site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   3266 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for April 5, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Years ago I saw the trailer for an indie comedy film wherein two straight men pretend to be gay in order to get women into bed. Their reasoning is that if they present themselves as gay, women will let their guard down around them. Then they can announce "oh my God, I'm so attracted to you, I've never been attracted to a woman before", and the woman in question will be so flattered that she'll go to bed with the guy.

Is it reasonable of me to assume that any straight man who describes himself as "demisexual" is pulling exactly the same kind of long con, but more subtle?

Things like low testosterone due to a medical issue or childhood trauma that makes him distrustful of strangers seem more likely.

Probably not.

I mean, there’s got to be a few. The equilibrium amount of fraud, and all that. But the answer to “can these people really think what they claim to be thinking?!” is usually “yes.”

Also kind of reminds me of that Key and Peele heist.

Is it reasonable of me to assume that any straight man who describes himself as "demisexual" is pulling exactly the same kind of long con, but more subtle?

I would say that the vast majority of people who describe themselves as Asexual but have sex/relationships have simply found an identity-based way to navigate chastity in a sexual world that frightens them (largely based on media). All personal boundaries must be identity based in liberal society, or else they are very difficult to defend. A woman who says she doesn't want to have sex right away is a prude, a woman who says she is asexual is valid. A man who says he doesn't want to have sex all the time is a lying loser, a man who says he is asexual is valid.

I'd compare it in my own life to the years I spent between 13 and 17 listening to a ton of Minor Threat and Youth of Today and Earth Crisis and claiming to be super into Straight Edge punk philosophy. I had an Out of Step poster, and scribbled "I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't fuck, at least I can fucking think!" on things in Sharpie. I think I even put X's on the back of my hands when I went to concerts a few times.

Not to invalidate anyone who really was Straight Edge, I met some of them, but as a loser teenager it was cowardice. I was afraid of girls, and couldn't get a date anyway; I was afraid of booze and drugs and breaking laws around them, and didn't get invited to parties anyway. Straight Edge was a way to claim I was making a principled stand. I doubt it achieved much, I was an apparent loser, it was mostly something I said to make myself feel better.

I wouldn't say 'any', but 'some' would be prudent.

Basically any of these alternate sexualities like 'sapiosexual' or whatever, deserves a raised eyebrow.

I'm not in the habit of assuming the worst intentions in anyone who doesn't think like me. Some men also fake being progressive to pull alt girls, doesn't mean there aren't genuine ones.

That is to say, I don't need to "get to know her in order to be attracted", personally. If someone comes here and says he does, will you disbelieve him?

I'm thinking of one specific guy I know, who describes himself as "demisexual" and yet admits to watching porn. Not an OnlyFans girl with whom he has the plausible deniability of claiming that he knows her intimately (or the character she's playing) - just regular ol' XVideos.

If you need to get to know someone before you feel sexually attracted to them - how can you jerk off to porn? I don't get it.

how can you jerk off to porn?

Maybe he doesn't; maybe he just watches in a "huh, neat, sex and nudity" way (and maybe goes and does it after).

If you need to get to know someone before you feel sexually attracted to them

I think the whole conceit of "demisexuality" is trying to communicate, for lack of a better word, that the 'tricks' don't work on you- you don't have the... compulsion? to fuck or compromise as hard when you see primary sexual characteristics (as opposed to hetero/homosexuality, who by comparison to demis do).

At the same time, it's also an attempt to communicate that you still find sex pleasurable and desirable, as opposed to [a demisexual's assumption of] asexuals who do not (while that may not be taxonomically correct, I think that's the reason they want to label themselves differently in the first place).

He might be able to be sexually attracted to and have physically pleasurable sex with a strange woman, but would feel mentally very uncomfortable doing something so intimate with a stranger and would not actually enjoy the experience.

Isn't sexuality supposed to determine who you find sexually attractive? Don't remember where I heard it, but someone said the whole "demisexual" thing is just "being normal" and I still haven't heard a compelling counter.

Sexuality covers a wide range of things. Ultimately they're just a shorthand to describe what sort of sexual activities someone gets up to. The words don't necessarily represent just what gets someone's dick up. Someone could get horny at the sight of both men and women, but ardently only sleep with one gender; are they bisexual? I think it's entirely up to them whether they want to call themselves bisexual or not.

Ultimately they're just a shorthand to describe what sort of sexual activities someone gets up to.

That strikes me as sanewashing. Pretty sure I can dig out peer-reviewed articles that talk about demisexuality as a core part of one's identity, rather than just a preference you have at the moment.

For some people it's a core part of their identity. For other people it's just a shorthand to describe their dating practices. That's true for all sexualities.

but someone said the whole "demisexual" thing is just "being normal" and I still haven't heard a compelling counter.

No, that's called "heterosexuality". Biologically speaking, letting your dick do the driving (or taking advantage of the fact that most men do this) is optimal from a reproductive standpoint for what should be obvious reasons, so it makes sense that's the default. You're not supposed to think, you're just supposed to do (insert "only enough blood to run one head at the same time" meme here).

Isn't sexuality supposed to determine who you find sexually attractive?

Yes; heterosexuality (and homosexuality) [in men] is keying off of normal secondary sexual characteristics. Demisexuality isn't a real sexuality though (I think it describes something else; maybe 'male sexuality' and 'female sexuality' are built out of components, it's possible to only get some of the wrong ones, and they cause different problems [from a biological standpoint] when run on the wrong hardware), so it doesn't fit the 'who are you horny for' that hetero/homo/bi/ace can be used to answer.

“When I was a boy, we had a different word for people like that. We called them, ‘women’.”

I can't speak for demisexuals, but there is a definite cleavage (ummm... maybe not the best term to use in this context) between reality and fantasy. Fantasy/seeing hot movie stars/pin-ups/porn is "yeah, this gets my motor running". Reality is "I like her/him but would I sleep with them if I got the chance? No/I'd need to be friendly or emotionally attracted first".

Jerking off to porn involves nobody but yourself. A real human being in the same space is a different matter. Some guys and gals might be "If this person I just met five minutes ago invited me to Netflix and chill*, I'd be up for it immediately" but some might be "I need to get to know them first".

*Seemingly this is the new "come in for coffee", which is one of the things that amused/aggravated me about Elevatorgate. Back in "this is not America" small town Ireland of my teen years, hearing this on TV shows, I assumed this just meant "We've been on a date, I like you, I'm inviting you in for coffee so we can talk and get to know each other better". Then I was later informed that don't be silly, this is an invitation to have sex, nobody expects it to mean 'we'll just have coffee' if it's offered and if you accept, then you're consenting to have sex. Then later again, with Elevatorgate, I was told that the guy only meant 'come back to my room and have coffee', who would imagine that it was a euphemism for 'have sex with me'?

Argh. No wonder I'm glad to be asexual.

Why don't you ask him?

I assume his answer would be along the lines of "fantasy isn't about what you actually would like in real life".

I did ask him and he sort of dodged the question.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats