Most humor is Disrespectful and Otherising - Page 3 - Social Anxiety Forum
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #41 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 01:41 PM
Yoink
 
sabbath9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy1984 View Post
that's sexist and normalises a practice which is destroying the environment. it should be 2 guys and 2 girls and they should be gathering wild berries. and they should be all going together, not the girl going along with the guys as if guys are in charge by default. and even better would be if they were just people, because how is gender relevant? and also need clarification if we're talking about gender or sex, because the girl could be a transexual and that could be relevant, or of course one or all of the guys. are any of the guys gay? because idk if that is important or not. can the girl have a shaved head? i'd like that.

She came back with a red snapper

And I always thought this would be
the land of milk and honey
Oh but I came to find out that it's
all hate and money
And there's a canopy of greed holding me down.
sabbath9 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 02:35 PM
pirate
 
andy1984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: chch
Language: english, silence
Gender: Non-binary
Age: 34
Posts: 5,969
My Mood: Amazed
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabbath9 View Post
She came back with a red snapper
this is alienation of the female body. also she might have had a penis as I said before, which you left out of the first part of the joke. and if you mean because she came back with a fish and the guys had none, this is also sexist. it's quite ambiguous.

if she caught a snapper then she must have a good rod

all the men caught was crabs

oh the outrage

"I take what is mine. I pay the iron price."
―Balon Greyjoy
andy1984 is offline  
post #43 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 05:47 PM
bipolar
 
harrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 12,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suchness View Post
Comedy and humour teaches us not to take life so seriously.
I agree - and not to take ourselves so seriously.
harrison is offline  
 
post #44 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 06:03 PM
electroretard
 
bad baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: an accidental wilderness
Language: 中国語
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Persephone The Dread View Post
It seems kind of odd that Humans would evolve an emotion that prevents focusing on reproduction too much. I mean I can think of some potential reasons it could be useful (you can't be so focused that you are distracted from other tasks involved in survival,) but when I consider how damaging shame seems to be it seems like overkill for that purpose and I think H2 is a lot more likely.

From what I've read shame and guilt has a greater effect on female sexual behaviour than male, so maybe men just get shamed as a byproduct of that even though it's less successful at changing their behaviour. (I think male sexual behaviour is shamed as much in modern culture over the last decade or so.)
Where do you see male sexual shaming? I'm curious because that's the thing - it's difficult to make an objective, quantifiable analysis of the amount of shame we feel or are subjected to. From what I've seen men are shamed for certain (non-sexual) behaviours they engage in to obtain sex (lie, manipulate, etc.), rather than how much sex they are having, or any intrinsic value judgment attached to it in the way that women are judged.

I can see shame as a safety hatch to maintain selectivity in sexual activities, so an individual isn't tempted to procreate with an undesirable partner and "waste" their resources on a "subpar" offspring, especially in their sexual prime. Given widespread claims about the strength of the male sex drive (which may or may not be exaggerations), this could be a necessary precaution.

Another interesting point raised in the article is that, historically, men have been the builders of institutions and organisations. These are larger, shallower networks, compared to the traditionally "domestic/private" spheres that women run in. We might speculate that men would value traits relevant to how others perceive them - such as honour, integrity, shame, etc. - more highly than women do.

Ofc based on their evolutionary reproductive strategy, women would have more shame when it comes to sex. But, I mean, if a lady plays her cards right, her sexual reputation in the community need only be tangentially related to the number of orgasms that she's having...

*
I miss the old days; When men were men, women were bicycles, and children were automated inkjet spray printers.

check out my tumblr/procrastination device
bad baby is offline  
post #45 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-14-2019, 08:02 PM
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,378
There are hundreds of genres of comedy, but regarding the 'otherising' humor it seems to be popular with the online right. I find that style to be funny every once in a while, but it's not something I'd cling to. The main problem I have with right-wing anti-PC humor isn't that I find it offensive, very little offends me, but it almost completely relies on kicking down, as opposed to punching up.

I think it can be problematic for people especially younger people to spend so much time with that kind of thing, online humor/memes whether intended or not can serve to do more than just entertain people, it can and does normalize things that shouldn't be normalized, and a smaller degree it can and does lead to offline actions. I'm not saying that's the goal or what it always leads to, I'm saying that's a reality that shouldn't be ignored.

