HighResolutionSleep
No bio...
User ID: 172
HighResolutionSleep
8mo ago
"I suffer this discrimination because people like me are unwilling to exert political influence in sufficient number to stop it."
Is this internal or external locus of control?
HighResolutionSleep
10mo ago
Let's compare this to the list of statements offered in the comment that suggest women could play a role in the conditions that lead to divorce:
HighResolutionSleep
10mo ago
My comment doesn't blame men for the breakdown of marriages.
The comment in question:
In the same way, the person that initiates the divorce isn't necessarily the person that ended the marriage.
I speculate that is more likely for men to "quiet quit" on a marriage, in a way that is less possible/likely for a woman.
The woman might be the one who files the divorce papers, but in a lot of cases the man checked out a long time ago and has been, sometimes willfully sometimes passive-aggressively, baiting her into filing.
A man will stop doing anything around the house when he checks out of his marriage. Men typically do fewer chores around the house to start with, and have a greater tolerance for mess/disorder/eating trash.
Often this extends to kids: he's not scheduling doctors appointments, buying them clothes, keeping track of their schooling.
I could also just do another common thing men do and just...stop coming home after work.
This is before we get into things like Exit Affairs, when an extramarital relationship is just a tripwire to make her file, or physical abuse.
So the dynamic is often that a man stops doing anything around the house, stops substantively being a husband, and then a wife files. So the decision these women are making when filing isn't "Happily Married Woman vs. Divorced Woman" it's "Abandoned, but legally married woman with no legal tools to control her spouse's use of marital assets, still expecting divorce vs. Divorced woman, with legal tools to control spouse's disposal of marital assets."
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Yes, there are a thousand differences between the two novels—but let's not be silly here. Porn isn't a feature you take or leave with a piece of media. It's either primarily what you want or you don't consume the material. It's not a matter of statistical chance that the most popular piece of women's media ever is such a hardcore piece of smut.
There is no Playboy for women.
Sure, and there's no Fifty Shades for men. Girl lust and boy lust don't look exactly the same but there's no reason to think that one is inherently more conducive to monogamy than the other.
Look, I’m not claiming women are “purer” or uninterested in sex.
Okay, so what's your point in objecting to anything I said? Well that's obvious: because you do disagree that women are no more pure in their sexual intent. You just spent the previous paragraph praising the virtues of women's sexual gaze, how it's all about relationships and all that. We're talking about non-monogamy and its consequences for the human race. You posted about how specifically men's sexual vices are destroying our societies—the vice of sexual liberalism and the men who pushed it for their own gain: the gain of having less attached sex with women. The gain that men got at the expense of women. Men's ill-gotten gain against women.
Do you think I'm stupid?
I believe that as much as I believe that guys watch PornHub for the plot.
The key thing to observe here is that Twilight, the version without the hot sex, was outsold by Fifty Shades, the version with the hot sex.
Are you going to tell me that the romance was that much better?
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
I've seen them agree that it's bad, I haven't yet seen them agree that watching porn is like being sexually promiscuous.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
They weren't married before or after all the fucking they did in the first novel, which is the one that sold so well.
Yeah I agree, this doesn’t contradict what I’m saying.
Sigh.
Some men, and I think this is in part behind some of the 'incel' subculture or identity, have seemingly realized that the sexual revolution's free for all buffet clearly often applies primarily to the highest status/most attractive men in a kind of highly unequal romantic economy. But that doesn't mean they didn't 'want it'. Many Western men (even many people here, I have found) are essentially temporarily embarrassed chads who are merely upset, if they are upset, that they're not on top of the sexual hierarchy of men, not that the sexual hierarchy exists. It is a problem of position for them, rather than one of system.
This is what you said. Incel subculture hasn't "seemingly realized" the consequences of the sexual revolution. They were always aware of it; it was a defining element of their understanding of it since day one.
They absolutely, positively, do not "want it".
They absolutely, positively, do not view themselves as "temporarily embarrassed chads".
They absolutely, positively, are not upset that they are not "on top of the sexual hierarchy, not that the sexual hierarchy exists."
They absolutely, positively, not concerned about "position, rather than the system itself".
It's actually incredible, because while there is a lot of variety in what the communities believe, your accusations represent perhaps the inverse of the positions that actually unite them.
In Fifty Shades, a plain young woman becomes the obsession of a handsome billionaire who will stop at nothing to make her his. The S&M is merely set dressing on top of this eternal romance plot, which is essentially Cinderella.
Are you serious?
Christian Gray is a combo ATM + Sex Robot. If this is the caliber of "romance" men need to match to stop the sexual rat-race you describe, I humbly rest my case.
