don't like that they've been written down, and i really don't get why.
The spreadsheet thing has nothing to do with what you're talking about. It's 100% clear to anyone that understand this kind of social blowback that the spreadsheet was geeky and socially it carried bad optics with it, but the only reason the guy was socially punished was that there within the spreadsheet was objectifying judgements about women and personal information, that belied the authors intent, all of which was collected and shared without the consent of the women concerned.

The problem is, there are no pragmatic and easy to read guidelines for complex human social interactions, that don't leave someone disadvantaged or someone unconsidered. You're trying to alghorithmize, what is inherently soft and squishy for a reason, and in so doing, you're invalidating anyone who doesn't meet your arbitrary standards of correctness. You don't standardize the social punishment of agressive or timid men or women, because having a personality trait, is not a crime or a sufficient negative quality in and of itself, to warrant this kind of consistent discrimination. If someone does something which is unethical, that's a different story.

>That's called being a platonic friend. I've never head of a woman getting turned on by how respectful a man was. No woman ever has said "he was so considerate of my boundaries, that's so fucking hot!".
On the other hand plenty of women are very unwilling to date people that cross their personal boundaries. So what is your point here? We have to agressively cross women's boundaries in order to make them want to have sex with us??? I mean, what the hell, man.

>men smiling is a major turn off for women
This was based off of still images, presented on the street. If you actually went an hour with a woman without ever smiling once, I'm willing to bet this would be a major turn off too. The methods of this study suggest severe problems with ecological validity.

Also, you're drawing these crazy comparisons, like pride = wealth, or shame = knowing your place. But maybe there's a completely different causal mechanism. They studies don't corroborate your idea strongly.

I'm not saying being kind and respectful is attractive. I have never said this. But it is, the right thing to do, and it will make people like you more. And if you don't do it, there's a chance you're going to get called out for it, and you're really going to have to live with this, because that's what you did. I don't even know what a fuckboy is. What's negging? The friendzone, is just being someone's friend, it doesn't have any relation to whether or not you have to disrespect women to make them attracted to you.

Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, respect is not something which slays pussy, but it is the bar for entry, if you're ever going to attempt to do that in an ethical way.

 No.316

>>314
>>314
>Thing is, people kindof are sex objects in a certain sense. The overwhelming majority of human sexual attraction is aimed squarely at other humans. That doesn't mean we aren't people, that we aren't complex. It just means one of those many, many layers is being sexually attractive to each other on a physical level. You can see someone as being hot af and still know that they're complex, multifaceted people. I don't see why base attraction is assumed to dismiss other aspects of a person. If i call someone kind, that doesn't mean i'm dismissive of their physical attractiveness? If not, why is it assumed in the reverse?
Nowhere do I make the claim that this is not the case, that people have a sexual facet to them.

Being reduced to a sex object =/= having a sexual facet

I would not make the assumption, that this person objectified these women, if it wasn't for the fact, that the only information in the spreadsheet about the nature of women that this person collected, that is to say, the only thing this person wanted to remember later, was their attractiveness rated on a scale from 1-10, and in a couple cases, some reductive comments about the qualia of the first date.

You may disagree with my assessment, but I think it's perfectly valid.

If he had only rated kindness and nothing else, this would be equally reductive. The reason why no one focuses on the issue of men not valuing any other qualities in women than their kindness, is that this typically does not happen, but attractiveness is frequently characterized as the only facet of a woman's worth, as evidenced in the 1-10 scale system.

>While this is of course true, i do think that it's not really realistic to expect everyone to humanize every single person they interact with. I don't find out what the hopes and dreams are of every clerk i buy stuff from. It would be an intrusion if i did. We pick and choose who we are intimate with, and i don't think it's unreasonable to not yet really get a sense of who a person is on a first date. We have to start somewhere, and physical appearance and innate physical attraction are a lot easier to get a read on than someone's soul. So it's not an unreasonable place to start.
Sure, this is true, and again, if this was my friend or something, and I saw him doing this, I would probably be like 'hey, joe, maybe don't do that, people could take that the wrong way'. I wouldn't go at it more agressively than this. Partly because it's not my responsibility how Joe chooses to interact with the people he's considering romantically, whether he wants to humanize them or not.

But problematic aspects do arise from this kind of objectification. In this instance, you can say it serves Joe's self-interest to categorize the women this way. But it doesn't get away from the fact, that it's actually pretty unfair to the women, and in the long term, Joe may regret where he placed his priorities when trying to find a partner. He ended up with someone he was very attracted to perhaps, but in the process of filtering this way, he ended up not serving his own true desire, which was to try and meet someone he connected with and felt companionship with.

The clerk is an invalid analogy, as you're not looking to engage in a long term relationship with the clerk, here a connected relationship is not desirable, it goes against the goal of expedience.

But when you're looking for a partner, you shouldn't be looking to expedite and effectivize. You should be trying to engage with them on a deeper level. You're not, rushing through the process as fast as you can, to get some pussy or to try and get the highest value target you can, or maybe you are, I don't know. I think, that kind of approach makes women feel pretty frustrated. The most sound approach, if you value your own happiness, seems to be to approach it from the angle of trying to engage with and understand the other person. Early judgements of value based on appearance or hasty categorization based on appearance, limits the possibilities you have for viewing this other person outside of the context of prejudice and bias.

It also has this insideous quality of making it seem like you could always end up with something better. When you ascribe value to people, you're kind of judging them, and looking for flaws. If you just appreciate the proces, the moment, the person, for what they are, and just focus on this aspect of it which is being with someone, this really rids your mind of a lot of negative judgements, which can be viewed as a very positive thing, if you're trying to enjoy your life, and enrich your partners life.

 No.318

>>315
>If he had written those specific things, not necessearily more socially acceptable things, because a lot of awful things are socially acceptable, that would have been a start towards something more humanizing, yes.

But would he have not gotten as panned as he did? Would these sites either not mention it, or go "good for him"? I'm talking more about the overall response than the general morality of it. Social acceptance and morality are very different things.

>Qualitative means are not just intuition. They can be analytic and cold. Just read Simone de Beauvoir, Naomi Wolf, or anyone like this, and you'll realize that the arguments made within are corroborated by sound means, and arrive at conclusions that could have never been reached quantitatively.

Sounds interesting. I'll check it out.

>I don't agree that it does this. You'd have to show me a sound line of reasoning that shows why, #metoo as a movement does this.

Sure. #metoo is about calling out sexual abuses of power, yes? It's about victims coming out and calling out those who have violated boundaries. The punishment for such transgressions have generally been public or economic. Therefore, it acts as a social means of stopping or punishing behavior. It enforces rules of engagement via threat of punishment of either exposure, or career/social loss.

>If there's any degree of uncertainty, then you don't go for it. This is pretty obvious. If this makes it hard for you personally, you have to get better at picking up on people's intentions, or just... ask them?

Sure, just ask them. See how well that goes for you. Just go ask "are you sexually attracted to me" I promise you you'll get a "no" every time, with the inferred message being "well i was before you said anything about it, now i'm not". We wouldn't have so many problems with courtship were this not the case. If people could just ask, it would be pretty simple. Other demographics don't have this problem to nearly the same degree. Gay men, for instance, generally have that level of communication, but honesty = presumption and a lack of smoothness in heterosexual courtship. Honestly, I find myself very envious of gay men's courtship culture as a whole. Though i wouldn't take the other shit they have to deal with, so i suppose it has it's pros and cons...

>Basically, 'playing the slots' and forcing yourself on a woman in some way in the hopes that she happens to like you enough to accept this, this doesn't seem like a good idea, no matter the outcome. You should never do this, as a man, there's a chance it works, but it's just unethical.

You're right. It's not good, and it's unethical. Just a shame it's the only viable course of action for sexual success as a heterosexual man. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's my point. We need a course of action that won't damn you. I don't think there would be as many sexually abusive men if it wasn't 1000x more viable than trying to attract women while being moral. I think it's a catch-22.

>The spreadsheet thing has nothing to do with what you're talking about. It's 100% clear to anyone that understand this kind of social blowback that the spreadsheet was geeky and socially it carried bad optics with it, but the only reason the guy was socially punished was that there within the spreadsheet was objectifying judgements about women and personal information, that belied the authors intent, all of which was collected and shared without the consent of the women concerned.

I disagree, but at this point we'll just be arguing intention, which is a dead end. So i'll leave it at that.

>The problem is, there are no pragmatic and easy to read guidelines for complex human social interactions, that don't leave someone disadvantaged or someone unconsidered. You're trying to alghorithmize, what is inherently soft and squishy for a reason, and in so doing, you're invalidating anyone who doesn't meet your arbitrary standards of correctness. You don't standardize the social punishment of agressive or timid men or women, because having a personality trait, is not a crime or a sufficient negative quality in and of itself, to warrant this kind of consistent discrimination. If someone does something which is unethical, that's a different story.

People are left disadvantaged and unconsidered in the soft system as well, such as those who are poor at reading nonverbal cues or tone. At least with a practical, written system, it's easy to add in people who are unaffected in a way everyone can understand. The discrimination argument doesn't hold up when it's the same for both systems. As for something unethical, well, everyone defines unethical differently. So that's a point for the written pragmatic system, as everyone will know what is considered unethical in this particular space.

>On the other hand plenty of women are very unwilling to date people that cross their personal boundaries. So what is your point here? We have to agressively cross women's boundaries in order to make them want to have sex with us??? I mean, what the hell, man.

I agree, what the hell? But that's on women for molding the incentive system. If they wanted a different system, they could easily change it by having sex with different people. They have complete control over the system because men will only act in a way that will be sexually successful. Women can make it whatever they want by having sex with different people.

>I'm not saying being kind and respectful is attractive. I have never said this. But it is, the right thing to do, and it will make people like you more. And if you don't do it, there's a chance you're going to get called out for it, and you're really going to have to live with this, because that's what you did.

[sarcasm]great system. 10/10, perfectly designed.[/sarcasm] My entire point is kindof that this is a dumb fucking system that we should change. But we as men can't change it. Women have all the power in this system because women don't desire men to nearly the same degree as men desire women. Women make the decisions in this situation, and men just have to desperately try and decipher the codes they put out instead of the actual communication they could be doing.

>I don't even know what a fuckboy is.

A fuckboy is a man who has many purely sexual relationships with little to no emotional engagement. He goes out for one night stands and doesn't call back. that's the general idea.

>What's negging?

"Negging is an act of emotional manipulation whereby a person makes a deliberate backhanded compliment or otherwise flirtatious remark to another person to undermine their confidence and increase their need of the manipulator's approval.

>The friendzone, is just being someone's friend, it doesn't have any relation to whether or not you have to disrespect women to make them attracted to you.

The friendzone refers to a situation wherein a woman has designated you as not suitable for romantic or sexual viability.

>But problematic aspects do arise from this kind of objectification. In this instance, you can say it serves Joe's self-interest to categorize the women this way. But it doesn't get away from the fact, that it's actually pretty unfair to the women.

How is it unfair? They can simply respond by not having sex with him, which presumably happened. That's perfectly fair. He looses out by acting like an ass. Women have all the power in dating by virtue of being desirable. So to act like they're victims when they can just tell this guy to fuck off and move on seems ridiculous to me.

>The clerk is an invalid analogy, as you're not looking to engage in a long term relationship with the clerk, here a connected relationship is not desirable, it goes against the goal of expedience.

If you take that much time with each person, you're likely to never find someone compatible. You'll simply not be exposed to enough people fast enough. I know this from experience. I've spent a lot of time in relationships i didn't feel anything with because i was hoping there would be some deeper level that revealed itself, and so far it has not happened. Maybe it would over time, but we only have so much time on this world. I can't blame anyone for trying to be expedient, even in the context of looking for a soulmate. Hell, my mother dated like 3 guys at once after she divorced my dad, and now she's very happily remarried in a mutually loving and respectful relationship. So i don't think expedience and long-term success are mutually exclusive concepts.

>But when you're looking for a partner, you shouldn't be looking to expedite and effectivize. You should be trying to engage with them on a deeper level. You're not, rushing through the process as fast as you can, to get some pussy or to try and get the highest value target you can, or maybe you are, I don't know. I think, that kind of approach makes women feel pretty frustrated. The most sound approach, if you value your own happiness, seems to be to approach it from the angle of trying to engage with and understand the other person. Any early judgements of value based on appearance or hasty categorization, limits the possibilities you have for viewing this other person outside of the context of prejudice and bias.

If women are frustrated at it, then why do they enforce the system that perpetrates it. Women choose what is and what is not successful in our current climate of western heterosexual dating. So if they're frustrated, they should change the system by making different decisions about what they do and whit whom. Pretty simple.

 No.319

>>318
>But would he have not gotten as panned as he did? Would these sites either not mention it, or go "good for him"? I'm talking more about the overall response than the general morality of it. Social acceptance and morality are very different things.
No I don't think so. It would have been viewed as nerdy, slightly creepy, but well intentioned and also somewhat sweet.

>Sounds interesting. I'll check it out.
Awesome, always happy to gain another convert to the 'social sciences aren't evil' camp.

>Sure. #metoo is about calling out sexual abuses of power, yes? It's about victims coming out and calling out those who have violated boundaries. The punishment for such transgressions have generally been public or economic. Therefore, it acts as a social means of stopping or punishing behavior. It enforces rules of engagement via threat of punishment of either exposure, or career/social loss.
I think it just calls out obviously transgressive behavior. These are not encompassing rules of romantic engagement. I would agree it does socially influence people, but it's more about clear crimes against rights to autonomy, than it is about punishing any specific personality type for dating wrong. I think there's a wide enough gap between sexual molestation and casual dating, that no one with good intentions should be caught in the #metoo net.

>Sure, just ask them. See how well that goes for you. Just go ask "are you sexually attracted to me" I promise you you'll get a "no" every time, with the inferred message being "well i was before you said anything about it, now i'm not"
Actually people tend to say yes when I ask them this. Sometimes, I even get women asking me, 'are you not attracted to me?'. And honestly, I love being asked this. I think it's very sweet, very honest, and it always makes me feel good about a person. Maybe it doesn't LIGHT A FIRE IN MY LOINS, but I think it's definitely a good indicator that someone is partner material.

>Honestly, I find myself very envious of gay men's courtship culture as a whole. Though i wouldn't take the other shit they have to deal with, so i suppose it has it's pros and cons...
Maybe you've met some bad chicks, bro.

There are a lot of good women out there.

>You're right. It's not good, and it's unethical. Just a shame it's the only viable course of action for sexual success as a heterosexual man. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's my point. We need a course of action that won't damn you. I don't think there would be as many sexually abusive men if it wasn't 1000x more viable than trying to attract women while being moral. I think it's a catch-22.
Look, there are a lot of really good dudes, that are really bad guys out there. Don't let the dudes convince you, you can't be a good guy.

