Botond173
10hr ago
They can buy mansions, hire maids, babysitters, tutors, and never work a single day in their lives after grinding OnlyFans for a few years.
I can't find the article but a fair few years ago there was an Instagram model owning the Red Pillers back when RooshV and all of that stuff was at a highpoint. She wrote, as I recall, explaining how she got invited to Dubai or somewhere similar. She sucked a few dicks, denigrated herself in front of some rich arabs, and a few weeks later she was out with enough money to last a lifetime. She detailed how she set up investments and savings accounts, she bought an apartment near a university where she would start studying and so on.
And you actually believe such claims??
There are plenty of pornstars that disappeared and their kids are growing up just fine since the old porn has been long buried with the new.
Yes, I concede that could plausibly have happened in the case of some women that are old hags at this point and have performed in films that were released on VHS and were later never digitized.
A lot of people today will never marry. A lot of peoples children will turn out to be screw-ups. A lot of people have no social standing, get no respect, and are at the end of whatever stick is being swung around. They, unlike Bonnie Blue, work very hard and still get no money.
Hold up. Who are you specifically referring to in this case? Average blue collar men?
Botond173
13hr ago
@RandomRanger made the following observation last week:
Bonnie Blue is spreading her legs and makes around 800,000 pounds a month, in the UK of all places. UK Warehouse Worker earns 26,000 annually, UK Chief Information Security Officer earns 130,000-170,000 pounds. She's not even that hot, wtf is going on?
As this was posted in the context of Scott’s recent article on the Vibecession and I’d say that is an issue largely unrelated to the porn industry I decided to post a separate reply.
Assuming that 800,000 figure is correct in the first place (there’s probably room for doubt but that is beside the point) I think the simple explanation is that society generally condones or at least tolerates porn “actresses” making large amounts of money because people generally understand that such women are condemning themselves to social damnation with assumptions about their reputations that may very easily turn out to be naïve and thus deserve to be at least financially well-compensated by simps whom society considers to be loser chumps anyway.
Warehouse workers and information security officers have a certain level of respectable standing within their social circles. The likes of Bonnie Blue don’t. Women understand that she condemned herself to the equivalent of crack whore Hell. It’s very obvious that she’ll never find any sort of respectable job. She’ll never be a secretary, a nurse, a teacher, an HR manager, an accountant etc. She’ll very likely stay in the porn business or become a “sex worker” or be unemployed. Maybe she’ll become a porn director and people will pretend like she has talent for it. Either way, everybody knows she’ll age out rapidly. She’ll very probably never marry or if she does, it’ll be to a man who’s a laughingstock. She’ll never have children or if she does, they’ll turn out to be screw-ups. Society basically throws money at her because she was willing to turn into a social pariah without status for their amusement.
Now you might make the argument that she brought it all upon herself and thus should not be getting any sympathy and deserves poverty. But society doesn’t apply such norms to young women because they are seen as possessing innate biological value and also as naïve and easily misled. We’re aware that most young women who get drawn to porning probably don’t fully understand the long-term consequences of their actions, with the explanation being that they were fed modern feminism their entire lives and thus assume that women no longer live in sexual shame and that selling access to your orifices in camera is empowering. We’re also aware that this is a lie but modern feminism benefits well-off middle-class women so we’re not prepared to just jettison it for this reason.
Botond173
15hr ago
A flat-screen TV that cost $5,000 in 2000 costs $300 today, and CPI calculations include this decline. But no lower-income family was buying $5,000 flat screens in 2000. Families in 2000 were buying the $300 small boxes.
Also you cannot try to save money by buying a small box today even if you wanted to, because it’d not even recognize the TV signal and would just be an unusable waste of space.
The amount of money a lower-income family spends on TV hasn't gone down, it's stayed flat. They may be getting better bang for their buck and that's significant.
I'd argue that its' not, not one bit. Back in 2000 nobody cared at all about not having a flat-screen TV for the simple reason that those were not available to average people in a practical sense. Nobody felt one bit poorer due to not owning one, the thought didn't even occur to anyone. The same goes for cell phones without cameras back in the old days. The notion of capturing videos with your phone and posting them online wasn't even on anyone's mind.
The cost of participating in a Middle Class Life has gone up - due to lots of things. High speed internet, computers, and phones are new entrants into "Bare Minimum to participate in the current economy."
I'd argue that lacking a smartphone with installed DM and e-mail apps and a PC/tablet basically locks you out of doing any job that is not undocumented fruit picking.
Botond173
16hr ago
The Belgians, English, French, Dutch or Japanese very markedly are not practicing colonialism anymore and have been in fact doing the opposite (i.e. inviting foreigners instead of invading them) for decades; Israel, on the other hand, is. The different levels of vitriol are not difficult to explain. Also it’s very obviously not the ancient Jews as a people that leftists are accusing of colonialism but the current state of Israel as founded in 1947.
Botond173
3d ago
I'll offer my pet theory (if you can call it that) as an explanation.
For decades the social life of Western nations was broadly based on four basic assumptions.
