12 ms·

I feel like the author is writing from a perspective of women being an alien species with incomprehensible motives, and their view of women is limited to how th

I feel like the author is writing from a perspective of women being an alien species with incomprehensible motives, and their view of women is limited to how they are useful to men (most of the commentary here also seems to share this myopia). > I don't say slutshaming was good - I say that when it comes to intra-male relationships, the current situation might be even worse. During the times of slutshaming, there were two kinds of women: Good ones and bad ones. Post-slutshaming there is only one kind of woman, graded on a scale from one to ten in physical and social attractiveness. Competition for the tens is bitter. Read this from the perspective of a woman, but especially a slut. You have invented a whole philosophy based on the idea that women have some sort of numerical rating, and that sex is some kind of competition. Presumably you're "losing" unless you're having sex with a "10". Women often have impossible beauty standards marketed towards them, with the intent of making us feel bad so we spend money on self-improvement. This is the masculine equivalent. Nothing is tearing the "social fabric", you're tearing at yourself.

piva00 3y ago
I think frustrated men have gone to the extremes of "reasoning" to find logic in why they are undesirable. Seems to stem from a deep sense there's a "code to crack" about why they are lonely, trying to apply logic to something that is simply not logical, or at least not answerable. They still seek answers, in the midst of their social inadequacy the only answers they can find is through other similarly frustrated men, and so they start spiraling into made up reasons or logic in how sexual and emotional attraction work... Instead of experience through living, through feeling their ways into this world they attempt to intellectualise it (in big quotes because it's pure stupidity), not looking into themselves, their relationships and bit by bit fixing their issues causing the loneliness, they want a framework, a rulebook, an easy way out. It's just... Sad.
- yCombLinks 3y ago
  The problem is the things these guys are told to do to attract a girl simply don't work. So they are trying to find the things that do work. I have a couple of guy friends that are nice, cheerful, try to do all the things girls say a guy should do. They can't get any dates. I don't do any of that and have been very successful with women. Society fed my friends a line of bullshit that doesn't work, and they are angry about it. They also want to understand what does work.
  - sethrin 3y ago
    The worldview here seems to be that women are sex objects and treating them like human beings is optional -- there is no utility in being "nice" or "cheerful" if it doesn't get you laid. A lot of dating advice for men is women trying to explain how they feel about people who are larger, stronger, and think that they have some sort of right to sex.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      I see the points you're making and largely agree, but I think people see people as objects generally speaking. If you live in a somewhat densely populated place, where a part of the environment you have to navigate day to day is people you don't know, you grow to see people this way, as obstacles or as useful, like a crab viewing another crab as a step up towards the top of a bucket. We tend to view people we don't know as simply forces on the world around us, traits of the environment, like a tree or a hill. Only when we get to know the individuals a bit can we even begin to see the person inside, until then they're just another face with unknown motives and drives behind it. So yeah, people treat dating like a meat market. It's unfortunate, and it is exacerbated by cultural trends, but I generally think it is unavoidable for people who live in an environment with a lot of other people they're not immediately familiar with, which is a majority of us.
      - sethrin 3y ago