Women are gonna love you for this shit, I promise you. If you respect them, they'll respect you. You might not get 50 notches in your belt, but you're going to feel better, and you'll have a lot of really good lady friends, that are going to introduce you to their lady friends. And the guys who do get sex by these means, it won't make them happy. Boundary pushing, forceful courtship, it's empty. It leads to one-night stands and shallow or unwilling engagements. You're better off without it.

>People are left disadvantaged and unconsidered in the soft system as well, such as those who are poor at reading nonverbal cues or tone. At least with a practical, written system, it's easy to add in people who are unaffected in a way everyone can understand. The discrimination argument doesn't hold up when it's the same for both systems. As for something unethical, well, everyone defines unethical differently. So that's a point for the written pragmatic system, as everyone will know what is considered unethical in this particular space.
It's true

I notice that especially people with autistic traits have a really, really hard time getting laid or finding a partner. It's super sad. But I don't know how to fix it. I don't think these kinds of rules are the right answer. I think it does more harm than good.

But I could be wrong.

>I agree, what the hell? But that's on women for molding the incentive system. If they wanted a different system, they could easily change it by having sex with different people. They have complete control over the system because men will only act in a way that will be sexually successful. Women can make it whatever they want by having sex with different people.
Why is it that you think men have no agency, no control over the situation, but women have complete control? Maybe molestation is the fault of the molestor. Maybe you shouldn't expect women to fix everything that's wrong with the world, especially not the things, directly caused by men.

Men are capable of being respectful. We're not forced to molest or assualt. This is such weird thinking, I think.

>Women make the decisions in this situation, and men just have to desperately try and decipher the codes they put out instead of the actual communication they could be doing.
If you can't tell whether women are attracted to you or not... don't be agressive with her? That's a power men have. No, honestly, it's really that simple. There's no excuse for transgressing like this.

Women don't force men to do this. Sometimes, a woman is just not attracted to you, and that's that.

>A fuckboy is a man who has many purely sexual relationships with little to no emotional engagement. He goes out for one night stands and doesn't call back. that's the general idea.
Kinda makes sense lol. That is what I'd expect that meant. Isn't that just extremely hollow? Like it doesn't seem worth it, to put all this work in for 20 minutes of unemotional sex, and then no contact afterwards. It seems this is a disservice to both men and women, but I guess something which passes the time.

>"Negging is an act of emotional manipulation whereby a person makes a deliberate backhanded compliment or otherwise flirtatious remark to another person to undermine their confidence and increase their need of the manipulator's approval.
This just sounds awful, lol. This is just manipulation. Don't do this! It'll make everyone involved unhappy.

>The friendzone refers to a situation wherein a woman has designated you as not suitable for romantic or sexual viability.
Okay, also makes sense. But this doesn't sound so bad. Having friends is pretty nice, tbh. And there are always more women.

>How is it unfair? They can simply respond by not having sex with him, which presumably happened. That's perfectly fair. He looses out by acting like an ass. Women have all the power in dating by virtue of being desirable. So to act like they're victims when they can just tell this guy to fuck off and move on seems ridiculous to me.
It's not at all ridiculous. Women can and do tell guys to fuck off, but they're also generally speaking pretty interested in engaging with people in relationships.

If you're approaching dating with only their sexual value in mind, and you conceal this, you're selling a product, that you're not willing to provide, to put it in very, very, very reductive terms. They deserve someone, just like you deserve someone, who's going to see you for who you are, and appreciate you. Even if, you're not personally interested in that person, you're supposed to do this. It's just the best way to do it.

>If you take that much time with each person, you're likely to never find someone compatible. You'll simply not be exposed to enough people fast enough. I know this from experience. I've spent a lot of time in relationships i didn't feel anything with because i was hoping there would be some deeper level that revealed itself, and so far it has not happened. Maybe it would over time, but we only have so much time on this world. I can't blame anyone for trying to be expedient, even in the context of looking for a soulmate. Hell, my mother dated like 3 guys at once after she divorced my dad, and now she's very happily remarried in a mutually loving and respectful relationship. So i don't think expedience and long-term success are mutually exclusive concepts.
Again, I'm really sorry. It does sound like you've been a bit unlucky.

I guess it's true that different strategies can suit different situations. I wouldn't dislike someone, if they took this kind of approach on the first date, with the intentions of making it more involved and meaningful, as time goes on. But I still think, it's a fundamentally flawed approach, if you have the time and energy not to do it.

>If women are frustrated at it, then why do they enforce the system that perpetrates it. Women choose what is and what is not successful in our current climate of western heterosexual dating. So if they're frustrated, they should change the system by making different decisions about what they do and whit whom. Pretty simple.
Women aren't a monolith. They don't get together on thursdays, smoke cigars and decide how the question of enforcing the romantic boundaries in modern society should be dealt with. I think you're ascribing entirely too much of the solution to the problem to women, when in fact they are the ones being transgressed upon. You seem to think, that if someone is not 'putting out enough' or making it easy enough for you to have sex with them, then it is their fault, when eventually the men take what they wanted anyways, even though you're really not interested.

I think this is what feminists mean, when they say that our culture is a rape culture. That it's generally accepted by many, that it's women's responsibility to provide easy access to the goodies, and that if they cannot do so, it becomes fair game, until they do start providing them.

 No.320

>>319
>I think this is what feminists mean, when they say that our culture is a rape culture. That it's generally accepted by many, that it's women's responsibility to provide easy access to the goodies, and that if they cannot do so, it becomes fair game, until they do start providing them.
I think hardly anyone considers it "fair game" to rape women who don't put out.

 No.321

File: 1561495143777.png (39.43 KB, 1087x421, 1087:421, Justifications.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>320
Rape culture is a very, very unfortunately named idea. It covers culture which is designed to condone any sort of sexual violence. Violence has a broad definition. It refers also to acts that are non-consensual, but which aren't clearly violent in a physical way, like for example manipulation.

And even right here, the argument is made, that if women do not like the current status quo, that is to say, if they have any objection to how they're treated by men, this is not a fault of the men who transgress upon them, no it's actually their fault, for not putting out, thus forcing the men into a catch 22, which left them with no option but to do something drastic.

This kind of reasoning is actually pretty common, you can see it used here. And it is even sometimes used to justify literal rape, as ridiculous as this sounds.

There has historically been an air of apathy and disinterest in legal institutions that try to handle the complaints of women who feel transgressed upon


Wegner, R., Abbey, A., Pierce, J., Pegram, S. E., & Woerner, J. (2015). Sexual Assault Perpetrators’ Justifications for Their Actions: Relationships to Rape Supportive Attitudes, Incident Characteristics, and Future Perpetration. Violence Against Women, 21(8), 1018–1037.
In case you want to check the methodology.

 No.322

>>321
>Violence has a broad definition.
Let me look up a definition.  Here's the first result I get from a Google search: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something".
> It refers also to acts that are non-consensual, but which aren't clearly violent in a physical way, like for example manipulation.
Doesn't seem to fit the above definition.

 No.323

>>322
Wow, nice dictionary quoting.

But we both know what it means in this context now, so I guess this should be no problem. If you are able, try to accomodate this extra meaning into your mind, and see if you can keep it in mind for the duration of our discussion of rape culture.

Please and thank you.

 No.324

>>322
Also, even excluding this very broad definition of rape, I just presented evidence, that the justifications made in this thread. Literally these same justifications, are used to justify actualy rape. Among the studies which turned up associated with justification where misperception of sexual intention, and expectations of getting laid. Which basically encapsulates what was said in this thread, about why women should be considered responsible, for the transgressive behaviors of men that they encounter.

 No.325

>>324
>studies that turned up associated

Sorry,

*variables that turned up associated with justification in the study,

 No.326

>>323
>we both know what it means in this context
Actually I have only a very vague idea of what you mean by it.  And in any case, it is confusing to use a word contrary to its normal definition.  Just like using "=" to mean assignment frequently trips up people when they see or accidentally write something like "if (a = b) {...}" because "=" usually means test-for-equality.

 No.327

>>326
It's not contrary to the normal definition, it's an expansion. It takes on an additional meaning of coercive acts that are nonviolent.

Look, just read about rape culture. Read the Wikipedia article or something, and come back here, It'll be satisfactory for our purposes, and a much more complete explanation, than me just reciting what I remember about the concept.

 No.328

>>319

>No I don't think so. It would have been viewed as nerdy, slightly creepy, but well intentioned and also somewhat sweet.

Exactly. Creepy is pretty much a dead end both romantically and sexually. So he'd be in exactly the same situation. Fuck him for trying to use sense and logic. That's the take away. Creepy will kill off any boons well intentioned and somewhat sweet and then some, any time, any place, any context. As if well intended and somewhat sweet held any romantic or sexual appeal in the first place.

>I think it just calls out obviously transgressive behavior. These are not encompassing rules of romantic engagement. I would agree it does socially influence people, but it's more about clear crimes against rights to autonomy, than it is about punishing any specific personality type for dating wrong. I think there's a wide enough gap between sexual molestation and casual dating, that no one with good intentions should be caught in the #metoo net.

There's a line somewhere is my point. Why not point to that line and say "there's the line" in fine print? Doesn't seem that oppressive to me.

>Actually people tend to say yes when I ask them this. Sometimes, I even get women asking me, 'are you not attracted to me?'. And honestly, I love being asked this. I think it's very sweet, very honest, and it always makes me feel good about a person. Maybe it doesn't LIGHT A FIRE IN MY LOINS, but I think it's definitely a good indicator that someone is partner material.

Maybe i'm just being overly pessimistic, who knows? But it does seem odd that anyone would do anything other than be straightforward if it's really that simple. There's just too many things that exist that shouldn't exist were that the case for me to take that at face value. I'm sorry. Rapists and molesters and dating advice books just would not exist in a world where it's really that simple.

>Women are gonna love you for this shit, I promise you. If you respect them, they'll respect you. You might not get 50 notches in your belt, but you're going to feel better, and you'll have a lot of really good lady friends, that are going to introduce you to their lady friends.

Great, you've got a lot of extra friends now. But since we're talking about romantic partners, that's not really relevant to the discussion, so why even mention it? Seems like a complete non sequitur to the discussion.

>And the guys who do get sex by these means, it won't make them happy. Boundary pushing, forceful courtship, it's empty. It leads to one-night stands and shallow or unwilling engagements. You're better off without it.

Probably true. Still, it's that or inceldom. Take your pick.

>I notice that especially people with autistic traits have a really, really hard time getting laid or finding a partner. It's super sad. But I don't know how to fix it. I don't think these kinds of rules are the right answer. I think it does more harm than good. But I could be wrong.

All i'm saying is that the rules are there whether we lay them out clearly or not. So what's the harm in writing them down clearly?

>Why is it that you think men have no agency, no control over the situation, but women have complete control?

Because men desire women far more than women desire men. Were this not the case, there would be as many strip clubs and prostitutes that cater towards women as there are towards men. A million little details of our society wouldn't make sense were this not the case. Sure, men have agency, they can either act in these deplorable ways, or bow out of romance entirely. Those are the choices men have. If women were as attracted to men, and pursued men to the same degree men pursue women, the landscape would look very different. As for the whose fault is it, blaming women thing, let's look at a metaphor. Let's say there's a store, and this store sells you oranges for $1 each, and sells you apples for 1,000 and you have to fight a tiger to buy it, you can't really blame people for buying the oranges over the apples, yea? It just makes more sense for people to buy the oranges, even if they prefer apples. So the store doesn't really have a right to say "hey, wtf, buy more apples, why do you only buy oranges!?" when they've set that price, do they? They've created an incentive system that rewards the behavior shown, that was their doing, their choice. Should they want different behavior to be shown, then they need to change the reward structure and make apples as cheap or cheaper than oranges and not require you to fight a tiger. Or of course, a lot of people simply won't shop at that store, or only shop at that store for oranges. See my point?

>Men are capable of being respectful. We're not forced to molest or assualt. This is such weird thinking, I think.

True, we're not forced to. We have the option of staying at home and playing video games, of course. We can not play the game at all. Or we can just go out and make fools of ourselves by being honest and kind, and drying up vaginas faster than the Sahara. But, if we want any success in dating, we're going to have to play by the rules women have layed out.

>Women don't force men to do this. Sometimes, a woman is just not attracted to you, and that's that.

My point is women aren't attracted to decency and kindness, quite the opposite. So appealing to both a woman's sexuality and general human decency is a catch-22. You die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain and all that.

>If you're approaching dating with only their sexual value in mind, and you conceal this, you're selling a product, that you're not willing to provide, to put it in very, very, very reductive terms. They deserve someone, just like you deserve someone, who's going to see you for who you are, and appreciate you. Even if, you're not personally interested in that person, you're supposed to do this. It's just the best way to do it.

By the same token, it seems women are doing the same. They're looking for a platonic friend, but advertising for a lover.

>Women aren't a monolith. They don't get together on thursdays, smoke cigars and decide how the question of enforcing the romantic boundaries in modern society should be dealt with. I think you're ascribing entirely too much of the solution to the problem to women.

That doesn't mean there aren't socially ingrained patterns of behavior. The fact that it's informal and disorganized doesn't change anything.

>when in fact they are the ones being transgressed upon. You seem to think, that if someone is not 'putting out enough' or making it easy enough for you to have sex with them, then it is their fault, when eventually the men take what they wanted anyways, even though you're really not interested.

I don't condone theft unless you need to do it to survive, but the harder it is for people to operate within moral means, the more people will be driven to immoral means. If you charge $1000 for something nonessential, and the average wage is 2 cents, and people really want it, you'll have more people stealing it than if it cost 1C. Especially if you've seen people stealing it, and the store arbitrarily cares sometimes if people steal, and other times doesn't care if people steal. We could all just not play the game, but then poof, there goes the entire population of the west. Pretending like people aren't going to respond to circumstances by finding the best action that makes sense in that situation, or pretending like it's inherently their fault and immoral for them to do so is extremely disingenuous. They're still wrong for doing it, but you can't say the store isn't blameless. The moral thing is to just stay at home, but of course, we won't really see those people in the numbers.

> You seem to think, that if someone is not 'putting out enough' or making it easy enough for you to have sex with them, then it is their fault, when eventually the men take what they wanted anyways, even though you're really not interested.

I mean, if women have sex mainly with violent assholes, then yea, they should expect men who want sex to act like violent assholes to them. If i gave everyone who punched me in the face $1000, then i'd expect to be punched in the face a lot by people who want money, even if they don't want to hurt me. I could just not give money to people who punch me in the face, yea? Doesn't make them right for punching me, but i'm also at fault for creating an incentive system that hurts me, and the police would be rightly suspicious and nonplussed should i report that someone punched me in the face and i payed them to do it. Or even to make a broader argument. If men in general payed women to punch them in the face, then even if i'm a man that does not want to be punched in the face, i still know that the environment is one where men get punched in the face, and it's not really a woman's fault for punching me in the face. It's the fault of the douche-bags masochists creating the incentive system and paying people to punch them.

>I think this is what feminists mean, when they say that our culture is a rape culture. That it's generally accepted by many, that it's women's responsibility to provide easy access to the goodies, and that if they cannot do so, it becomes fair game, until they do start providing them.