Anti-PC humor can be funny, I consider Louis CK and George Carlin to be the 2 funniest comedians, but when someone like Steven Crowder for example focuses so much of his time on kicking down on marginalized people it makes me wonder what exactly his intentions are. Actually I don't wonder, he's a bigoted ******* and has been for over a decade. Change my mind.
crimeclub is offline  
post #46 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-15-2019, 08:37 AM
.
 
Persephone The Dread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I've come to burn your kingdom down
Language: Eng (UK,) 下手な日本語
Posts: 35,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by bad baby View Post
Where do you see male sexual shaming? I'm curious because that's the thing - it's difficult to make an objective, quantifiable analysis of the amount of shame we feel or are subjected to. From what I've seen men are shamed for certain (non-sexual) behaviours they engage in to obtain sex (lie, manipulate, etc.), rather than how much sex they are having, or any intrinsic value judgment attached to it in the way that women are judged.

I can see shame as a safety hatch to maintain selectivity in sexual activities, so an individual isn't tempted to procreate with an undesirable partner and "waste" their resources on a "subpar" offspring, especially in their sexual prime. Given widespread claims about the strength of the male sex drive (which may or may not be exaggerations), this could be a necessary precaution.

Another interesting point raised in the article is that, historically, men have been the builders of institutions and organisations. These are larger, shallower networks, compared to the traditionally "domestic/private" spheres that women run in. We might speculate that men would value traits relevant to how others perceive them - such as honour, integrity, shame, etc. - more highly than women do.

Ofc based on their evolutionary reproductive strategy, women would have more shame when it comes to sex. But, I mean, if a lady plays her cards right, her sexual reputation in the community need only be tangentially related to the number of orgasms that she's having...
It's not having sex specifically that is judged with men, but more a considerable portion of heterosexual male sexuality and preferences.

I also think that's a likely additional reason (I think there are probably multiple really.)

I think shame effects men in certain areas more than others (they're far more effected by gender role shame than women are imo,) it's just according to research I've read it doesn't have much of an impact on sexuality. Eg: religious males are less likely to keep vows of chastity than religious women. Most likely has something to do with sex drive, since women with a higher sex drive also tend to have a less restricted sociosexual orientation.

There's other research that shows that on average women who are less restricted sociosexually have more psychopathic or 'dark triad' traits, this applies to both sexes actually but there's a number of research that specifies bisexuality as well (mostly 'kinsey 1-2' I think, I actually don't think that's a good way of measuring sexuality but one study that comes to mind* used that scale to describe levels of bisexuality in women. It seems that sociosexuality is also only higher in the groups of bisexual women with greater dark triad traits, well actually I think it overlaps so the dark triad traits exist in more groups of women than the higher sociosexuality does. Along with bisexual people being overrepresented among delinquent populations for both sexes supposedly.) So that would also discourage caring what other people think and prosocial attitudes in general.

*
Quote:
Two studies examined the connection between women's sexual orientation, their sociosexuality (i.e. willingness , attitudes, and desires associated with uncommitted sexual behaviour), and Dark Triad traits (Machiavellianism, nar-cissism, and psychopathy). Both studies found that moderately bisexual women reported less-restricted sociosexuality, as well as higher levels of Dark Triad traits––particularly psy-chopathy. In both studies, sexual orientation differences in Dark Triad traits were mediated by sociosexuality. Study 2 confirmed that the relationship between women's sexual orientation and sociosexuality is curvilinear, with moderately bisexual women (i.e. Kinsey 1–2) reporting heightened sociosexuality compared to other groups. These results are consistent with the conclusion that moderate levels of female bisexuality may be a by-product of selection for traits that result in less restricted sociosexuality. At either end of the orientation continuum, women who report exclusive or near-exclusive homosexuality or heterosexuality report more restricted sociosexuality and lower Dark Triad scores, compared to women nearer to the middle of the continuum. As such, the aetiology of moderate bisexuality in women may be distinct from the aetiology of exclusive or near-exclusive homosexu-ality in women.
OK so I edited this post a bunch of times and now it's kind of a mess especially that long set of brackets but yeah.

Quote:
Please don't attempt to raid Nevada to 'see them aliens' as part of the internet's joke du jour, the US air force will not be amused.
Slavoj Žižek on the horrors of tulips.

🎸

My computer thinks I'm gay
What's the difference anyway
When all the people do all day
Is stare into a phone
Persephone The Dread is offline  
post #47 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-15-2019, 03:16 PM
Yoink
 
sabbath9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,366
Do you know the difference between love, true love and showing off?

And I always thought this would be
the land of milk and honey
Oh but I came to find out that it's
all hate and money
And there's a canopy of greed holding me down.
sabbath9 is offline  
post #48 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-15-2019, 05:21 PM
SAS Member
 
Tetragammon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Utah, USA
Language: English, ちょっとだけ日本語, Java
Gender: Male
Age: 34
Posts: 1,207
I've never had much of a sense of humor. Being the brunt of all the jokes and having almost everyone make fun of me and playing dumb pranks on me daily when I was about 10-13 probably contributed to that. As well as the fact that my parents didn't let me watch much comedy as a kid because they thought it was "crude."

Nowadays I just find most humor to be stupid. Especially crap like memes. Some of the stuff my online friends think is hilarious, while I just fake a chuckle and shake my head. I wonder sometimes if my lack of a sense of humor is one of the big reasons why I can't seem to connect to people at all.

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." -Ayn Rand
Tetragammon is offline  
post #49 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-16-2019, 05:48 AM
electroretard
 
bad baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: an accidental wilderness
Language: 中国語
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Persephone The Dread View Post
It's not having sex specifically that is judged with men, but more a considerable portion of heterosexual male sexuality and preferences.

I also think that's a likely additional reason (I think there are probably multiple really.)

I think shame effects men in certain areas more than others (they're far more effected by gender role shame than women are imo,) it's just according to research I've read it doesn't have much of an impact on sexuality. Eg: religious males are less likely to keep vows of chastity than religious women. Most likely has something to do with sex drive, since women with a higher sex drive also tend to have a less restricted sociosexual orientation.

There's other research that shows that on average women who are less restricted sociosexually have more psychopathic or 'dark triad' traits, this applies to both sexes actually but there's a number of research that specifies bisexuality as well (mostly 'kinsey 1-2' I think, I actually don't think that's a good way of measuring sexuality but one study that comes to mind* used that scale to describe levels of bisexuality in women. It seems that sociosexuality is also only higher in the groups of bisexual women with greater dark triad traits, well actually I think it overlaps so the dark triad traits exist in more groups of women than the higher sociosexuality does. Along with bisexual people being overrepresented among delinquent populations for both sexes supposedly.) So that would also discourage caring what other people think and prosocial attitudes in general.

*

OK so I edited this post a bunch of times and now it's kind of a mess especially that long set of brackets but yeah.
Ooh that's interesting stuff. I had a cursory glance at a couple of the links, but wi have to look at them in more detail to get the full picture.

For now it seems, shame surrounding sex could serve to restrict sociosexuality, which would benefit the female reproductive strategy evolutionarily speaking. Whereas shame in other arenas (i.e., social standing) would increase sociosexuality through access to willing mates and sexual opportunities, which would benefit males?. Some sort of compartmentalisation hyposlthesis, idk.

The Dark Triad stuff is of particular interest to me. Most interpersonal and dating advice that I'm come across incorporates some aspects of it, to varying extents and/or levels of transparency. And I know people have instinctive disgust towards any kind of marginally manipulative or disingenuous behaviour, but it'd be interesting to see if/where the sweet spot lies where it slides from pro-social into anti-social territory.

This is all kinda vague and handwavy at this point but that's all I got for now.

*
I miss the old days; When men were men, women were bicycles, and children were automated inkjet spray printers.

check out my tumblr/procrastination device
bad baby is offline  
post #50 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-16-2019, 06:26 AM
SAS Member
 
sanpellegrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: The forest
Language: Anglais
Gender: Female
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maslow View Post
I think the best humor comes from looking at the absurdities of life.
I agree. When you glance at life, you pick things up. Random things from nowhere. I find myself chuckling all the time.
sanpellegrino is offline  
post #51 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-16-2019, 08:11 AM
.
 
Persephone The Dread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I've come to burn your kingdom down
Language: Eng (UK,) 下手な日本語
Posts: 35,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by bad baby View Post
Ooh that's interesting stuff. I had a cursory glance at a couple of the links, but wi have to look at them in more detail to get the full picture.

For now it seems, shame surrounding sex could serve to restrict sociosexuality, which would benefit the female reproductive strategy evolutionarily speaking. Whereas shame in other arenas (i.e., social standing) would increase sociosexuality through access to willing mates and sexual opportunities, which would benefit males?. Some sort of compartmentalisation hyposlthesis, idk.

The Dark Triad stuff is of particular interest to me. Most interpersonal and dating advice that I'm come across incorporates some aspects of it, to varying extents and/or levels of transparency. And I know people have instinctive disgust towards any kind of marginally manipulative or disingenuous behaviour, but it'd be interesting to see if/where the sweet spot lies where it slides from pro-social into anti-social territory.

This is all kinda vague and handwavy at this point but that's all I got for now.
(I did the dumb thing where I wrote this just before leaving the house, so it's kind of rushed and goes off topic in places. These are also just my general thoughts)

Evo-psych explanations and similar are pretty speculative but I do think there's something to the idea that there are multiple reproductive strategies and they're prioritised in different environments (not 100% because some people may be less inclined to switch strategy due to genetic reasons, and then ultimately fail reproductively.) Not to mention some degree of mixing and matching too, people don't just stick to one style all the time. Quite a bit of sexuality seems opportunistic as well, based on the environment, and has intrasexual elements, like the whole prison-gay thing. Not necessarily linked purely to reproduction but also group bonding, social status, and child raising considerations.

Shaming other women into not having sex is always going to be of reproductive benefit for women if it works (and it seems to,) cause you know, but being restricted sociosexually is only an advantage in certain environments. In the current dating market and if you're well off economically, being sociosexually restricted is probably a disadvantage because there will probably always be more unrestricted than restricted men, though the latter definitely exist and have different strategies and behaviour to promiscuous men.

I think when women are less concerned about resources they're more inclined to have more casual sex with men because they're less concerned with finding an ideal provider or balancing that with other concerns. There's also the all mothering hypothesis, which potentially potentially explains the increased bisexuality in certain groups, it's kind of opportunistic. I also think lesbians are more inclined to date women with kids than men because they have less options. And besides that you see increased rates of bisexuality in certain kinds of female-centric environments where shaming women for being sexually open is more frowned upon, and where things start to seem more bonobo-like:

https://phys.org/news/2012-03-female...ex-social.html

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...99711003609724

(people tend to assume it's a performance that's for the benefit of men, but that doesn't seem like the most likely explanation in every case.)

I actually don't think shaming men is something men tend to do and doesn't seem to impact the sociosexuality of men regardless (or if it does, not to the degree it does for women.) When they do it's often more to appeal to women as opposed to an instinctive thing they're doing in a competitive sense. Women are more likely to shame men, in an attempt to change them into more desirable partners I think.

However when it comes to the way many men treat gender deviant or psychologically gentle males (for lack of a better description,) they do seem to want to destroy them. Not sexually as such (although it infuriates many men when a guy they see as non-conforming is very attractive to women, which they often are to certain groups because of the various strategies and sexualities,) but in a general sense I think because they're a risk as fighters or in a 'building an army' context. I don't think they know what to do with them outside of an all-male environment where there are gaps in roles left due to the absence of women. You kind of see in the stories people have written throughout millennia, and psychological theories that incorporate them (Jungian analysis,) that ambiguous men, along with women are often seen as destructive to 'patriarchal order.' That seems very ingrained into people's consciousness (plus as time has gone on the ambiguity of various figures has become increasingly demonised.)

Anyway when men struggle to get a partner, most of the time they don't resort to shaming men, they start to complain about women instead and who 'women are giving sex to' they also complain about female preferences, not male preferences. There is a small amount of complaining about men, but it's very limited in this context. I have some pretty dark theories about exactly what kind of strategy they're part of on an evo-psych level, but that's also off topic.

Quote:
Please don't attempt to raid Nevada to 'see them aliens' as part of the internet's joke du jour, the US air force will not be amused.
Slavoj Žižek on the horrors of tulips.