Yeah, but in most of their fantasies and in the fanfic they read, Sephiroth is in love with them
That's funny, I don't recall reading that part.
they fantasise about him falling in love with them
Yes I am also aware that women do this in addition to fantasizing about getting railed by strongest, fittest men that they can imagine. When men do something like this, it's called a Madonna/Whore complex.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Right, and if you zoom out, you find a near 1:1 correlation with female empowerment leading to libertine sexual values—what with the most male dominated societies on Earth stoning people to death for sex out of wedlock.
This is also difficult to explain if you think Men Did It.
As @raggedy_anthem says below, the sexual revolution was mainly about sexual freedom for men, and any consequences - positive or negative - for women weren't something its proponents cared much about.
Do you have any pieces of evidence to back this up? I've always known sexual liberation to have sprung forth from women's liberation movements as a means of freeing women's sexuality from the heel of men's control, and all the sources I can find seem to support this. It seems to require some justification to suppose that, despite the sexual revolution happening coincident with women's liberation and promoted by a lot of the same people that it's actually men who did it.
I mean, I've long suspected that something like this would happen—backed by seemingly naked reasoning that since it's benefiting men at the expense of women (it isn't—we're just blind to social costs to men in general), that it must have therefore been perpetrated by them. And, like, not all feminists were thrilled about it. It's exactly what I imagined while doomdreaming in English 3 all those years ago, which is weird.
Some men, and I think this is in part behind some of the 'incel' subculture or identity, have seemingly realized that the sexual revolution's free for all buffet clearly often applies primarily to the highest status/most attractive men in a kind of highly unequal romantic economy. But that doesn't mean they didn't 'want it'.
You have never set foot in or read any thinking generated by any incel community—please stop spreading misinformation about what they believe. They have been unambiguously skeptical about the sexual liberation and its consequences for reasons similar if not identical to yours for over a decade now—far before it became a borderline mainstream curiosity—back when they were a nameless, nascent subculture on r9k 1.0. I don't know how long you've been woke on this, but chances are good that's longer than you.
Anyways, while I'm feeling so goddamn ahead of the curve, I'll share my next prophecy: I see little skirmishes going on right now between fringe groups on Twitter about pornography use and how comparable it is to sexual promiscuity in terms of how debasing to one's sexual purity it is. This argument is the future. Right-wingers don't yet know it, but in the coming years they will be joining forces with feminists on this topic. As sexual mores continue to tighten here in straightsville and monogamy becomes more in vogue again, pristine male virgins will start to wonder aloud why they are being asked so expectantly why they aren't hitching it with ran-through born again virgins. Since for many cultural reasons we can't turn the clocks back to virginity being a female-only phenomenon, we'll be in need of a modern, horse-driven-car-frame solution, which this false equivocation offers.
"You defected too, anon."
While (many) women obviously enjoy sex, a cursory glance at even the smuttiest romance fiction easily leads to the conclusion that simply having sex, even with a very attractive man, is not really the attraction for women in the way the inverse is for men. [...] Most young women are not, even 50 years after the sexual revolution, fantasising about fucking around, which is pretty telling.
I simply don't understand how it's possible to persist this belief in a post-Fifty Shades world. Then again, it's become clear to me how impossible it is to dislodge highly load-bearing beliefs with facts, even it's something like the best selling book ever written by human hands. I'd say "excluding religious texts", but it's unclear to me that Fifty Shades of Gray isn't the religious text for the female sexual id. I suppose it's easy for me to see it that way, because I was never burdened with the Female Sexual Purity myth. You see, my secondary stomping grounds as a curious teenager was Tumblr, and if you knew where to look (which I did), you could hear what teenage girls were saying when they thought no one was listening.
And let me tell you, it's rather difficult to maintain an image of girls being somehow "less sexual" or even "more pure" by the time you're not even surprised any more to stumble across a thread with dozens of them waxing licentious about all the ways in which they would love to let fictional video game villain Sephiroth Ragnarok destroy their pussy. I was well aware at the time that a lot of this was essentially femmechismo—girls' locker room talk—but we've never let such considerations get in the way of how we perceive boys and men.
What wasn't as clear to me at the time was how universal this sort of thing actually was and is—but then, of course, Shades happened.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
As others have noted, the sexual revolution is slowly being reversed
Anything but. We're not witnessing the "reverse-engineering traditional sexual norms". They're reverse-engineering the half where men are 100% responsible for everything that happens before, during, and after sex. That's it.