If that's the case. Rape culture is women's fault. If women were honest, and outlined things you could do that would lead to romantic and sexual success with them, or other women, and that worked, that would be one thing, but that's not the reality we live in. Yes, the moral thing is to just stay at home, and that's what i myself do, but we won't really see those people in the numbers. So we're looking at a tiny subset of people to begin with. But of course with traditional romantic routes gone, and women setting up these incentive systems, men are going to act based on the incentive systems women have set up. If people want to call that rape culture, fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it would disappear completely in 5 years if women didn't reward that bad behavior and punish good behavior they proport to want, but actively discourage through their actions, does it? If i keep giving people money to punch me, i'll keep getting punched. The alternative is no birth rates and the destruction of the west, which, hey, if that's what women want, i'll comply. Goodbye western civilization.

 No.329

>>328
>Exactly. Creepy is pretty much a dead end both romantically and sexually. So he'd be in exactly the same situation. Fuck him for trying to use sense and logic. That's the take away. Creepy will kill off any boons well intentioned and somewhat sweet and then some, any time, any place, any context. As if well intended and somewhat sweet held any romantic or sexual appeal in the first place.
I'm talking about a general reaction on twitter.

If you actually know the guy personally, it might be very charming (doubt it, though, it's pretty sad) depending on the context of his character.

>There's a line somewhere is my point. Why not point to that line and say "there's the line" in fine print? Doesn't seem that oppressive to me.
I think the line is pretty clear isn't it? To anyone that wants to listen anyway. The line is clearly consent. Basically, you have to know if the person consents or not. If you can't tell, don't do it. You'll never run afoul of #metoo, I think, for sexual violence, and certainly not the law, if you follow this principle.

>Rapists and molesters and dating advice books just would not exist in a world where it's really that simple.
Consider that perhaps not all advice which leads to a seaming increase in something valued, is good advice. It might be possible, to dig up more diamonds in africa by exploiting the native population, or to stick your peener in more googers if you're really agressive about it, but other possibilities always exist, right. You can mine ethically, you can peener the googer in consensual ways. It's less immediately effective, if your only metric is the amount of succesful copulations or diamonds, but it's also obviously better.

>Great, you've got a lot of extra friends now. But since we're talking about romantic partners, that's not really relevant to the discussion, so why even mention it? Seems like a complete non sequitur to the discussion.
Never pursue something to the exclusion of all else. Never look for sex, and devalue all other things, or never judge a woman by her appearance, and by nothing else, right. Very straightforward sort of sense here. My point is that when viewed holistically, the respectful approach to dating makes sense. You can't quantitatively evaluate it, like you have a tendency to want to do, because of the extreme amount of disparate variables evolved in the situation. You end up missing something important. In this case, a solid support structure, that could increase your happiness and belongingness in the world.

>Probably true. Still, it's that or inceldom. Take your pick.
I would certainly take inceldom every time, I think. But it's a false dichotomy. You can have your cake and eat it too, in this instance, for most people anyway.

>Because men desire women far more than women desire men. Were this not the case, there would be as many strip clubs and prostitutes that cater towards women as there are towards men. A million little details of our society wouldn't make sense were this not the case. Sure, men have agency, they can either act in these deplorable ways, or bow out of romance entirely. Those are the choices men have.
Don't agree with this, but I recognize this is your reality, for whatever reasons.

If women were as attracted to men, and pursued men to the same degree men pursue women, the landscape would look very different. As for the whose fault is it, blaming women thing, let's look at a metaphor. Let's say there's a store, and this store sells you oranges for $1 each, and sells you apples for 1,000 and you have to fight a tiger to buy it, you can't really blame people for buying the oranges over the apples, yea? It just makes more sense for people to buy the oranges, even if they prefer apples. So the store doesn't really have a right to say "hey, wtf, buy more apples, why do you only buy oranges!?" when they've set that price, do they?
I don't like this analogy. One because the oranges in this case are sexually agressive behavior, and the apples are everything positive that you want out of a relationship. Fighting the tiger is worth it. It's also not 1000-1 easier to be agressive and violent towards women, to get romantic relationships. I'd even argue it's easier to find romantic involvement if you're respectful.

They've created an incentive system that rewards the behavior shown, that was their doing, their choice. Should they want different behavior to be shown, then they need to change the reward structure and make apples as cheap or cheaper than oranges and not require you to fight a tiger. Or of course, a lot of people simply won't shop at that store, or only shop at that store for oranges. See my point?
You'll really have to corroborate this for me. Show me some kind of evidence, that women intentionally create a system in which men are forced to be sexually violent towards them. Because this is heavy heavy pro-sexual violence advocation you're doing here. These ideas aren't trivial. You're saying that women are forcing men to act this way. Understand, the very heavy moral implications this world view has for victims of sexual assault, most of which are women.

 No.330

>>329
For some reason, my password doesn't work at the moment! And I didn't proofread. So as annoying as it is, you're probably going to have to imagine the green arrows.

 No.331

>>329
>that women intentionally create a system
I think it's largely unintentional.  But women certainly do tolerate men (whom they find attractive) doing sexual things to them without any prior clear indication of consent.  So the end result is that sexually attractive men who play fast and loose with consent get more pussy than men who scrupulously ascertain that the woman consents.  (And to women, a man's sexual attractiveness is based in large part on social status and power, unlike men, who who chiefly value physical indications of health and fertility in women).

 No.332

>>329
>You'll never run afoul of #metoo, I think, for sexual violence, and certainly not the law, if you follow this principle.

You'll never have any romantic or sexual success either, and you'll probably end up on a cringe compilation somewhere. Might as well stay home, yea?

>Consider that perhaps not all advice which leads to a seaming increase in something valued, is good advice. It might be possible, to dig up more diamonds in africa by exploiting the native population, or to stick your peener in more googers if you're really agressive about it, but other possibilities always exist, right. You can mine ethically, you can peener the googer in consensual ways. It's less immediately effective, if your only metric is the amount of succesful copulations or diamonds, but it's also obviously better.

So we agree that women, in general, reward aggressive, assholish behavior with sex. Glad we're on the same page there. But then, my point stands. You either stay home or get rejected and laughed at a lot if you're determined to be moral. Ergo, women are encouraging violence towards them through their own choices, and thus rape culture is their fault. Is there a flaw in my logic?

>Never pursue something to the exclusion of all else. Never look for sex, and devalue all other things, or never judge a woman by her appearance, and by nothing else, right. Very straightforward sort of sense here. My point is that when viewed holistically, the respectful approach to dating makes sense. You can't quantitatively evaluate it, like you have a tendency to want to do, because of the extreme amount of disparate variables evolved in the situation. You end up missing something important. In this case, a solid support structure, that could increase your happiness and belongingness in the world.

If i wanted friends, i'd just make male friends, as there's less of a communication gap, and they're more likely to like the things i like. Which i do and have done! And it's great! If a woman came along who i could also communicate with well and liked the same stuff i like, i'd probably be friends with her, too. But it's completely irrelevant to the conversation about romance and courtship! So why mention it here?! Eat a balanced breakfast, exercise often, participate in local government, don't forget to vote! What's your point? There's certainly other ways to be happy in this world, sure. But then we're back at the death of the west. Hell, that's basically japan right now.

>I would certainly take inceldom every time, I think. But it's a false dichotomy. You can have your cake and eat it too, in this instance, for most people anyway.

Sure, and that's my choice, too, basically. If you have an argument against it, present evidence. Make an argument as to why it's true, not to why it would be nice. It would be nice, but it's not our reality. Again, too many things that exist in this world that would not should your perspective be true.

>I don't like this analogy. One because the oranges in this case are sexually agressive behavior, and the apples are everything positive that you want out of a relationship. Fighting the tiger is worth it. It's also not 1000-1 easier to be aggressive and violent towards women, to get romantic relationships. I'd even argue it's easier to find romantic involvement if you're respectful.

Cool, but guess what? I'm a small guy. A tiger would kill me. I cannot fight a tiger. Period. So my choices are:
a) buy the orange
b) be killed by a tiger
c) stay home
I choose c. It makes the most sense given the circumstances. If i die, i can't eat the apple anyway.

>that women intentionally create a system in which men are forced to be sexually violent towards them.

How does whether or not it's intentional matter? I don't think it is intentional. That doesn't change anything.

>You'll really have to corroborate this for me. Show me some kind of evidence, that women intentionally create a system in which men are forced to be sexually violent towards them.

Again, not intentional, but the evidence is the existence of sexual violence. If anyone could just go and talk to someone honestly and enter into a sexual relationship that way, then it makes no sense for people to put their careers on the line and potentially risk jail time being assholes. Nobody chokes other people out because there's not enough oxygen to go around, that would make no sense! The existence of this behavior proves that your idealistic view of relationships is false, and supports my theory that women, intentionally or no, incentivize this behavior on some level.

>Because this is heavy heavy pro-sexual violence advocation you're doing here. These ideas aren't trivial. You're saying that women are forcing men to act this way. Understand, the very heavy moral implications this world view has for victims of sexual assault, most of which are women.

Yea, it sucks. I agree. Women should change the incentive system so that isn't the case, and more men should stay at home and not play their game. Until that happens, i'm stuck here at home not playing their stupid game, aka the moral thing to do under these circumstances. I'm not going to turn my back on the logical conclusion to the evidence because it sucks. I'm going to come to the conclusions that the situation is fucked and someone with the power to do something about it (women) should do so!

>>331

Exactly.

 No.333

>>331
Okay, so there are like a million things to unpack here, right.

How do you know, that the instances you've been told about where women tolerate this there was not a clear indicator of consent? How do you know that you're not exhibiting confirmation bias, since your world view is based on a summation of single cases, likely from disparate sources? How do you know that the women this is done to don't secretly hate it, and only tolerate it because they're scared what will happen if they don't, or any number of actually very plausible reasons? How do you know that you have to scrupulously assess consent? Is it not just intuitively obvious, when consent is given? And again, is asking going to be a problem, or can you actually do it in a way that is effective?

How do you know that women are attracted to power, more than they are to guys that will stick around, recognize them and who are genuinely, not just putting up a front to convince them, but genuinely well-intentioned?

You have to have clear and concrete answers to all of these, if you're going to suggest that women are to blame for their own misfortune here. It's just too impactful of an idea, to not consider it extremely carefully.

If you've ever read women's testimonies, or talked to your lady friends about these kinds of issues. You'll know that they value consent immensely, and that their biggest turnoff bar nearly none, is sexually agressive openers. This strategy, is just not as effective as you think. And the guys who think they're forced into it, they're often deluding themselves, or being deluded by this culture of rape.

Aditionally, if it is largely unintentional, then how can you ever say that they are responsible for this. Even if we accept your representation of reality, they're not aware that they're forcing guys to do this, and even if they were aware, they have zero agency to prevent it as an individual.

Women have every right to be dissatisfied with the behaviors of men that do this or with the culture that allows it. It cannot be rationally argued as being their fault, by any stretch, I think.

 No.334

>You'll never have any romantic or sexual success either, and you'll probably end up on a cringe compilation somewhere. Might as well stay home, yea?
Y'all are seriously willing to die on this hill, that ignoring consent is necesseary to romantic and sexual success? Seriously?

>So we agree that women, in general, reward aggressive, assholish behavior with sex. Glad we're on the same page there.
No, we don't, it was just a hypothethical. As signalled by the word might.

>If i wanted friends, i'd just make male friends, as there's less of a communication gap, and they're more likely to like the things i like.
You don't think there's any part of the world you're possibly missing out on because you don't have close female friends?

I've got a good deal, and I gotta tell you, I wouldn't trade it for more male friends.

Maybe the reason why you don't feel like you get along with women and there's a communication gap (I've never experienced this btw) is that your entire world-view tells you they're to blame for all of the sexual woes of men.

Dude, if I was a lady, I'd get the fuck away from you.

Also, the west won't die, just because people ask nicely when they're unsure, of something. Why is everything always so catastrophic with people. First it's asking when you're unsure, then before you know it, the west collapses. Can you not see, this is a ridiculous slippery slope?

>Cool, but guess what? I'm a small guy. A tiger would kill me. I cannot fight a tiger. Period. So my choices are:
a) buy the orange
b) be killed by a tiger
c) stay home
I choose c. It makes the most sense given the circumstances. If i die, i can't eat the apple anyway.
Women are not going to kill you because you respect them. The analoy is awful.

>Again, not intentional, but the evidence is the existence of sexual violence. If anyone could just go and talk to someone honestly and enter into a sexual relationship that way, then it makes no sense for people to put their careers on the line and potentially risk jail time being assholes. Nobody chokes other people out because there's not enough oxygen to go around, that would make no sense! The existence of this behavior proves that your idealistic view of relationships is false, and supports my theory that women, intentionally or no, incentivize this behavior on some level.
So let me get this straight.

Sexual violence exists.

Therefore, it's caused by women? Your solid evidence that sexual violence is caused by women, is that it exists? For real, dawg. For real? There is some reason, and because there is some reason for it, it has to be women?

For real right now?

Alright, I think I'm just about done with this. When you reply to this, make some closing remarks or something, and I'll make some closing remarks too, and we can walk away with some modicum of closure.

 No.335

>>333
>if you're going to suggest that women are to blame for their own misfortune here.
Oh, I'm not trying to assign blame. One could just as easily assign blame to the men who play fast and loose with consent.  But our culture certainly seems to reward men who use ambiguous indications of consent like facial expressions instead of unambiguously verbally confirming consent.  The whole #MeToo movement would be more successful if it could promote a consensus about how men should seek consent.

>>333
>Is it not just intuitively obvious, when consent is given?
Well if a woman says something like "fuck me in my pussy", yeah, that's obvious enough.  But a lot of encounters are a lot more ambiguous, I think.

 No.337

>>333

>How do you know, that the instances you've been told about where women tolerate this there was not a clear indicator of consent? How do you know that you're not exhibiting confirmation bias, since your world view is based on a summation of single cases, likely from disparate sources? How do you know that the women this is done to don't secretly hate it, and only tolerate it because they're scared what will happen if they don't, or any number of actually very plausible reasons? How do you know that you have to scrupulously assess consent? Is it not just intuitively obvious, when consent is given? And again, is asking going to be a problem, or can you actually do it in a way that is effective?

There's a flaw in your arugment here. If consent is obvious, than that's how one would know if there was a clear indicator of consent. If consent is not obvious, than women are creating a system of dishonesty and guesswork, you might call this system rape culture...

>If you've ever read women's testimonies, or talked to your lady friends about these kinds of issues. You'll know that they value consent immensely, and that their biggest turnoff bar nearly none, is sexually agressive openers. This strategy, is just not as effective as you think. And the guys who think they're forced into it, they're often deluding themselves, or being deluded by this culture of rape.

No woman is ever going to admit that she is turned off by honesty and morality. It would be social suicide. It makes far more sense socially to play the victim rather than admit that repsect is a turn off and being treated like shit turns her on. What people say =/= what people do. This applies to men and women, to everyone.