        The point I was making was not about objectification but about risk. I don't necessarily approve of objectification but I don't see it as a deciding factor in sexual success. Someone who sees other people as things to be used is probably not great, but someone who will react violently to being denied sex is a serious threat, particularly if they also happen to have physical advantages. Any given day, hey, maybe I feel like being treated like a piece of meat, but thinking I owe you sex in exchange for your being "nice" or "cheerful" is dangerous.
        true_religion 3y ago
        For most people, the angst isn’t even about having sex. The idea of having sex is a far off goal. They are simply trying to get to step one: dating. Or even step zero: reciprocal attraction.
GloomyBoots 3y ago
> Read this from the perspective of a woman, but especially a slut. You have invented a whole philosophy based on the idea that women have some sort of numerical rating That’s the nature of the world today. Everything is quantified, everything is transactional. It’s not particularly true of women. > and that sex is some kind of competition I find the reduction of human sexuality to mere biological competition distasteful, but there’s no denying that it is competitive. > Women often have impossible beauty standards marketed towards them, with the intent of making us feel bad so we spend money on self-improvement. This is the masculine equivalent. Nothing is tearing the "social fabric", you're tearing at yourself. Note the difference in passivity with which you describe women and men. This is done to women, whereas men do it to themselves. There are extreme, systemic problems affecting both, which is exactly what tearing the social fabric describes.
- sethrin 3y ago
  Sex doesn't have a goal, neither does biology more generally. Reproduction as distinct from sex might be a safer argument, but reducing sex to reproduction is inapt, particularly in a discussion of human social behavior. The active vs passive voice is depicting the angst as a choice, a reaction which is under voluntary control. No one is required or forced to feel social distress, certainly not by advertising or philosophy. Systemic problems assuredly exist, but this article sheds no light on them.
  - GloomyBoots 3y ago
    > Sex doesn't have a goal, neither does biology more generally. I’m trying to take this in good faith, but I’m struggling, and it feels like a convenient way to divert this conversation into meaningless hair-splitting about whether by biology you mean the science itself or the processes biologists study, and whether by goal you mean an consciously intended outcome or a mechanistic one. Neither of which topics has any real bearing on what I said. > Reproduction as distinct from sex might be a safer argument, but reducing sex to reproduction is inapt, particularly in a discussion of human social behavior. It’s impossible to disentangle reproduction from sexual behavior, and, again, I’m having trouble taking this in good faith. It’s more troubling since I specifically voiced my distaste for the reduction of sexuality to mere biological processes. I’m in the middle ground between the extremes of biological essentialism and positions like your own that biology has no meaningful relation to human sexuality. > The active vs passive voice is depicting the angst as a choice, a reaction which is under voluntary control. No one is required or forced to feel social distress, certainly not by advertising or philosophy. This, again, seems to be a very extreme and basically religious position to take. People are affected, whether they intend to be or not, by those around them. None of us is a being of pure reason divorced from the world around us, or anything even close to it. We can’t choose to be unaffected by our social environment any more than we can choose to be unaffected by our physical one.
antisthenes 3y ago
> and that sex is some kind of competition. There may be a number of bad takes in the article, but this one isn't it. Sex is undeniably a competition in every society, has been and will be throughout history. This is obviously from a male perspective. Men and women don't compete for the same things. To deny that is a delusion in its own category of absurdity. > Women often have impossible beauty standards marketed towards them Not anymore, really. That was the trend in the 90s. You're about 30 years late. None of the women I regularly speak to has expressed any kind of pressure to conform to these standards.