Notice that there's no restrictions on women or power over them by men being "rediscovered". It's just the parts where men are responsible for everything.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
In a friction-less vacuum to be sure, but you also have to factor in the dirty bits of human nature and optics.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
According to the UN, the Gender Development Index is meant to measure "gender inequalities in achievement", not gender inequalities in economic well-being.
The commenters ignore this distinction the same way it will be ignored when these studies are brought forward to buttress social and political grievance.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
But he could still decide to stop doing that at literally any moment.
What happens when he comes home after he does this? Does his community welcome him back with open arms? I feel like, as always, there's a part of the picture here we're not considering.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Cui bono?
If we're to believe the stats, nobody.
When Jane doesn’t have to choose between starvation and prostitution on the one hand and marrying John on the other, she’s not going to marry John.
I'm unsure how historically accurate this most extreme formulation is, but I'm sure that in a world where manual labor meant a whole lot more, something like this probably happened in some capacity. I still don't understand why people say it.
I've seen this statement a lot. I've seen it said in many ways by many different kinds of people across many different hues and shades of culture and politics. I've heard it said in a few different tones, largely ranging from triumphant to bemused—which isn't the way I would say it if I thought it were true and a major cause of modern trends.
The first thing I think when I see it is that I wonder what the endgame is supposed to be. I think that people who have fun saying it usually intend it as some kind of polemic call to men to DO BETTER. I can't help but notice that this often comes coincident with a political framework that generally rejects not just the morality but the pragmatic efficacy of such a posture—but I suppose that by itself doesn't necessarily prove anything. I have an even harder time understanding people who say it with a rightward perspective. How exactly are we supposed to have healthy family formation in a future where this is true? There does seem to be a handful of small, right-facing factions that seem to recognize this contradiction to the detriment of modernity and its consequences, but funny enough I don't usually see those types saying this sort of thing. It's usually people like JBP et al and the occasional cathposter. I'm not really sure what the point is supposed to be when they say it, or if they fully realize the implications for the future when they do.
It's difficult to fully describe the degree to which this statement inflames my passions. What I really want to say is something like "wow, with all this porn and sex dolls, women can't just coast into success with men just by having a moist hole anymore"—but as we all know, the rhetorical switcheroo never works. Nobody is going to stop and think about the myriad ways such a statement would butcher women's dignity as a class of human being—nobody is going to think about how such a statement utterly de-romanticizes women's value as partner and mate, or how it faithlessly summarizes women's unique sacrifices that in part brought us to where we are today before cynically discarding it like a wet torch—and if they do, they're never going to relate any of it back to what they just got done saying about men. They're just gonna call you a hater and move on.
Now, I'm not the kind of man who is seriously deficient in hole moistness earning power, but I don't care. The simple fact that this the way my civilization views my caste makes me worry not that it isn't reproducing. The world should be inherited by men and women who actually love each other.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Eye-opening event. Seeing some mantras being repeated that I simply can't believe:
-
You can't expect her to stop being a bachelorette simply because you married her.
-
It's "controlling behavior" to have standards in a relationship.
Anyways, shoutouts to this whole debacle for rekindling my fear of women, and quenching my fear of missing out.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Who's on Threads?
Since it's insistent on being an "app" and not something you can use with a web browser, it's essentially inaccessible to me.
Oh god, am I becoming a boomer?
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
spare logitech controller
I refuse to believe that they only brought one.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Call me when the AI replaces my job, and we'll talk revolution.
Truly more prescient words about the modern flavor of the human condition have never been spoken.
I hope that the future brings plenty for everyone, but until that magical day comes, I'm laying another brick in my wall every sunrise therebefore.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Pound sand.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
I think laws need to reflect facts like, for example, that women can get pregnant and men can't.
And I think that they should also reflect facts like, for example, women are the sole authority over the reproductive process from start to finish, where such facts are applicable.
(sic)
Get bent.
If you really are sincere about "Laws against rape, or laws recognizing only women get pregnant: choose one," well, that is certainly a take.
Get bent.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
It's perfectly ingenuous.
I don't see anyone throwing their hands up and saying "well men are just stronger than women are so there's really no point in trying to resist that fact with law we just have to recognize biological reality" but people like yourself seem perfectly happy insisting that biology wrote our laws regarding paternity established family courts and decided their policy and there's just nothing we can do about it.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
The double standard is one enforced by biology.
It's really strange how when this subject comes up so many people transform into BASED proponents of natural law.
Rape should be legal. Why would men be stronger than women if it wasn't to physically dominate them?
Not if this leads to political action. See: feminism. The problem is men as a class have trouble getting to that part.
More options
Context Copy link