You're arguing that because we only have sparce evidence, we can't make a claim, despite you presenting no better evidence, and in my opinion, much shakier arguments which fall apart simply by looking at the circumstance of the world we live in.

>Additionally, if it is largely unintentional, then how can you ever say that they are responsible for this. Even if we accept your representation of reality, they're not aware that they're forcing guys to do this, and even if they were aware, they have zero agency to prevent it as an individual.

Just because it's not intentional doesn't mean the aren't the ones. And they do have agency. If you like what a man is doing, fuck him! If you don't, don't fuck him! Or don't fuck anyone, but treat the people who treat you nicely better than those who treat you badly. Simple.

>Women have every right to be dissatisfied with the behaviors of men that do this or with the culture that allows it.

Absolutely! And if they were actually dissatisfied, they might do something about it! Like have sex with different people! Men have 3 options. Stay home and not affect the system. Be decent and get rejected, also not affecting the system. Or be an ass and get sexual success, still not affecting the system. If you think men are in a position to change things, then please, tell me how they would do so?

>It cannot be rationally argued as being their fault, by any stretch, I think.

I have done so, and you have not provided logical arguments to the contrary, you've just appealed to emotion, and tried to falsely equate acknowledgement of a bad system with approval of a bad system.

>Y'all are seriously willing to die on this hill, that ignoring consent is necesseary to romantic and sexual success? Seriously?

Seriously? OMG gaiz, really? Cmon! Some real solid argument there. Socrates would be proud of the way you use logic /sarcasm

>You don't think there's any part of the world you're possibly missing out on because you don't have close female friends?

Idk, maybe. I'm not opposed to the idea, but i'm also not going to pretend i like things i don't like to try and get there. That wouldn't be a real friendship anyway, and women don't seem to like the things i like, so idk what you suggest i do exactly, or again, why it's relevant.

>Maybe the reason why you don't feel like you get along with women and there's a communication gap (I've never experienced this btw) is that your entire world-view tells you they're to blame for all of the sexual woes of men.

More like whenever i go out to the card shop or play games there aren't any women there, so i just make friends with the people who are there. Again, what do you suggest? I do things i don't like just to have female friends? That wouldn't even be a real friendship if it's based on false pretenses.

>Dude, if I was a lady, I'd get the fuck away from you.

Very logical and not ad homenum or appeal to emotion at all. Socrates would be proud /sarcasm

>Also, the west won't die, just because people ask nicely when they're unsure, of something. Why is everything always so catastrophic with people. First it's asking when you're unsure, then before you know it, the west collapses. Can you not see, this is a ridiculous slippery slope?

i'll run you down the chain of events:

Men ask nicely when they're unsure
V
This turns women off
V
this means there are less heterosexual relationships
V
Less heterosexual relationships mean less sexual intercourse
V
Less sexual intercourse leads to less babies being born
V
Less babies being born leads to population decline
V
Population decline eventually results in the abolishment of that society

Any questions?

>Women are not going to kill you because you respect them. The analoy is awful.

Sure, but they won't engage with your romantically or sexually, either. They'll reject you and maybe be mean and/or put you in a cringe compilation. Better to stay at home.

>Sexual violence exists.

>Therefore, it's caused by women? Your solid evidence that sexual violence is caused by women, is that it exists? For real, dawg. For real? There is some reason, and because there is some reason for it, it has to be women?

>For real right now?

Sexual violence exists.
V
Therefore, people are not able to get sex through easier, more moral means. If they could, sexual violence would make no sense and not exist, the same way people don't choke each other for lack of enough oxygen to go around.
V
Therefore, there is an incentive structure in place to reward sexual violence and penalize honesty and compassion.
V
Who causes this system? Well, we know that in order to enforce this system, you have to have some level of power to affect the system. If you don't have any power, you have no means of doing anything about it.
V
We can look upon society to see who has the decision-making power in heterosexual relationships. We can notice, through countless details, that men are attracted to women, and women are not so much attracted to men.
V
Therefore, women have the decision making power when it comes to heterosexual relationships. As they have many suitors, they have the choice to reward or punish different behaviors. Men have 3 choices: A) Act in the way they like, and not see romantic success B) Act in the ways women reward and see romantic success, or C) Stay home. None of these choices, even if chosen on mass, would have any change on the heterosexual romantic landscape. Women, on the other hand, being very desirable and having many suitors, can affect the landscape by rewarding or punishing certain behaviors. If you think i'm wrong, please, make an argument. If you think there's a way men could act en masse to change the playing field, i'm all ears!
V
As we have established that women have the power, and therefore the control, in the romantic landscape and the incentive structures that dictate it.
V
Therefore, the results of these structures and systems are their responsibility, and they are the only ones who have the power to change it.

If you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them.

>>335

>Oh, I'm not trying to assign blame. One could just as easily assign blame to the men who play fast and loose with consent.  But our culture certainly seems to reward men who use ambiguous indications of consent like facial expressions instead of unambiguously verbally confirming consent.  The whole #MeToo movement would be more successful if it could promote a consensus about how men should seek consent.

Exactly. Women have the opportunity to change things by setting clear rules of engagement with courtship, which they have not done.

 No.338

>>335
You're correct in that culture does make it easier to assault women, that's the idea of rape culture basically, but #metoo is not about informing people about consent. It's about informing people, that rape does happen, especially perpetrated by powerful people. And I'd say it's been very succesful in this, it has made it abundantly clear that rape does indeed happen.

This is the aim of the movement essentially, that women be given a place to speak out, against those that have wronged them. Now, if men or women want to learn about consent, they can actually self-educate on this, and literature provides abundant resources to do just that, if anyone would like to do so.

>Well if a woman says something like "fuck me in my pussy", yeah, that's obvious enough.  But a lot of encounters are a lot more ambiguous, I think.
Well, yes, of course, everything is more ambiguous than fuck me in my pussy. This is a very vacuous example. If someone smiles at you a lot or really gives you all of these indicators that she's into you, this is when you can reasonably start making some advances, and then you just watch and see how she reacts to the small ones, before you go for the big ones. There's nothing complicated or dangerous about this, it's completely safe.

 No.339

>>337
>If consent is not obvious, than women are creating a system of dishonesty and guesswork, you might call this system rape culture...
noooo, this is again a slippery slope

but so, the point is, you have to actually prove that consent is not obvious right. You have to present the evidence. Because the claim you're making is so extraordinarily damaging to victims of sexual assault, that you need extra evidence to support it. Does this make sense? The burden on proof is on you, to disprove established consensus.

>No woman is ever going to admit that she is turned off by honesty and morality. It would be social suicide. It makes far more sense socially to play the victim rather than admit that repsect is a turn off and being treated like shit turns her on. What people say =/= what people do. This applies to men and women, to everyone.
You have to trust the testimony of women to some degree though. You can't just discount everything they say like they always lie about this. Women are very consistent about letting this kind of thing be known.

>>337
>Just because it's not intentional doesn't mean the aren't the ones. And they do have agency. If you like what a man is doing, fuck him! If you don't, don't fuck him! Or don't fuck anyone, but treat the people who treat you nicely better than those who treat you badly. Simple.
This is such a misunderstanding of how this works.

I'll try to explain this in simple terms. It's really hard to say no to someone who's agressive or coercive or manipulative. What you're saying essentially, is that coerciveness being a succesful strategy, is the fault of the victims, when coerciveness itself is designed to make people do things that are against their will.

Being agressive, callous, misleading or dismissing women's rights to autonomy, may sometimes be a succesful strategy, if viewed through this narrow lens of getting sex, and someone who has that in their arsenal will perform better than someone who does not, but women are not responsible for the fact that this is a succesful strategy. This is like if I claim that rabbits are responsible for being eaten because they didn't run fast enough, or anything like this right. It's victim blaming, essentially.

>Absolutely! And if they were actually dissatisfied, they might do something about it! Like have sex with different people! Men have 3 options. Stay home and not affect the system. Be decent and get rejected, also not affecting the system. Or be an ass and get sexual success, still not affecting the system.
Completely false. Decent men perform great romantically.

>If you think men are in a position to change things, then please, tell me how they would do so?
Men cannot as individuals change the systems. But as individuals they are accountable for their own actions, of course. All they have to do, to not contribute to the problem, which is actually all it takes to eliminate the problem, is to find a way to interact with women, without transgressing boundaries.

>I have done so, and you have not provided logical arguments to the contrary, you've just appealed to emotion, and tried to falsely equate acknowledgement of a bad system with approval of a bad system.
Lol okay.

Look, the burden of proof is not on me. If you're going to make a claim as extraordinary as a victim being responsible for the crime commited against them, you need solid evidence.

>Idk, maybe. I'm not opposed to the idea, but i'm also not going to pretend i like things i don't like to try and get there. That wouldn't be a real friendship anyway, and women don't seem to like the things i like, so idk what you suggest i do exactly, or again, why it's relevant.
I'd suggest you start by not blaming women as a group for sexual assault. This would be a great start. And I guess keep your mind open to the fact that a woman might actually be a really cool person, once you get to know her, you know. Just keep the possibility there.

>More like whenever i go out to the card shop or play games there aren't any women there, so i just make friends with the people who are there. Again, what do you suggest? I do things i don't like just to have female friends? That wouldn't even be a real friendship if it's based on false pretenses.
No, if you're hanging out in a card-shop exclusively it'd make sense you have no female friends. I'm not saying female friends in and of itself is something to be strived for, but presumably you tried dating for a long time, right, since you have these very strong views about how impossible it is without being agressive. You must have been as you say, friendzoned, a couple of times, so why not just be friends?

>Very logical and not ad homenum or appeal to emotion at all. Socrates would be proud /sarcasm
Just telling you the truth, my dude.

>Men ask nicely when they're unsure
>V
>This turns women off
>V
>this means there are less heterosexual relationships
>V
>Less heterosexual relationships mean less sexual intercourse
>V
>Less sexual intercourse leads to less babies being born
>V
>Less babies being born leads to population decline
>V
>Population decline eventually results in the abolishment of that society

>Any questions?
Lol, no. I see now, this is perfectly logical. I can't any link in this chain of flawlessly corroborated claims at all. It's definitely not, the very definition of a slippery slope.


You have like 8 links in both of these chains, lol, and it's all just speculation, all of your claims have clear refutations. The truth is, I think, you arrived at the conclusion that everything's women's fault, because you didn't want to deal with the reality, that the difficulty you face getting women to like you, is actually a blameless facet of reality. Everyone struggles to be loved and accepted, and you don't have to schew the blame of this on to women. Just because it's hard, doesn't mean it's someone elses fault. And something being hard, is not an excuse to use unethical means to do it.  Figure it out, man.

Don't defend being agressive towards women, with the fact that they're not welcoming enough to the alternatives. It's untenable.

 No.340

>>337
>No woman is ever going to admit that she is turned off by honesty and morality. It would be social suicide. It makes far more sense socially to play the victim rather than admit that repsect is a turn off and being treated like shit turns her on. What people say =/= what people do. This applies to men and women, to everyone.
>You're arguing that because we only have sparce evidence, we can't make a claim, despite you presenting no better evidence, and in my opinion, much shakier arguments which fall apart simply by looking at the circumstance of the world we live in.

So do you have any evidence that a majority, or even a significant minority, of women don't want to have sex with people who ask them if they want to have sex?  'cause as it stands so far it looks like women saying they don't like to be raped is all of the evidence, and I'm not sure that you can just say they're all lying without some reason to back that up.

 No.341

>>340
>So do you have any evidence that a majority, or even a significant minority, of women don't want to have sex with people who ask them if they want to have sex?
IIRC, a significant minority of women have "rape" fantasies, about men whom they find attractive fucking them without asking for consent or even against nominal resistance.

 No.342

>>341
One of the the most common fetishes for males, is also being dominated or raped. It's really common.

 No.343

>>339

>but so, the point is, you have to actually prove that consent is not obvious right. You have to present the evidence. Because the claim you're making is so extraordinarily damaging to victims of sexual assault, that you need extra evidence to support it. Does this make sense? The burden on proof is on you, to disprove established consensus.

You can't have it both ways. You said before that

>How do you know, that the instances you've been told about where women tolerate this there was not a clear indicator of consent?

If it's clear, then it's clear, and an observer would see this, and it's not a what-if in the first place. Otherwise, it's unclear, and thus women are setting up a system of ambiguity, aka rape culture.

>You have to trust the testimony of women to some degree though. You can't just discount everything they say like they always lie about this.

Why? People, men and women, lie all the time. Especially when doing so is advantageous to their social position.

>Women are very consistent about letting this kind of thing be known.

Because they know that those answers will be most socially beneficial to them. It would be bad for them to answer otherwise.

>Being agressive, callous, misleading or dismissing women's rights to autonomy, may sometimes be a succesful strategy, if viewed through this narrow lens of getting sex, and someone who has that in their arsenal will perform better than someone who does not, but women are not responsible for the fact that this is a successful strategy

Yes they are! They set the rules of the system! They essentially told people to act like this through their actions and choices! So of course they're responsible for creating the incentive systems, and thus responsible, to some extent, for the behaviors the incentive system encourages! They set the rules, and are the only ones in a position to change those rules! Of course that makes them responsible for the system and the behaviors it encourages! They have all the power! If they don't like it, they can change the system! We've been over this!

>Men cannot as individuals change the systems.

Yep, men cannot, women can. Ergo the system is the responsibility of women, and so are the results of that system

>But as individuals they are accountable for their own actions, of course. All they have to do, to not contribute to the problem

By staying at home, or taking on unsuccessful strategies, which don't affect the system overall. We've been over this.

>which is actually all it takes to eliminate the problem, is to find a way to interact with women, without transgressing boundaries.

This just leads to platonic relationships! It's completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion of romantic/sexual relationships!

>I'd suggest you start by not blaming women as a group for sexual assault.

I'm not going to deny reason and logic because it's socially popular just so my friends can have an arbitrary gender spread. It's not any one individual woman's fault, but every rape fantasy, mean refutation of an honest advance, or night in with a douche, is a cog in the overall machine.

>And I guess keep your mind open to the fact that a woman might actually be a really cool person, once you get to know her, you know. Just keep the possibility there And I guess keep your mind open to the fact that a woman might actually be a really cool person, once you get to know her, you know. Just keep the possibility there.

Yea sure. I'll keep an open mind.

>I'm not saying female friends in and of itself is something to be strived for, but presumably you tried dating for a long time, right, since you have these very strong views about how impossible it is without being agressive.

Not really. I want to make sense of the dating landscape before i plunge into it, and so far i cannot do so. It is a senseless, awful place. Therefore i'm choosing not to participate in it. It started in middle school when nobody could really give me a straight answer to a very simple question: If asking a woman for sex is sexual harassment, and just having sex with a woman is rape, how exactly does one go from stranger to sexual partner without doing something wrong? To this day, nobody has given me an answer that doesn't involve interpretation of vague bullshit and context, aka, soft knowledge that is in no way, shape, or form conformable. Further study has only made things look more bleak. Why would i go out and participate in such a dangerous clusterfuck?