#1 - If you bust your ass, study hard, live a dull and normie life and finish college, you'll find a job in the field you majored in reasonably fast
#2 - Credit is reasonably cheap; even if your earnings are crap and you have no accumulated wealth, you'll still be able to get a house/flat and a car
#3 - There's pretty much no inflation; even if your earnings are sort of crap and you're working a crummy dead-end job, at least your money isn't depreciating and you can plan and buy accordingly
#4 - Consumer goods will become cheaper and cheaper as globalization spreads and the entire world becomes ever more interconnected and tariffs gradually disappear; maybe you're not earning much but the electronics and whatnot that you want are reasonably cheap
Number 1 and 2 crumbled into dust after 2008. Number 3 and 4 did so as a result of COVID restrictions and the Ukrainian War. Now the precariat of the West is staring into the abyss bereft of any illusions, with the threat of a new great war on the horizon to boot.
Botond173
3d ago
Their anti-Israel tendency - more precisely, a tendency against the Israeli right-wing - derives solely from their overall anti-colonialist tendency. I think you already know that. France and Germany, for example, no longer follow a colonialist national policy, which is why you don't see anti-German or anti-French leftist groups of any significance. (We can nitpick about the former but it isn't really important.) The Russian leadership can reasonably be accused of being imperialists, however, which is why anti-Russian leftists are very much a thing.
Botond173
3d ago
Also, such leftist groups include Jews and never reject Jews based on their origin. The same cannot be said of unironic Jew haters.
Botond173
4d ago
Do you think this young man ever had the practical chance of having a normal, productive life in an alternate universe?
Botond173
4d ago
So…is it not the maximally uncharitable but nevertheless correct take on the entire education system that its sole relevant social role is to ensure that
- schoolchildren are put under official supervision during the day so that their parents won’t have to worry about them
- working-class children receive their minimal level of socialization in high school so that they form social circles and pair-bond after graduating
- middle-class and upper-class children form the necessary social networks in college that enable them to preserve their social status later in life and also preferably compel them to pair-bond after graduating
?
Botond173
6d ago
We're at a point where you can be incredibly based without even being coarse. Such as: "My daughter has Down syndrome and yet I can attest that even her would not permit Somalis to settle in her state".
Botond173
6d ago
I know it's a lazy question but how normal was it on average before Dobbs to abort fetuses with Down's in the US?
As many of you are probably aware, there’s this popular theory among normie and normie-adjacent white liberals in the US and the West in general that Charlie Kirk’s assassin is a so-called groyper i.e. dissident rightist, racist etc. follower of Nick Fuentes. I was wondering if the main reason for this belief is that said liberals are fully aware of the level of infighting and factionalism that characterizes the Left and then go on to thoughtlessly assume that the situation must be the same on the Right because they actually have only scarce knowledge about it.
Botond173
7d ago
"naw actually women are thots who adore, indeed insist upon, getting pumped ASAP by otherwise-indifferent guys"
Hold up. OP's claim was actually this: "Trying to take it slow as the man is interpreted by the majority of women as a lack of genuine interest."
Botond173
11d ago
There was also a rather simple factor at play in all of this. We know there was a big baby boom after 1945. In plain terms, every year that passed, the cohort that was born was larger than the one before it. Add to this that young men generally seek female partners that are 3-5 years younger than them. All this meant that there were roughly 13 or so potential mates for every 10 young men looking for a female partner in 1966 or so. A sex ratio that is imbalanced to such a degree inevitably results in loosened norms around casual sex even if that is not clearly incentivized by the broader culture, which it was.
Botond173
12d ago
Anybody else remember the foofarah around Purity Rings and Purity Balls and the rest of it?
I do. It did reek of Evangelical desperation to me, and very obviously seemed cringey. On a second though I think you're right about the Duluth Model in the sense that I do believe it's a sexual Marxist concept designed to benefit the oppressed class of women but I don't think it was meant to somehow compel men to claim responsibility for women. I should not have included it.
Botond173
12d ago
Not to nitpick but I guess Boomers started retiring as early as 2010 or so. I'd also argue that any massive immigration wave surely erodes the birth rate of the native population even further, as it drives societal angst, uncertainty and fear, while also driving up house prices on average.
Botond173
12d ago
I'd suggest your female friends and acquaintances are not necessarily portraying the same image of themselves to you (or anyone in their closer social circle for that matter) and the men they're attracted to.
Botond173
12d ago
I see. I was asking because Boomers also arguably grew up in a ‘female-heavy marriage market’ but due trends in marriage and demographics that were scarcely driven by the legacy of WW2 casualties (I can elaborate as far as I can if you want me to). I’d say the post-1945 marriage dynamics you’re referring to were mainly driven by the relative rise of men’s social status due to the GI Bill and peacetime prosperity.