piva00 3y ago

I think frustrated men have gone to the extremes of "reasoning" to find logic in why they are undesirable. Seems to stem from a deep sense there's a "code to crack" about why they are lonely, trying to apply logic to something that is simply not logical, or at least not answerable. They still seek answers, in the midst of their social inadequacy the only answers they can find is through other similarly frustrated men, and so they start spiraling into made up reasons or logic in how sexual and emotional attraction work... Instead of experience through living, through feeling their ways into this world they attempt to intellectualise it (in big quotes because it's pure stupidity), not looking into themselves, their relationships and bit by bit fixing their issues causing the loneliness, they want a framework, a rulebook, an easy way out. It's just... Sad.

yCombLinks 3y ago
The problem is the things these guys are told to do to attract a girl simply don't work. So they are trying to find the things that do work. I have a couple of guy friends that are nice, cheerful, try to do all the things girls say a guy should do. They can't get any dates. I don't do any of that and have been very successful with women. Society fed my friends a line of bullshit that doesn't work, and they are angry about it. They also want to understand what does work.
- sethrin 3y ago
  The worldview here seems to be that women are sex objects and treating them like human beings is optional -- there is no utility in being "nice" or "cheerful" if it doesn't get you laid. A lot of dating advice for men is women trying to explain how they feel about people who are larger, stronger, and think that they have some sort of right to sex.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    I see the points you're making and largely agree, but I think people see people as objects generally speaking. If you live in a somewhat densely populated place, where a part of the environment you have to navigate day to day is people you don't know, you grow to see people this way, as obstacles or as useful, like a crab viewing another crab as a step up towards the top of a bucket. We tend to view people we don't know as simply forces on the world around us, traits of the environment, like a tree or a hill. Only when we get to know the individuals a bit can we even begin to see the person inside, until then they're just another face with unknown motives and drives behind it. So yeah, people treat dating like a meat market. It's unfortunate, and it is exacerbated by cultural trends, but I generally think it is unavoidable for people who live in an environment with a lot of other people they're not immediately familiar with, which is a majority of us.
    - sethrin 3y ago
      The point I was making was not about objectification but about risk. I don't necessarily approve of objectification but I don't see it as a deciding factor in sexual success. Someone who sees other people as things to be used is probably not great, but someone who will react violently to being denied sex is a serious threat, particularly if they also happen to have physical advantages. Any given day, hey, maybe I feel like being treated like a piece of meat, but thinking I owe you sex in exchange for your being "nice" or "cheerful" is dangerous.
      - true_religion 3y ago
        For most people, the angst isn’t even about having sex. The idea of having sex is a far off goal. They are simply trying to get to step one: dating. Or even step zero: reciprocal attraction.

GloomyBoots 3y ago

> Read this from the perspective of a woman, but especially a slut. You have invented a whole philosophy based on the idea that women have some sort of numerical rating That’s the nature of the world today. Everything is quantified, everything is transactional. It’s not particularly true of women. > and that sex is some kind of competition I find the reduction of human sexuality to mere biological competition distasteful, but there’s no denying that it is competitive. > Women often have impossible beauty standards marketed towards them, with the intent of making us feel bad so we spend money on self-improvement. This is the masculine equivalent. Nothing is tearing the "social fabric", you're tearing at yourself. Note the difference in passivity with which you describe women and men. This is done to women, whereas men do it to themselves. There are extreme, systemic problems affecting both, which is exactly what tearing the social fabric describes.

sethrin 3y ago
Sex doesn't have a goal, neither does biology more generally. Reproduction as distinct from sex might be a safer argument, but reducing sex to reproduction is inapt, particularly in a discussion of human social behavior. The active vs passive voice is depicting the angst as a choice, a reaction which is under voluntary control. No one is required or forced to feel social distress, certainly not by advertising or philosophy. Systemic problems assuredly exist, but this article sheds no light on them.
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  > Sex doesn't have a goal, neither does biology more generally. I’m trying to take this in good faith, but I’m struggling, and it feels like a convenient way to divert this conversation into meaningless hair-splitting about whether by biology you mean the science itself or the processes biologists study, and whether by goal you mean an consciously intended outcome or a mechanistic one. Neither of which topics has any real bearing on what I said. > Reproduction as distinct from sex might be a safer argument, but reducing sex to reproduction is inapt, particularly in a discussion of human social behavior. It’s impossible to disentangle reproduction from sexual behavior, and, again, I’m having trouble taking this in good faith. It’s more troubling since I specifically voiced my distaste for the reduction of sexuality to mere biological processes. I’m in the middle ground between the extremes of biological essentialism and positions like your own that biology has no meaningful relation to human sexuality. > The active vs passive voice is depicting the angst as a choice, a reaction which is under voluntary control. No one is required or forced to feel social distress, certainly not by advertising or philosophy. This, again, seems to be a very extreme and basically religious position to take. People are affected, whether they intend to be or not, by those around them. None of us is a being of pure reason divorced from the world around us, or anything even close to it. We can’t choose to be unaffected by our social environment any more than we can choose to be unaffected by our physical one.

antisthenes 3y ago

> and that sex is some kind of competition. There may be a number of bad takes in the article, but this one isn't it. Sex is undeniably a competition in every society, has been and will be throughout history. This is obviously from a male perspective. Men and women don't compete for the same things. To deny that is a delusion in its own category of absurdity. > Women often have impossible beauty standards marketed towards them Not anymore, really. That was the trend in the 90s. You're about 30 years late. None of the women I regularly speak to has expressed any kind of pressure to conform to these standards.