>Lol, no. I see now, this is perfectly logical. I can't any link in this chain of flawlessly corroborated claims at all. It's definitely not, the very definition of a slippery slope.

If you have a problem with the logic, say it. This soft, implied, presumptuous crap is exactly what i'm talking about. If you don't say something clearly, people shouldn't be expected to understand you.

>The truth is, I think, you arrived at the conclusion that everything's women's fault, because you didn't want to deal with the reality, that the difficulty you face getting women to like you, is actually a blameless facet of reality.

I'm just sitting at home trying to understand this shit before diving in. So far it's not very appealing, and your argument have been very weak.

>. Everyone struggles to be loved and accepted, and you don't have to schew the blame of this on to women.

THEY SET THE INCENTIVE SYSTEMS! THEY HAVE ALL THE POWER! THIS IS THEIR FAULT! THEY CAN CHANGE IT IF THEY WANT AND THEY'RE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE ANY ABILITY TO DO SO!

>Don't defend being agressive towards women, with the fact that they're not welcoming enough to the alternatives. It's untenable.

It makes perfect sense. If women only reward aggression, than that aggression is largely their fault! If you don't want it, stop rewarding it! The power is yours! If you want people to do other things, you have to reward other things. Otherwise men are left with the same 3 options that don't change the system and we're stuck where we are. The ball is 100% in womens' court.

>>340
>So do you have any evidence that a majority, or even a significant minority, of women don't want to have sex with people who ask them if they want to have sex?

Yes actually! Here's a few sources! Though i believe t
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-personalities/201706/what-type-person-would-agree-have-sex-stranger

https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/article/view/121/html

https://www.thecut.com/2013/07/what-happens-when-you-ask-a-stranger-for-sex.html

 No.344

>>343
oh, god, this is all so flawed.

the reason why I don't adress your points individually is because it honestly takes too much time. You have too many misconceptions, and you don't believe my claims about reality.

These articles you linked, they're not evidence for women being turned off by asking, they're just clear evidence for women having a more restricted sociosexuality. It's a completely different concept, not related to asking for concent even remotely, this is what is thought to drive this relationship. A misinterpretation of the empirical evidence.

You're wrong that men have only the choices to stay at home or assault women, and furthermore you have no experience to base it off of, so you actually haven't even tried. You're sitting on like the beach, afraid to go into the water because you think it's freezing, but you haven't even dipped your toe.

Women do not have power to change the system as individuals, any more than men do. This is obvious if you think about it for more than 2 seconds. It would take a concerted effort, to change the ways that women reward men's behaviors as a group, and women aren't about to do this, because you can't force attraction.

You should date, to dispell some of all of these myths and anxieties you've built up in your head. Maybe even see a therapist. You're engaging in catastrophical thinking of the highest order, saying society will collapse if men don't engage in sexually agressive behavior, that you can never date, because you'll be shot down immediately or tried for sexual assault, this is all extremely overblown.

 No.345

>>344

>These articles you linked, they're not evidence for women being turned off by asking, they're just clear evidence for women having a more restricted sociosexuality. It's a completely different concept, not related to asking for concent even remotely, this is what is thought to drive this relationship. A misinterpretation of the empirical evidence.

It doesn't matter! The result is the same! Women don't want men, or if they do, their actions aren't reflecting this and it ultimately doesn't matter, because ultimately actions matter and words and intentions are meaningless in comparison. If they act in a way equivalent to not wanting men, they might as well just not want men. If you want to woo someone who doesn't want you, you have 3 options: Stay at home, try and fail, take by force. I choose stay at home, because try and fail is a pointless waste of time, and take by force is immoral. This isn't that complicated.

>You're wrong that men have only the choices to stay at home or assault women,

You're right, they have one additional option. Try something else, and subsequently fail and be made a fool of.

>and furthermore you have no experience to base it off of, so you actually haven't even tried.

I can look into social trends and use logic.

>You're sitting on like the beach, afraid to go into the water because you think it's freezing, but you haven't even dipped your toe.

I saw some people jump in and say it was really cold and awful. I saw reports of sharks in the water. While firsthand evidence is clearly the best form, that doesn't mean evidence gathered by others isn't useful, or that i can't draw conclusions based on that.

>Women do not have power to change the system as individuals, any more than men do. This is obvious if you think about it for more than 2 seconds.

They do, you just said that...

>It would take a concerted effort, to change the ways that women reward men's behaviors as a group, and women aren't about to do this, because you can't force attraction.

Exactly. Women choose to enforce the system we have, and then complain about how they don't like the system. It's fucking dumb. If you're attracted to assholishness, than you're going to have to deal with assholes. Women want to find a way around this but there isn't. If your sexually attracted to something and you act on that attraction, but the rest of you hates that something, that's on you to figure out. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept assholes or you don't, either you accept decent, honest people or you don't! We're all slave to women's desires, and if we want to change that, women have to change their behavior, which they could absolutely do. Women think they can get around this by saying one thing and then doing something else, but that just leaves us here, in a nonsensical clusterfuck that leads on good people and rewards assholes while deflecting any responsibility, despite it being blatantly obvious that they have all the power and the ball is 100% in their court here.

>You should date, to dispell some of all of these myths and anxieties you've built up in your head. Maybe even see a therapist. You're engaging in catastrophical thinking of the highest order, saying society will collapse if men don't engage in sexually agressive behavior, that you can never date, because you'll be shot down immediately or tried for sexual assault, this is all extremely overblown.

Why would i date? The evidence suggests it's fucking awful. We've been over this. My whole goal here is to figure it out before i start dating, but women reward behaviors i don't want to engage in, and punish behavior i'd like to behave in, so clearly it's a non-starter. I'd be better off staying at home. Call me if women decide to change their choices to reward behaviors i'd be willing to engage in.

 No.346

>>341
>>342

That could be true, but there's still no real evidence presented for it, and more importantly people usually don't deny people because they aren't fulfilling specific fantasies.  There's a leap between fantasizing about rape and turning down anyone who won't rape you.

>>343

Alright, neat, let's see here, then.

>PsychToday

Well in a literal sense they were asked and then denied the offer, but it was with a complete stranger, which is probably the bigger factor here.  Like that's actually what the study was about, even, it wasn't about whether women would turn down any sex if they were asked first.

>interpersona

This is actually the same study again.

>thecut

...mostly actually the same study a third time.  I mean, it is technically a different study, and as such corroborates the first one, but it doesn't really provide new information.

These don't at all seem like what you suggested.

 No.347

>>346

>Well in a literal sense they were asked and then denied the offer, but it was with a complete stranger, which is probably the bigger factor here.

If you have any evidence to back that up, let's see it.

>Like that's actually what the study was about, even, it wasn't about whether women would turn down any sex if they were asked first.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what it was about. Ask women if they want to have sex, record responses. I'm really not sure what you're unsatisfied about.

You ask me for evidence that women don't want to have sex with people who ask to have sex, i literally show you a study that does exactly that, has people asking for sex, and showing men and womens' responses, and it's not good enough? I'm sorry, but what exactly are you looking for here? This is exactly what you were looking for evidence of. I'm sorry that you don't like what it suggests, but it could not be more relevant if it was designed around this thread.

 No.348

>>347
>I'm sorry, but what exactly are you looking for here?

An experiment that controls for being asked as opposed to being aggressively forced.  The study all three of your articles refer to was about being asked by someone they didn't know and it controlled for gender.  The evidence to back up my statement that being a stranger makes women less likely to say yes to sex is the study you linked, because that's what they were studying.  The study doesn't say anything about two people who already knew each other and had a close relationship going, which is what I'm curious about.  I want to know how often those relationships end and how often they go on to raise a family based on whether the male in the relationship asked before having sex with his partner.

 No.349

File: 1561524344701.png (618.92 KB, 763x875, 109:125, Neptune3.png) ImgOps Google

>>343
>If asking a woman for sex is sexual harassment, and just having sex with a woman is rape, how exactly does one go from stranger to sexual partner without doing something wrong?
First ask her out for something like coffee or drinks.  If she agrees and you go on a date together, then you can ask and it won't be harassment.  But straight-out asking for sex will probably result in a rejection.  To improve your odds of success, I recommend reading some literature on human courtship and mating rituals in contemporary society.

 No.350

>>349
Asking women for sex is only sexual harassment if you do it in certain ways. Walking up to a stranger and saying "Hey baby, wanna fuck?" can be considered sexual harassment. Asking a woman you've been in a romantic relationship if they want to have sex and respecting their wishes isn't.

Also, having sex with a women isn't rape unless she does not consent. I'm honestly confused when people are confused by these concepts. It's like... not difficult.

 No.356

>>349
I bet that some would consider romantic courtship as harassment.

 No.358

File: 1561554183934.png (482.85 KB, 518x1671, 518:1671, neptunia-1378772601959.png) ImgOps Google

>>356
>I bet that some would consider romantic courtship as harassment.
Some people think that the moon landing was faked.  It's best to ignore those sorts of people.

 No.630

>>349
Doesn't that just get you in the friendzone though? If you don't set the tone of the relationship as romantic/sexual early on, then you cement yourself as a platonic friend in her head and you're basically trapped there forever.

>>350
>>356
That's the issue though. It's all intuition and guesswork! I mean, i don't have terrible social skills, and i think my intuition is better than average, but with there being relatively high levels of uncertainty and dishonesty involved, and with asking for clarity seeming to be romantic poison, it seems like a leap of faith no matter what you do. Maybe we'd have less sexual harassment if it was possible to clarify things without shooting yourself in the foot! But if you don't do that early enough you exhaust the tiny, tiny window of time where women consider you potentially sexually viable. Gee, i wonder why courtship is such a clusterfuck? Must be those awful men!

 No.633

>>630
The "friendzone" is a myth. Or rather, the idea that a woman can permenantly take you off the table for a romantic relationship because she "only sees you as a friend" is a myth. A woman can not be interested in you romantically, but it's not because you didn't make a move and she stuck you in the friend file of her brain. That's silly. If you are interested in someone and they aren't interested back, it's because they're not attracted to you that way, and probably never were.

 No.634

File: 1562212000559.jpg (54.75 KB, 512x512, 1:1, nepl3Q7Ijah.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>630
>Doesn't that just get you in the friendzone though?
Asking a member of the opposite sex to go get (alcoholic) drinks at a bar with you (without any other friends tagging along) sends a pretty strong signal that you're interested as more than just friends, I think.  Getting coffee together is admittedly weaker signal.

>If you don't set the tone of the relationship as romantic/sexual early on
Flirt with her during the date.  If you want to move fast, near the end, ask her to come to your place to "netflix and chill".  

>and with asking for clarity seeming to be romantic poison
Most humans want to try to minimize embarrassment of rejection.  To do this, they act ambiguously so that they can save face.  If you don't follow this social norm, you might be perceived as either desperate or a fool -- either way, a turn-off because it indicates that, since humans are very social animals, you would not be an optimum provider for the female's children if she lets you fertilize her eggs.

 No.638

>>633
Honestly not trying to be rude, but i think you're just wrong about that, and i'm not at all prepared just take your word on that just at face value, you know? I honestly don't mean to be a jerk, i'm just not sure how to say that any more diplomatically.

>>634
So isn't sending that strong signal "harassment"?

 No.639

>>638
Feel free to prove me wrong, then. Do you have any scientific evidence on the friendzone?

 No.640

>>639
You made the claim. Burden of proof is on you.

 No.642

>>640
That's not how that works. You can't prove a negative. You're literally asking me to prove something doesn't exist. Can you prove that there's not a giant butt at the edge of the universe?

You, however CAN prove that something DOES exist. By showing me evidence of it.

 No.643

File: 1562248544477.jpg (398.6 KB, 1000x1882, 500:941, 1398215426548.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>638
>So isn't sending that strong signal "harassment"?
No, asking someone to go get drinks isn't harassment, unless you persist in asking after having been already denied or if there could be some implied threat (e.g., if she is an employee who reports to you).

 No.646

>>638
>So isn't sending that strong signal "harassment"?
>Asking a woman out to drinks being harrassment
the absolute state of you

come on...

 No.659

The friend zone is a myth, sure, but you'll never quite understand that until you ha e actual life experience.

It's one of those things that you just need experience with. Like a lot of things.

 No.690

>>646
kind of puts a monetary barrier in place, but that might just be an unavoidable barrier for entry I suppose.

 No.693

>>690
You can also go dutch, make your own drinks, or do something that doesn't cost money.

 No.911

It occurs to me whether all this "women want/don't want to be aggressively made moves upon" data possibly suggests a much more simple explanation. That women simply aren't sexually attracted to men. That, if not for men's sexual advances, straight, sexual relationships just wouldn't exist on a macro level. You'd have a few outliers, sure, but it would become something akin to a rare fetish. The "apple", in the store metaphor is an almost complete illusion. It never existed, except in rare edge cases, certainly not something that can be reasonably aspired to by most men.

I mean, even "straight" women, when they watch porn, watch more lesbian porn than straight porn, which certainly suggests a lack of sexual interest in men. Women also rarely perpetrate sexual assault comparatively. Women hate dick picks. It all seems to add up pretty well. Women don't want to fuck men at all! They go along with aggressive men out of fear, and don't go along with non-aggressive men because, hey! They don't have to!

I mean, this paints a pretty clear picture, yea? It's not that women particularly like aggressive men, they don't wan't men sexually at all (apart from rare edge cases)!

https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2014-year-in-review


>>633
> the idea that a woman can permanently take you off the table for a romantic relationship because she "only sees you as a friend" is a myth.

What? Of course she can! What do you mean she can't? Nothing is forcing her to want to fuck you. She can do whatever she wants in her own head. What are you talking about?

 No.926

File: 1563699690135.png (28.36 KB, 897x254, 897:254, hosier-1.PNG) ImgOps Google


 No.927

File: 1563699701287.png (18 KB, 959x127, 959:127, hosier-2.PNG) ImgOps Google


 No.928

File: 1563699733835.png (10.47 KB, 491x135, 491:135, hosier-3.PNG) ImgOps Google

pictures from the first couple of comments on a completely randomly selected hozier music video

 No.929

>>911
Here's the thing about mainstream straight porn. It's usually pretty violent and denigrating towards the women??

One could forgive a woman for preferring porn that's a bit more sensual and respectful towards women.

 No.930

>>926
>>927
>>928
Hard to say how many of those are gay men. Easy to slap whatever username you want on youtube.

Another possibility is that it is indeed women, like you seem to imply, but it's just a matter of signaling. It's what's been socially declared as what they're 'suppose' to like, so in order to maintain social status, they make these comments. How many of them would actually go backstage after the concert?