Botond173
12d ago
To extrapolate on my initial question about the reputation of the Promise Keepers organization:
Back in the days I remember reading a succinct definition on one of the Manosphere blogs that used to exist: the patriarchy is [in a broad and very simplified sense] a system where men are responsible for women and women are accountable to men. (More accurately, it’s a system where women are accountable to their fathers/husbands and men are responsible for their daughters/wives.*) When this system is dismantled as oppressive and outdated, as it has very obviously happened throughout the developed world already (contrary to the loud protestations of die-hard feminists), we inevitably end up in a social rule set where women are no longer accountable to men and men are no longer responsible for women.
As it was also observed on said blog, it’s safe to conclude if you have eyes and ears that society is generally OK with the former and doesn’t even think twice about it but is ambiguous at best about the latter. This ambiguity manifests in various attempts to compel men to claim responsibility for women one way or another**, and is exacerbated when there’s an ever taller mountain of evidence to observe that the brave new world of sexual equality and freedom is failing to materialize in the way normies imagined it would***.
One obvious consequence of this is that anti-feminist public figures appear. They include both men and women from the onset already, but anyone can observe that the only ones getting any positive attention are women, of course. And society is generally structured in a way that a critical mass of women advocating for something is perceived as a sign by men that it’s also safe and even beneficial for them to advocate for it. And since said women are generally promoting some murky concept that can best be described as a new positive masculinity****, you’ll inevitably see men’s groups appearing with the aim of promoting the same concept.
As far as I know, the Promise Keepers was just one of these and not even all of them had a religious profile, and there were/are many outside the US as well. Their common denominator is that they are nebulously pushing a narrative that rejects both radical feminism and rigid old patriarchal norms and endorses a new positive view of masculinity that is designed to appeal to normies, especially women, without antagonizing lipstick feminism (they claim no allegiance with PUAs, for example). As you can imagine, this is largely doomed from the start already for the simple reason that defining masculinity in any form would also necessarily entail defining (and thus restricting) femininity as well, and as you can imagine, that is today a big no-no. As I alluded to above, any message such groups carry is thus destined to be rather murky.
(On a sidenote, I even find the name cringy. “Promise Keepers” implicitly means that other men do not keep their promises, the scoundrels they obviously are. I guess the naming was designed to gain sympathy from single mothers. Then again, maybe I’m just a dick.)
Before I continue I should mention that the organization briefly had a sort of heyday in the ‘90s but has long been defunct in a practical sense, as many of you might have already noticed and commented on (I assume they still exist in the legal sense). That is no coincidence, and I’m sure the main reason is that their leaders made the most obvious rookie mistake there is in politics: when their opposition (in this case, some radical feminist talking heads) denounced them in the press for some made-up reason, they apologized. (Take this with a grain of salt though, as I’ve only read this claim on a long-gone blog.) They thought they need to apologize to some feminist loudmouths, even though their entire public image hinged on being as inoffensive as possible, which clearly renders any idea of publicly apologizing a really bad one (why would you want to give any impression that you need to apologize when you’re a bog standard church org?). Anyway, even if this incident didn’t happen the way I remember it or if it didn’t happen at all, I think the general point still stands: it’s clear that the Promise Keepers were treated with either indifference or scorn and ridicule by the mainstream media, and only found sympathy within their own culture war tribe / wagon fort. This is a general rule of society: a man making any complaints about women, no matter how indirect or mild, is a sign of low status. Or to quote a former Manosphere blogger: a man pointing out the pettiness of petty women is actually seen as a sign of he himself being petty. For further proof just look at what public image fathers’ rights groups and activists have; they are basically lepers.
(end of Part 1, I suppose, as at this point I’m just rambling maybe)
*In reality it went even further than that. It was generally expected of young men to keep socially undesirable men away from their sisters, and it was normal for said sisters to act as matchmakers for their single bothers etc. But that is largely beside the point here.
**Exhortations by Christian preachers and so on for single men to marry single mothers and gamers/slackers to man up, man-shaming in the media in general, the endless denunciations of “deadbeat dads”, the Bradley Amendment, affirmative consent laws, the Duluth model etc. are all examples of this, I’d say
***I guess this included the notion that promiscuous women will be able to live without sexual shame and that “average” women will have casual sex with “average” men because they actually want to have sex for the sake of it; then again, I’m just guessing (I’ll explain the quotations marks if anyone is interested)
****Believe it or not, a handful of sympathetic women did visit these Manosphere sites back when these existed, at least for a while; they generally agreed that while the post-patriarchal age means that women don’t need men in their lives per se, they still generally want [some of] them, and that it should be possible to be a functioning masculine man in a feminist cultural milieu still
Botond173
12d ago
I imagine the main driver of this was the mass entry of middle-class single white women to office jobs.
Botond173
12d ago
I have seen, and take seriously, the theory that the 1950's sex relations were the way they were because WW2 casulaties (not just deaths - also physical or psychological wounds which tank a man's marriage market value) created a female-heavy marriage market.
Are you specifically referring to sex relations during the Eisenhower years or the social reality of young Boomers?
OP was asking wtf is going on with Bonnie Blue earning such amounts of money. I offered an explanation that I think is the most plausible. I'm assuming that anything that routinely happens in society without inviting widespread outrage and without getting banned/suppressed is by definition at least tacitly condoned by it.
More options
Context Copy link