>>929
I mean, i can agree with mainstream porn being pretty crap, but there's a lot of other avenues rather than the mainstream and lesbian. Internet porn is a variable cornucopia, So why would they choose the only category that explicitly excludes men? Why not femdom? female orgasm? romantic? cunnilingus? If women were both attracted to men, and wanted porn that wasn't degrading to them, and catered to their desires, wouldn't those beat out lesbian? As they would have two things women are attracted to, and not just one? Yet, 'lesbian' wins.

 No.931

>>930
Ah, and i went to go see a hosier video myself, where it had two men in a romantic relationship and portrayed in a positive light. So that seems to me that this may just be an appealing space for gay men overall, hence, the comments are likely those of gay men.

 No.932

File: 1563704903548.png (22.16 KB, 520x701, 520:701, degree of attraction.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>930
>Hard to say how many of those are gay men. Easy to slap whatever username you want on youtube.
they're not, though.

It's well known Hozier has a very avid female following, that's why I picked this example (https://youtu.be/4suDShyoexY?t=1079). I'm just showing these because it's visually interesting.

It doesn't really matter how many would go backstage after the concert if they say they're attracted to him, we should just believe that. Also, who 'maintains social status' by making youtube comments? That's ridiculous, there's nothing to be gained here. It's as un-invoking of an environment as you're likely to find. It really is.

But it's stupid anyway, because you can just ask women, are you attracted to men (Lippa, 2007)

or you can look at physiological arousal measures of heterosexual women (Spape et al. 2014)
(I'll post the graph below)

Spape in particular offers an explanation for the phenomenon you observe, that you might find interesting, and I reccomend reading that article.

Lippa, R. A. (2007). The relation between sex drive and sexual attraction to men and women: A cross-national study of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(2), 209-222. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9146-z

Spape, J., Timmers, A. D., Yoon, S., Ponseti, J., & Chivers, M. L. (2014). Gender-specific genital and subjective sexual arousal to prepotent sexual features in heterosexual women and men. Biological Psychology, 102, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.07.008

 No.933

File: 1563704922137.png (47.68 KB, 526x488, 263:244, Physiological arousal meas….PNG) ImgOps Google

Black is men, White is women, bars are 95% confidence intervals. This is for specifically self-identified heterosexual women.

 No.934

Also, in relation to that data you have from pornhub, this doesn't actually support heterosexual women being not being attracted to men. We don't have numbers on how many of them self-identify as lesbian, nor do we even have numbers on how much lesbian porn they viewed, in relation to porn with men present in it, and we can't guess as to, what they might have been fantasizing about while watching it. The data is woefully incomplete.

 No.935

>>932
>It doesn't really matter how many would go backstage after the concert if they say they're attracted to him, we should just believe that.

How does it not matter? If how they say and how they act are different, that matters dramatically. Saying you're attracted to someone, and actually being aroused by them are two different things. Saying it doesn't matter seems to imply that simply saying you're aroused by something is exactly the same as actually being aroused by them. In fact, this leads me to another study.

http://indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/Chivers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf

I think that's the more technical paper, and here's a more digestible breakdown of the study

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Which showed men and women various sexual acts, and asked them how aroused they were, and measured that vs. actual physiological genital arousal:

<"The men, on average, responded genitally in what Chivers terms “category specific” ways. Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement.

<All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. "

So yea, no, based on this study, i think saying you should just accept women's' answer is clearly misguided, as the study shows that there's a major disconnect between what women say they're turned on by, and what they actually physically respond to. At the very least, it means men and women experience and process arousal in fundamentally different ways, in which case we're speaking entirely different languages in the first place, and thus more or less inadvertently talking past each other. This study also supports that women aren't attracted to men, as it seems the only things women didn't respond to physiologically was the men not engaged in sex acts. Even the women not engaged in sex acts got a better response. That seems to pretty definitively suggest that there's no actual attraction to men.

>But it's stupid anyway, because you can just ask women, are you attracted to men (Lippa, 2007)

See above.

>Also, who 'maintains social status' by making youtube comments? That's ridiculous, there's nothing to be gained here. It's as un-invoking of an environment as you're likely to find. It really is.

If people have a practiced behavior of social signaling, it would just become second nature. They would do it simply as a matter of habit.

>spape

I'll not 100% sure what the data means based on your graph, so idk if you have a link i can follow, buf if you do, i'd like it. I don't blame you if you don't, i know these things are often paywalled, but i would be interested to actually get a better sense of the study and what it means, and i'm just not getting that here. I suppose i can always do some more in-depth googling later. It certainly seems interesting.

>>934
>Also, in relation to that data you have from pornhub, this doesn't actually support heterosexual women being not being attracted to men. We don't have numbers on how many of them self-identify as lesbian, nor do we even have numbers on how much lesbian porn they viewed, in relation to porn with men present in it

It was more popular among women. Doesn't that suggest that they prefer it over anything with men in it?

>and we can't guess as to, what they might have been fantasizing about while watching it. The data is woefully incomplete.

Why in the world would someone watch one type of porn, and then fantasize about something completely different?! That makes no sense. Why would they not just go find the type of porn they'd be fantasizing about?

Also, if there is this abundance of legitimately straight women, as you claim, why would there not be more porn that caters to them? Why would straight women have to resort to lesbian porn? Shouldn't the number of horny straight women create a demand for porn catering to their needs? Wouldn't this mean successful tags that would include both the hot men you claim they're so attracted to, AND be respectful to them? Doesn't the lack of these things more or less debunk the idea that there's some secret hidden payload of straight female lust just under the social surface? The social stigma argument doesn't hold water here, either, since porn is generally something people do alone, and not under their real names.

It is very possible that we're just dealing with a lack of data here, but from the points we do have, it seems to suggest that women aren't, at least from a primal, physiological level, attracted to men. In fact, it suggests their not even neutral about it. The response is negative.

 No.936

>>935
>How does it not matter? If how they say and how they act are different, that matters dramatically. Saying you're attracted to someone, and actually being aroused by them are two different things. Saying it doesn't matter seems to imply that simply saying you're aroused by something is exactly the same as actually being aroused by them. In fact, this leads me to another study.
It doesn't matter, because there could be all sorts of reasons why willingness to go backstage is not predictive of arousal. It's a deadend essentially. It does matter whether or not they are actually attracted to him but your proposed measurement is really unfair to women. It essentially lays on them that unless they're sleeping with guys, we can't trust their testimony. And we should trust their testimony to a pretty high degree.

The paper you posted is accounted for in Spape et al. They specifically reference it and explain the results. You should read that paper, it's good.

Also, never trust popular portrayals of science... Honestly, it's crap more than 90% of the time. Journalists usually do NOT know how to read these, and are incentivized to misrepresent the data to get clicks. Reading the conclusions and discussions of a study carefully will give you better understanding 100% of the time.

>as the study shows that there's a major disconnect between what women say they're turned on by, and what they actually physically respond to
It doesn't, read Spape et al.

>At the very least, it means men and women experience and process arousal in fundamentally different ways
This seems true, according to the empirical evidence.

>I'll not 100% sure what the data means based on your graph, so idk if you have a link i can follow, buf if you do, i'd like it. I don't blame you if you don't, i know these things are often paywalled, but i would be interested to actually get a better sense of the study and what it means, and i'm just not getting that here. I suppose i can always do some more in-depth googling later. It certainly seems interesting.
It is behind a paywall, but there are online grassroots databases for the liberation of knowledge like this.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.07.008
you're welcome.

>Why in the world would someone watch one type of porn, and then fantasize about something completely different?! That makes no sense. Why would they not just go find the type of porn they'd be fantasizing about?
Heterosexual porn often caters to men specifically. My friends tell me, that starting from a lesbian porn video and moving into fantasizing about men, is often more enjoyable than clicking on a non-lesbian video, and running the roulette of what kind of awful thing is going to be done to the woman in that video. Rough anal, clitmashing and stuff like this is all on the table.

>Also, if there is this abundance of legitimately straight women, as you claim, why would there not be more porn that caters to them
There's tons.

Even looking at pornhubs breakdown you can see there's tons. But women might not go to pornhub, they might use other sites, or read fiction, or play dating simulators, or any other number of things

But just ASK WOMEN. It's so simple. You're jumping through all of these hoops, trying to prove that women don't really feel what they claim to feel, but you can just trust them. Honestly.

 No.937

>>936

> It essentially lays on them that unless they're sleeping with guys, we can't trust their testimony. And we should trust their testimony to a pretty high degree.

So the fact that they're not sleeping with guys, have different psychological and subjective responses, ergo their stated heterosexuality cannot be trusted, don't have physiological arousal to man's bodies, AND they masturbate to porn without men in it... None of that suggests to you that men just don't do it for them? Your faith in people's honesty about their sexuality is that much stronger than all that evidence? I'm sorry, but that seems awfully stubborn of you.

>But just ASK WOMEN. It's so simple. You're jumping through all of these hoops, trying to prove that women don't really feel what they claim to feel, but you can just trust them. Honestly.

Oh yea, great idea, just go up to a random woman and go "oh hey, can you please tell me what turns you on, i swear it's for academic purposes!". I don't think you are, but like, if not, what exactly are you suggesting i do? Can you promise me it won't lead to a slap or restraining order? Plus, any response i'd get would be well considered for social filtering, and thus be largely useless, so it's really not that simple at all.

And again, the Chivers study shows that either i won't really understand what they're saying to me in a meaningful way, or, they very much will lie to me and i very much can't trust them. Am i wrong?

Also, hey! Looks like Chivers was directly involved in the Spape study, too! Interesting! If only we could ask her about it, i'm sure she'd have something enlightening to say about it!

 No.939

>>936

Also thank you very much for the link! I have a feeling i'm going to get a lot of mileage out of that site!

 No.940

>>936
>>937
I already went over why the pornhub data is flawed! I have better data, which indicates that women are aroused, so the situation is actually the reverse, reliable evidence AND testimony both indicate the same thing.

>Oh yea, great idea, just go up to a random woman and go "oh hey, can you please tell me what turns you on, i swear it's for academic purposes!". I don't think you are, but like, if not, what exactly are you suggesting i do? Can you promise me it won't lead to a slap or restraining order? Plus, any response i'd get would be well considered for social filtering, and thus be largely useless, so it's really not that simple at all.
I mean obviously you should be a bit tactful in the way you speak to others.

>And again, the Chivers study shows that either i won't really understand what they're saying to me in a meaningful way, or, they very much will lie to me and i very much can't trust them. Am i wrong?
Yeah, read Spape.

I know, that's how academics work. These fields are very much interconnected, and in fact the spape study is a continuation of the chivers study. It's published 7 years after, and is much more cutting edge.

 No.941

>>939
Yeah, no worries, enjoy curiosity, and use the knowledge for good, obviously. Otherwise it's hard to justify stealing it.

 No.942

>>940
There's some really weird results here. It's pretty interesting. I do wish they'd have included masturbating men and masturbating women as some of the material shown. That way you'd have prepotent material that wouldn't involve actual sex, would only involve one person, and would be gender-specific. Seems like a bit of an oversight.

 No.943

>>942
Technically, the most ecologically valid study would be to measure genital reactions during intercourse with men and women in a natural setting, everything else is artificial by comparison. Voyerism isn't necessearily predictive of arousal in the act itself, and crucially, watching someone masturbate would be really far removed from the environment of evolutionary adaptation.

Since the experiments we really want to perform are kind of unethical or extremely difficult to find volunteers for, we're stuck with some weird data most of the time.

Which is why I personally really like testimony and qualitative evidence. It fills a lot of the gaps, if you listen carefully.

 No.944

>>943
>Which is why I personally really like testimony and qualitative evidence. It fills a lot of the gaps, if you listen carefully.

Eh... I just think any self-reported data about sexuality is bound to be entirely too filthy to use. Do you expect the self-reported sexual activity of 15-year-old boys to be 100% factual and accurate? I'm sorry, but i just don't think my mother has enough time to be servicing that many middle schoolers, and i also have reason to believe she is not a pedophile.

 No.945

>>944
>Do you expect the self-reported sexual activity of 15-year-old boys to be 100% factual and accurate?  I'm sorry, but i just don't think my mother has enough time to be servicing that many middle schoolers, and i also have reason to believe she is not a pedophile.
You know, that those are jokes right?

I trust self-report, as gathered by scientists, who know how to maximize the validity of the data.

 No.946

>>945
But that's kind of an unfair motte and bailey.

I also trust it when my friends speak candidly to me of their experiences.

 No.947

>>945

I mean, it was a bit of a joke, but the point still stands. People are culturally conditioned to respond a certain way, truthfully or no. I think this is especially true in matter of sexuality. Hence why i think self-reported data on the matter isn't going to be usable. Internalized slut-shaming, or the inverse, are going to muddy the waters, yea? Even if they intend to be truthful, that can't account for internalized falsehoods, exaggerations, or omissions.

I don't really trust self-reported evidence in general. People lie and polygraphs are crap.

I don't know you or your friends, so i can't make a determination to the validity of the claims either way.

 No.948

>>947
>I mean, it was a bit of a joke, but the point still stands. People are culturally conditioned to respond a certain way, truthfully or no. I think this is especially true in matter of sexuality. Hence why i think self-reported data on the matter isn't going to be usable. Internalized slut-shaming, or the inverse, are going to muddy the waters, yea? Even if they intend to be truthful, that can't account for internalized falsehoods, exaggerations, or omissions.
You can expect a stable degree of fibbing corrosponding to the direction of typical social desirability bias, but not to the point where they say the opposite of what's the case, this would be very, very unusual.

 No.949

>>948
>You can expect a stable degree of fibbing corrosponding to the direction of typical social desirability bias, but not to the point where they say the opposite of what's the case, this would be very, very unusual.

I mean, it doesn't have to be exactly the opposite. It could be exaggerated or underplayed. And yes, scientists will know how to maximize validity, but that hardly cleans the data completely. Only so much can realistically be done. The date is still too dirty to be considered reliable, i think.

 No.950

>>949
It depends on what you're going to use it for. Do you want an intuitive understanding of women's sexuality? Just ask them.

Do you want to determine how much arousal is correlated with some other factor. You might need more precise measures than self-report can give you.

The methods have different strengths and weaknesses. Quantitative data commits constant category errors and leaves out any semblance of nuance in many cases, while qualitative data can be imprecise and vague, but has greater potential to accurately represent human experiences in a holistic way.

 No.951

>>950

>It depends on what you're going to use it for. Do you want an intuitive understanding of women's sexuality? Just ask them.
>The methods have different strengths and weaknesses. Quantitative data commits constant category errors and leaves out any semblance of nuance in many cases, while qualitative data can be imprecise and vague, but has greater potential to accurately represent human experiences in a holistic way.

I guess, but i don't feel like asking women would do either. Wouldn't the answer change based on how they feel about me? If they thought i was creepy for asking, i'd get one response, if they thought i was curious on an emotional level, that's a different response. If they thought i was interested on an academic level, that's yet a third response. If they were attracted to me or not, that's yet another response. These responses could very much be contradictory and/or untruthful. I suppose if it's someone i've like, known for years, i can crunch those factors to some degree of accuracy, but man, i just wouldn't trust it.

 No.952

>>951
>If they thought i was creepy for asking, i'd get one response, if they thought i was curious on an emotional level, that's a different response.
Yes, that's very true, so you should ask people that trust you. Or, if you don't have anyone you feel comfortable asking, listen to people's vlogs or read their books, or find testimony that has been made publically avaiable.

>These responses could very much be contradictory and/or untruthful. I suppose if it's someone i've like, known for years, i can crunch those factors to some degree of accuracy, but man, i just wouldn't trust it.
Here's your problem I think, you're thinking in categories. You have to give up some of this black and white categorical thinking you have, it's anyway just constructions. Just try to feel it out. You'll do fine, especially once you get a bit of practice in.

 No.953

>>952

>listen to people's vlogs or read their books, or find testimony that has been made publically avaiable.

Because those are of course going to be 100% accurate and not shaped by social expectation or expectation of what will be well-received at all...

>Just try to feel it out.

You do realize that the moment i'm wrong i'm labeled a sexual harasser, get put on a sex offender list, probably can't ever get a proper job again... Hell, i might not even get the chance to know. A woman might tell me things are good out of some misplaced sense of intimidation, and then even if i try to ask her she'll lie about it to my face, and then the day after  i'm #metoo'd. There is no way for me to know for sure! And even just trying to know is probably going to be a pretty efficient panty dehumidifier.

So no, i can't just "feel it out". Because there's no clarity or mercy for straight men who trust their instincts and then fuck up. If straight women themselves can't figure out their attraction, what hope do i have when all i'm working with is my straight male gut reaction?

 No.954

>>953
>Because those are of course going to be 100% accurate and not shaped by social expectation or expectation of what will be well-received at all...
Well you have to account for that in your analysis.

You can't just cynically reject reality because it's nuanced. I mean you can, but it won't help you.

>You do realize that the moment i'm wrong i'm labeled a sexual harasser, get put on a sex offender list, probably can't ever get a proper job again... Hell, i might not even get the chance to know. A woman might tell me things are good out of some misplaced sense of intimidation, and then even if i try to ask her she'll lie about it to my face, and then the day after  i'm #metoo'd. There is no way for me to know for sure! And even just trying to know is probably going to be a pretty efficient panty dehumidifier.
I feel like you're entering this from the wrong frame. As long as you respect consent, and generally respect your fellow human, no one worth listening to is going to resent you anything. And yes, sometimes it is okay for the panties to remain dry. Not every moment has to be about sex. This is why women feel objectified maybe, is because some dudes feel like even doing ANYTHING that might not lead to sex around a woman is a bad idea.

I don't understand. The reason why you're not okay with trying to understand women by talking to them, is because you're worried they won't have sex with you if you do. But how could women ever be interested in you, if you're not even willing to listen to them? Surely, you must be aware that it's not healthy to have so much distrust for other people.

 No.955

>>954
>I feel like you're entering this from the wrong frame. As long as you respect consent, and generally respect your fellow human

Really? Firstly, what defines "consent?" As i understand it, you can retroactively withdraw consent, so a yes before and during the act might become a no once it's ended and she feels weird about it. Bam! Now i'm a rapist and there's nothing i could have done to prevent it! As long as slut shaming is a social force, it's something i'll have to consider. Consent can be retroactive and relative based on female interpersonal social factors i have nowhere near enough knowledge of to properly factor. I don't know whether one girl sleeping with me will be socially beneficial or socially detrimental! I don't intimately know the social dynamics of her peer group.

>no one worth listening to is going to resent you anything.

And how do i know whether or not someone is "worth listening to"?

>sometimes it is okay for the panties to remain dry. Not every moment has to be about sex. This is why women feel objectified maybe, is because some dudes feel like even doing ANYTHING that might not lead to sex around a woman is a bad idea.

I'd like to some day have a mutually sexually satisfying relationship with a woman some day #sorrynotsorry.

Consider this: Let's say you make one female friend who you initially had sexual/romantic interest in, and it ends up resulting in a platonic relationship. Now you either have to not be friends, and feel guilty because everyone will treat you like an asshole for cutting everything off because the relationship isn't what you wanted, or continue to be platonic friends. Ok, fine so far, you have one female platonic friend, and she is consuming a certain amount of your time/resources, as friends of any gender tend to do. You try again, end up with another female friend, same result, now you have another platonic female friend. Repeat process until you have 25 platonic female friends. At some point, the number of platonic female friends consumes enough time/resources to render you unable to find the time/resources to pursue a romantic relationship. Hence, doing anything that might not lead to sex around a woman leads to more female friends, and too many female friends (friends in general, really) results in a crippled ability to pursue romance due to lack of time/resources.

>I don't understand, the reason why you're not okay with trying to understand women by talking to them, is because you're worried they won't have sex with you if you do.

Partially, yes. The fact that i have to ask will be perceived as an implicit admission of lack of empathy and implicit knowledge of her innermost desires. That is not sexy. Hence, they will not have sex with me if i talk to them about these things.

>But how could women ever be interested in you, if you're not even willing to listen to them?

Idk, physical attraction maybe? Are you conceding the earlier point that women aren't inherently sexually attracted to men?

>Surely, you must be aware that it's not healthy to have so much distrust for other people.

I mean, maybe, but the alternative is to take on an absurd amount of risk.

 No.957

>>955
>Really? Firstly, what defines "consent?" As i understand it, you can retroactively withdraw consent, so a yes before and during the act might become a no once it's ended and she feels weird about it. Bam! Now i'm a rapist and there's nothing i could have done to prevent it! As long as slut shaming is a social force, it's something i'll have to consider. Consent can be retroactive and relative based on female interpersonal social factors i have nowhere near enough knowledge of to properly factor. I don't know whether one girl sleeping with me will be socially beneficial or socially detrimental! I don't intimately know the social dynamics of her peer group.
Unless consent was given under duress or under fear, this isn't something that is considered valid by anyone, least of all by courts. And you'd have to be dealing with a real prick for that to happen. There's always a chance of encountering a major prick in the world, but most people are good people.

>And how do i know whether or not someone is "worth listening to"?
That's just a personal opinion. An opinion I'd invite you to share with me. If you've treated someone genuinely well and taken care not to overstep their boundaries (and do take care to examine your actions critically) and someone is saying you've been the worst person or something for no good reason, there's a pretty good chance they're not worth listening to.

>I'd like to some day have a mutually sexually satisfying relationship with a woman some day #sorrynotsorry.
There's no reason to feel sorry about that. But women aren't JUST sex objects. It's okay to, you know, talk to them also? They don't have to be this one-dimensional thing.

>Consider this: Let's say you make one female friend who you initially had sexual/romantic interest in, and it ends up resulting in a platonic relationship. Now you either have to not be friends, and feel guilty because everyone will treat you like an asshole for cutting everything off because the relationship isn't what you wanted, or continue to be platonic friends. Ok, fine so far, you have one female platonic friend, and she is consuming a certain amount of your time/resources, as friends of any gender tend to do. You try again, end up with another female friend, same result, now you have another platonic female friend. Repeat process until you have 25 platonic female friends. At some point, the number of platonic female friends consumes enough time/resources to render you unable to find the time/resources to pursue a romantic relationship. Hence, doing anything that might not lead to sex around a woman leads to more female friends, and too many female friends (friends in general, really) results in a crippled ability to pursue romance due to lack of time/resources.
You're thinking of relationships entirely too much like transactions. Through interaction more value is created than is taken away, if the relationship is good. And if you want some time to date and pursue romantic options, just say that.

Say, 'hey X, I'd love to hang out tonight, but maybe another time, I have some stuff I gotta take care of'.

And presto, time. It's not that complicated.

>artially, yes. The fact that i have to ask will be perceived as an implicit admission of lack of empathy and implicit knowledge of her innermost desires. That is not sexy. Hence, they will not have sex with me if i talk to them about these things.
Okay, but again, not every woman has to be just for sex, and not every interaction has to be about sex, right? Asking someone about their emotional health is also not conducive to having a good night out as friends, but that doesn't mean because I want to sometimes have good nights out with friends, that I don't also want to be an empathetic friend sometimes that gives people an opportunity to talk about some of the stuff that might be bothering them.

In the same way, it is possible to do things that are not about sex with women, while still also wanting to have a fulfilling sex life.

>Idk, physical attraction maybe? Are you conceding the earlier point that women aren't inherently sexually attracted to men?
No, of course not, notice I said interested, not attracted. For women, there's an extra consideration that comes with relationships, and that is that the dude is usually 1/3rd stronger, and usually has more of a dominating personality. What this means is, that there's a premium on guys that are willing to listen and hear you out, and anyone that isn't willing to listen to you at all, is a bit scary, because you don't know if they'll actually take you seriously, particularly if you say something like 'no' 'stop' or 'actually I'm not super into that'. As such, even if they're attracted to you physically, they may be unable to imagine a sexual relationship forming because the building blocks for one are not in place.

I'd invite you to consider empathy, listening and respect as cornerstones of mutually beneficial sexual encounters.

>I mean, maybe, but the alternative is to take on an absurd amount of risk.
It's inherently dangerous to listen to women??

 No.958

Also, as a sidenote, a clear line of communication and a willingness to listen is not just useful for sussing out when someone is uncomfortable.

It can be used to figure out when something feels really GOOD. And when you should keep doing what you're doing. And what someone would like it if you did again. And of course it's just generally really useful to have a relationship where you listen to each other. For all the reasons that we developed language and social cognition.

 No.959

File: 1563729452365.jpg (49.54 KB, 690x437, 30:19, men-vs-women-attractivenes….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>911
>That women simply aren't sexually attracted to men.
Or maybe women are sexually attracted to only the "best" men (by some metric) that they perceive are avaiable to them?
http://archive.is/yse2

 No.960

File: 1563729763169.jpg (216.51 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, 109652.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>959
uggghhhh

Why do you guys ALWAYS use pseudoscientific sources and infographs? Someone give me an actual publication with a solid description of methodology and a peer review process, just ONCE.

 No.961

There's so much good knowledge out there. Just use it.

 No.962

>>957
>That's just a personal opinion. An opinion I'd invite you to share with me.

Idk, i guess someone who has clearly thought out and wrestled with ideas themselves, really forged their identity, they haven't just slotted themselves into the easiest designated social slot, if that makes sense. They're sensible, but not cold. When i first meet them, they do something i don't expect, even if it's little.

>There's no reason to feel sorry about that. But women aren't JUST sex objects. It's okay to, you know, talk to them also? They don't have to be this one-dimensional thing.

Yea, sure, but as women tend to not like the same stuff as me, so there's nothing to talk about. Honestly, i'm rather baffled overall at what women do in their free time. They don't see to play video games, watch anime, watch tv or movies... at least i've not run into many women in my social circles dealing with these things. Then again, it's the internet, who knows who is what gender. Maybe it's just a matter of spending more time in meatspace.

>Okay, but again, not every woman has to be just for sex, and not every interaction has to be about sex, right? Asking someone about their emotional health is also not conducive to having a good night out as friends, but that doesn't mean because I want to sometimes have good nights out with friends, that I don't also want to be an empathetic friend sometimes that gives people an opportunity to talk about some of the stuff that might be bothering them.

>In the same way, it is possible to do things that are not about sex with women, while still also wanting to have a fulfilling sex life.

Yea, ok, but as my goal is to further my sex life, that isn't relevant information to me. I mean, i'm a sympathetic guy, i've been a shoulder for my friends to cry on, i'm not made of stone, but, at the same time, i also don't see being the beta that every woman in a 12-mile radius cries to about the abusive relationship she doesn't want to leave to as my calling. I don't see having 45 female friends, each of whom aren't attracted to me, "but aw, you're such a sweet guy, any girl would be lucky to have you, but purely theoretically, we all think you're gross" as a fulfilling life path for myself. Isn't being surrounded by women who you know think you're gross something of a demoralizing confidence killer? Just 45 living reminders of just how revolting i am to the opposite sex... Yea, sounds lovely...

>It's inherently dangerous to listen to women??

No, but a romantic relationship with one is. I guess it's not dangerous if you play it's safe, but it's also going to be a gigantic waste of time unless you happen to legitimately be friends, and as women don't like what i like, it's unlikely. Idk if women want to be friends with me anyway. I doubt women are that desperate for platonic male friends. Pretty sure "let's be friends" is just a code for "i want to make you go away without making you angry", anyway. So this whole conversation seems a bit silly and meaningless. The existence of shit tests pretty much makes you choose between risk and platonic friend.

>>959

Hmm, i wonder how you would determine your own spot on the metrics. I have a handful of good physical qualities, but some bad ones. I wonder how much being 6'1 buys me, and how much having a receding hairline looses me. Be interesting to see how one stacks up and where that leaves you.

I guess it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. And we see this behavior in monkeys. One male is able to impregnate many many females, after all. It makes sense they'd all go for the top 1% and stay away from anyone else.

 No.963

>>962
>Yea, sure, but as women tend to not like the same stuff as me, so there's nothing to talk about. Honestly, i'm rather baffled overall at what women do in their free time. They don't see to play video games, watch anime, watch tv or movies... at least i've not run into many women in my social circles dealing with these things. Then again, it's the internet, who knows who is what gender. Maybe it's just a matter of spending more time in meatspace.
Women are individuals, they do different things.

I don't think women typically think their male friends are gross? Is this like an undeniable truth or something in your world, that if a woman is friends with someone, she must think he's gross?

>No, but a romantic relationship with one is. I guess it's not dangerous if you play it's safe, but it's also going to be a gigantic waste of time unless you happen to legitimately be friends, and as women don't like what i like, it's unlikely. Idk if women want to be friends with me anyway. I doubt women are that desperate for platonic male friends. Pretty sure "let's be friends" is just a code for "i want to make you go away without making you angry", anyway. So this whole conversation seems a bit silly and meaningless. The existence of shit tests pretty much makes you choose between risk and platonic friend.
Everyone likes having friends...
I just... have no idea what you're even talking about tbh

 No.967

>>963

>I don't think women typically think their male friends are gross? Is this like an undeniable truth or something in your world, that if a woman is friends with someone, she must think he's gross?

Well yea, if you have a person, and they want to have sex with you, and you don't want to have sex with them, then you're probably not super attracted to them. You probably think they're kind of gross. If this happens to a guy 45 times, from 45 different women, chances are he's not very sexually attractive to any of them. You'd feel very sexually undesirable if you got sexually rejected 45 times in a row from people who seem to like you alright as a person to keep you around as a friend. Probably means they don't like what's on the outside, and think you're gross.

>Everyone likes having friends...

Yea, sure, but friendships are generally based on something! Shared interests, shared experience, something! People generally aren't just friends at random! There's some criteria to it! Or at least some chemistry!

 No.969

>>967
>Well yea, if you have a person, and they want to have sex with you, and you don't want to have sex with them, then you're probably not super attracted to them. You probably think they're kind of gross.
Uh no???

Absolutely not?

I have a lot of friends I find very attractive, but who I would nonetheless not have sex with, and I have no friends that I consider gross, regardless of how little I want to have sex with them.

Not wanting to have sex with someone, that's something else. That's not gross, and it's not even necessearily judging someone to be sexually undesirable, it's just a situation of not wanting to have sex with someone.

>Yea, sure, but friendships are generally based on something! Shared interests, shared experience, something! People generally aren't just friends at random! There's some criteria to it! Or at least some chemistry!
You're exactly right, friendship does require chemistry, or some sort of rapport.

I think you might be a little bit rejection sensitive, if you're taking extensions of friendship, as signals to go away, to put it lightly.

 No.970

>>941
>Otherwise it's hard to justify stealing it.
Taxpayers already paid once to fund the research. Why should a private for-profit company have a right to prevent taxpayers from reading the results of this taxpayer-funded research?

 No.971

>>970
That's an interesting point, but I think the better argument is that knowledge in general should be free and distributed, as that is how it will be the greatest benefit to everyone.

I did, for example, not pay taxes in the US at any point in my life, and indeed most of the articles I read are of international origin.

Furthermore, The private company has the right to the articles, because the scientists signed that over to the journals for the right to publish in them. That is how that industry works. And just like pirating software is stealing that software in the eyes of the law, so is this stealing in the eyes of the law.

It's a shoddy system, certainly, but it's still an agreement that was made.

 No.993

>>969
>Not wanting to have sex with someone, that's something else. That's not gross, and it's not even necessearily judging someone to be sexually undesirable, it's just a situation of not wanting to have sex with someone.

So if you want to have sex with 45 people, and none of them want to have sex with you, but not because of your personality... you don't think that speaks to your physical sexual desirability at all? Is that the claim you're making here? Nobody wanting to have sex with you doesn't at all speak to how much people find you sexually attractive? If you don't mind, i'd like you to dig into that more, because i'm really confused at how you came to that conclusion.

>I think you might be a little bit rejection sensitive, if you're taking extensions of friendship, as signals to go away, to put it lightly.

Aren't women socialized to let down romantic advances easy? Isn't "let's just be friends" or "you're like a brother to me" just a pretty good way of rejecting a romantic advance without incurring anger or looking rude?

 No.994

>>993
>>971

So this situation: keeping in mind that it's a fictional song, as if even danny can go to bat and miss that many times, well then fuck, we're all doomed and humanity's on it's last legs...  Doesn't speak at all to the singer's sexual desirability?

 No.1014

>>993
>So if you want to have sex with 45 people, and none of them want to have sex with you, but not because of your personality... you don't think that speaks to your physical sexual desirability at all? Is that the claim you're making here? Nobody wanting to have sex with you doesn't at all speak to how much people find you sexually attractive?
Obviously, this is not the case, but this is also a ridiculous example you've concocted.

You're telling me, you don't even know what women have as interests, they're almost like a foreign species to you or something. So I think the focus for you should not be to catastrophize about how it would feel if 45 women rejected you all at once, this is just sooo far removed from the worries you should be having in this situation. It's very unlikely you'll ever be in a situation, where you simultaneously have an interest in 45 women. It'll like be 1, 2 or 3 at a time at the very most probably, and if it's any more than this, I'm going to suggest that you're not really interested in the people, you're just interested in the idea of the people.

I think it can probabilistically speak to your sexual desirability, if you keep getting rejected over and over again, yes, but you should use that as fuel, not as a deterrent. Just as if you get rejected on a job application, you have to ask yourself what went wrong, what could I do better to make this process work out. People can have totally legitimate reasons for not wanting to sleep with you at any given point of time that don't have to do with your sexual desirability, so fix those reasons, if they pertain to factors that are under your control.

>>994
I really don't think so, no. If you're inviting a bunch of people to an orgy, most would definitely say no, unless they 1) have like a lot of prior experience with that, 2) really trust you and 3) know who's going to be on the guest list, or potentially 4) have an incredibly unrestricted sociosexuality. If you just ask 10 people, chances are great you're going to get zero people responding, almost no matter who you are. I don't know what you're expecting here.

 No.1036

>>1014
> It's very unlikely you'll ever be in a situation, where you simultaneously have an interest in 45 women. It'll like be 1, 2 or 3 at a time at the very most

Well yea, probably. It wouldn't be all at once, more a semi-steady flow i imagine. I just mean the weight of that many rejections with no success, even if I've generally moved past earlier ones, does do a number on the old self image, and is a reasonable indication that the opposite sex does not find me very sexually appealing...

Leads me to kindof another point, which is that i'm not really sure how bad the rejection is going to be. Seems like it's socially acceptable for women to slap, throw drinks at, and do all manner of abusive things to men who take an interest in them. You'll excuse me if i don't want a shot glass lodged in my skull for making an honest advance, and as i don't really hang around in bars, i'm not sure to the what degree and frequency this happens. So that also makes me want to play it safe. I don't really do well with physical violence overall.

 No.1037

>>1036
>Seems like it's socially acceptable for women to slap, throw drinks at, and do all manner of abusive things to men who take an interest in them.
Um, no.  Trashy lower-class assetless women might do those things, but nobody regards it as socially acceptable, any more than bar fights between men are socially acceptable.

 No.1038

>>1036
>m not really sure how bad the rejection is going to be.
Have considered joining an online dating site like OkCupid?  I think the standard rejection is just to ignore the message that you send her.

 No.1039

>>1038

I tried dating sites for like a week, turns of for straight men it's like 99.9% camgirl ads and scams, kinda soured my experience with it, but perhaps all dating sites aren't created equal, who tf knows.

 No.1040

>>1039
Which sites did you try?

 No.1041

>>1040
Jeez, it's been years. I don't remember, sorry.

 No.1042

>>1041
Might be worth trying again

 No.1060

>>936
> And we should trust their testimony to a pretty high degree
I think most humans are somewhat unreliable at accurately reporting their sexual preferences.  E.g., human males are typically sexually attracted to human females who have begun puberty and display secondary sexual characteristics.  But these males typically under-report their attraction to females who are below the age of consent in their jurisdiction.

 No.1090

>>1060
Source?

 No.1101

File: 1564460559301.png (44.04 KB, 2900x2850, 58:57, penile-response-by-stim-ca….png) ImgOps Google

>>1090
Blanchard et al. [1] measured penile tumescence of "normal" men (heterosexual teleiophiles) and men with other sexual preferences.  For heterosexual teleiophiles, they found a phallometric response of 7 cc for adult women, 4 cc for pubescent girls, 2 cc for prepubescent girls, and 0.5 cc for adult men.  (Figure 1 in [1].)

[1] Blanchard, Ray, et al.  "Sexual attraction to others: A comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men."  Archives of Sexual Behavior (2012).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3

 No.1121

>>1101
Okay, so the data is really good in some ways, but the way it was collected, the way it's presented and analyzed, and how it's interpreted all present us us with a few problems in regards to concluding that testimony regarding sexuality is systemically less reliable than quantitative data. I'm just gonna rattle these off.

- All subjects had committed criminial offenses or where criminas, that's kind of a huge selection bias. We can't be sure how that influenced results or measurements
- The vast majority of subjects had a previous history of sexual assaults or rape, often with multiple counts. So, maybe not average people we're dealing with here, in terms of sexuality.
- All subjects were men. Selection bias again. We might expect different results with women or with a sample representative of a broader population.
- There's a category error that we subtly perform, when we equivocate sexual attraction with what people in everyday life are talking about when they talk about sexual attraction. Because our language has no words widely used for romantic orientations, those ideas get conflated. And to what extent the asked person is actually witholding information, or just relaying culturally learned romantic patterns with attraction is uncertain. Within that degree of uncertainty lies the beauty of qualitative testimony. It's here that we find nuance and possibility to escape existing boundaries and rigid semantic structures. That nuance, all dissappears, when we try to operationalize.
- Phallometric data, although considered some of the most reliable attraction data in experimental psychology, has been frequently shown to be not ecologically valid. Phallometric data collection has systemic problems that present themselves if you try to generalize it to real life sexual and romantic behavior, or even to other forms of attraction measurements, that capture different facets of the human responses to other humans. There's a lot of situation context which is important to human sexual behavior that is not at all measured here. Like, imagine if images just don't do it for you. What if you're a person that needs to be touched or to feel certain things from your partner. This test doesn't capture your sexual experience at all, in this case. In my own case, for example, I can be a somewhat insecure person, and it can help me to be in a safe environment for me to get aroused. If I was in a lab with a weird device strapped to my penis and under observation, you can bet you'd get some pretty unreliable and invaid measures from me.

Furthermore, aside from these problems, the data actually supports what I said more than it discredits it. The vast, vast majority of men studied here were found to have a phallometric response congruent with their testimony. 89% of subjects responded to sexual stimuli in relation to their proposed orientation, and the rest were on average non-responders. That is to say, they got much less aroused by any of the images. It's possible that simply seeing pictures didn't turn them on, they needed some kind of act or to situate the object of attraction in some kind of specific act or setting.

This suggests that if you just asked someone, you would get a congruent orientation at least 89% of the time, and the other 11 you'd probably get some non-responders, som not people that are lying about their orientation, and also a good portion something we don't even understand or know how to quantify, but which was forced to respond in a weird binary.

Blanchard et al. also admit, that their model isn't perfect. They know that it doesn't apply reliably to all members of the population, conceding that self-reported sexuality sometimes is a more important indicator of who a person is, that can override the assumptions made when creating this model:

"Bisexuality in male teleiophiles raises a special problem for the bipolar model. The phallometric responses of bisexual teleiophiles could be plotted against an X-axis like that used in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. The phallometric profile should be V-shaped or U-shaped. Such a profile could not, however, be described by the bipolar model equation; it would require the summation model equation. This would be a limitation for the bipolar model; how serious a limitation depends on the proportion of self-reported bisexual teleiophiles who actually produce V-shaped or U-shaped phallometric profiles."

And with 'shemales' as well. Probably pre-op trans women or NB people.

"There is at least one other class of men whose existence is unquestioned, and whose behavior cannot be explained by the bipolar model. Those are the gynandromorphophiles, men who are sexually attracted to those individuals colloquially known as “she-males.” She-males are biological males who have partially feminized their bodies with estrogenic hormones or breast implants but have not undergone surgical modification of the genitals, thus creating the appearance of a woman with a penis (Blanchard & Collins, 1993)."

So again here, even the guys writing this paper use some qualitative evidence evidence to override the assumptions they've made on the basis of their bipolar model of human sexuality, and a lot of that evidence is looking at performative aspects of human sexuality, which include testimony, which is actually interesting. I think that paper is worth a read. I'll put a reference at the bottom of this post for you. It's a mark of the time that blanchard made his research in, that this attraction is classified as a disease and that the discussion of it's origin is referred to as etiology! Another way that our society otherises and problematizes trans people. This is a very dated view of human sexuality, imo. I can't wait to dive deeper into this, though, it's very interesting.



So all in all, I'd say, a really interesting read, but not evidence for testimony being unreliable. It specifically illustrates some of the ways in which testimony has invaluable utility in holistically understanding sexuality, and how testimony is absolutely needed to criticize and examine models based only on operationalizing and quantitatively examining sexuality. As long as you remember that people can only relate to you what they themselves have a declarative semantic understanding of, and which they feel comfortable disclosing, there's a wealth of knowledge here, the validity of which, should not be ignored by anyone.

BLANCHARD, R., & COLLINS, P. I. (1993). Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she-males. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181(9), 570-575. doi:10.1097/00005053-199309000-00008

 No.1294

File: 1565752325416.jpg (17.48 KB, 494x353, 494:353, 1446698610063.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1121
Sorry for the long delay in responding.  I got a bit overwhelmed with work IRL.

Yeah, the study has its flaws.  And I'm not saying a person's self-report of their sexual turn-ons is useless.  But I still think that self-reporting is likely to give an incomplete picture, due to (1) subconscious factors that the person isn't consciously aware of and (2) denial of stigmatized sexual preferences (such as even a small degree of sexual attraction to prepubescent girls) either due to deliberate lying or internalized self-lying.

Of course, lab measurements are also incomplete due to factors you mention such as:
>Like, imagine if images just don't do it for you. What if you're a person that needs to be touched or to feel certain things from your partner.
So the best way to try to get as complete a picture as possible it probably to combine self-reporting with lab measurements, because they can each pick up things that the other misses.

>"There is at least one other class of men whose existence is unquestioned, and whose behavior cannot be explained by the bipolar model. Those are the gynandromorphophiles, men who are sexually attracted to those individuals colloquially known as “she-males.” She-males are biological males who have partially feminized their bodies with estrogenic hormones or breast implants but have not undergone surgical modification of the genitals, thus creating the appearance of a woman with a penis (Blanchard & Collins, 1993)."
Hmm, I guess I'm kinda a gynandromorphophile.  I'm attracted to feminine secondary sexual characteristics regardless of whether there is an accompanying penis.  I took a quick skim of the article you cited, and I'll give it a more thorough perusal when i get some more free time.

 No.1311


>>1294
No worries, I'm glad you're taking the time.
>So the best way to try to get as complete a picture as possible it probably to combine self-reporting with lab measurements, because they can each pick up things that the other misses.
I would agree with this, if you're a scientist, or coming at it from a theoretical angle with that kind of interest, and trying to generalize.

But if you're just a layman, trying to get a better feel for the person you're with right now, or for the dating scene, I would whole-heartedly reccomend the old-fashioned approach of just asking.

>gynandromorphile
You know, to be honest, like I was talking about before as well, I really dislike this language they use to describe the phenomenom? I think we will find better words for describing this sort of thing, at some point. I'm also attracted to trans women, whether post or pre-op, but I feel like this is kind of just natural for heterosexual men. Like, I think the average person will just have this tendency to be attracted to this. It seems weird to medicalize the attraction. Almost dehumanizing, and definitely othering.

 No.1313

>>1311
>I really dislike this language they use to describe the phenomenom.

I think people have a unfortunate hostility towards clinical terminology, but i think it's the best way to do things. It might even be an extension of unfortunate anti-intellectualism that seem to be all the rage these days.

 No.1314

File: 1566002945400.jpg (141.93 KB, 1280x854, 640:427, snake-banana.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1311
>Almost dehumanizing, and definitely othering.
Hmm, I don't get that connotation.  To me, "gynandromorphile" just mashes together a bunch of morphemes that together give a vague sense of what the word means and helps us remember it.  

 No.1315

>>1313
mmm, no. I'm like, the most self-absorbed intellectual out there, for better or for worse. This has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism, I intellectualized myself into that opinion.

>>1314
Yeah, that's kind of the problem.

You don't describe people in neo-greek slapdash, if you're trying to genuinely understand and empathize with them. It's a way to put them in little boxes. And it's not even a very good box for the purposes they're describing. It's both way too specific and way too general. It includes things they don't want to study, and excludes many they should consider. The study would be much better suited by adopting more humanizing and specific terminology, but they can't do that, because they have physics envy or something.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]