🎸

My computer thinks I'm gay
What's the difference anyway
When all the people do all day
Is stare into a phone
Persephone The Dread is offline  
post #52 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-16-2019, 01:30 PM
electroretard
 
bad baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: an accidental wilderness
Language: 中国語
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Persephone The Dread View Post
(I did the dumb thing where I wrote this just before leaving the house, so it's kind of rushed and goes off topic in places. These are also just my general thoughts)

Evo-psych explanations and similar are pretty speculative but I do think there's something to the idea that there are multiple reproductive strategies and they're prioritised in different environments (not 100% because some people may be less inclined to switch strategy due to genetic reasons, and then ultimately fail reproductively.) Not to mention some degree of mixing and matching too, people don't just stick to one style all the time. Quite a bit of sexuality seems opportunistic as well, based on the environment, and has intrasexual elements, like the whole prison-gay thing. Not necessarily linked purely to reproduction but also group bonding, social status, and child raising considerations.

Shaming other women into not having sex is always going to be of reproductive benefit for women if it works (and it seems to,) cause you know, but being restricted sociosexually is only an advantage in certain environments. In the current dating market and if you're well off economically, being sociosexually restricted is probably a disadvantage because there will probably always be more unrestricted than restricted men, though the latter definitely exist and have different strategies and behaviour to promiscuous men.

I think when women are less concerned about resources they're more inclined to have more casual sex with men because they're less concerned with finding an ideal provider or balancing that with other concerns. There's also the all mothering hypothesis, which potentially potentially explains the increased bisexuality in certain groups, it's kind of opportunistic. I also think lesbians are more inclined to date women with kids than men because they have less options. And besides that you see increased rates of bisexuality in certain kinds of female-centric environments where shaming women for being sexually open is more frowned upon, and where things start to seem more bonobo-like:

https://phys.org/news/2012-03-female...ex-social.html

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...99711003609724

(people tend to assume it's a performance that's for the benefit of men, but that doesn't seem like the most likely explanation in every case.)

I actually don't think shaming men is something men tend to do and doesn't seem to impact the sociosexuality of men regardless (or if it does, not to the degree it does for women.) When they do it's often more to appeal to women as opposed to an instinctive thing they're doing in a competitive sense. Women are more likely to shame men, in an attempt to change them into more desirable partners I think.

However when it comes to the way many men treat gender deviant or psychologically gentle males (for lack of a better description,) they do seem to want to destroy them. Not sexually as such (although it infuriates many men when a guy they see as non-conforming is very attractive to women, which they often are to certain groups because of the various strategies and sexualities,) but in a general sense I think because they're a risk as fighters or in a 'building an army' context. I don't think they know what to do with them outside of an all-male environment where there are gaps in roles left due to the absence of women. You kind of see in the stories people have written throughout millennia, and psychological theories that incorporate them (Jungian analysis,) that ambiguous men, along with women are often seen as destructive to 'patriarchal order.' That seems very ingrained into people's consciousness (plus as time has gone on the ambiguity of various figures has become increasingly demonised.)

Anyway when men struggle to get a partner, most of the time they don't resort to shaming men, they start to complain about women instead and who 'women are giving sex to' they also complain about female preferences, not male preferences. There is a small amount of complaining about men, but it's very limited in this context. I have some pretty dark theories about exactly what kind of strategy they're part of on an evo-psych level, but that's also off topic.
From what I've read [iirc: Vohs, 2004], sexual strategies seem to vary along a gradient instead of multiple discrete categories, and either gender may take on aspects of the opposing strategy to a larger or smaller extent, depending on the culture/society/period etc. (possibly also other external factors).

This is from a heteronormative pov though - although iirc it was mentioned that things should operate more or less the same way in the homosexual "market" so to speak - and it takes a very dichotomous view of women as suppliers and men as the demanders, which explains a lot of the prevailing patterns but doesn't really address the gender-neutrality of the "universal shame" thing that I was wondering about earlier.

Intuitively I feel like shaming would be a highly inefficient tactic in a "zero sum game", which I don't think women are playing, anyway. But from a "quality over quantity" approach, it would make the woman herself seem more selective and in-demand than her competition, essentially elevating her own attractiveness in the sexual marketplace. Which is probably why men don't shame other men - it adds nothing to their sexual appeal and can only disrupt their social cohesion.

But I guess this would only work when women shame other women for being promiscuous, rather than out of having sex. I don't have enough evidence, either empirical or anecdotal, to expand further on this though.

I would be cautious in making the "resourceful women have more casual sex" link. Female attraction towards a "provider" is a phylogenic thing (evolutionarily hardwired into us), whereas resources are ontological (accumulated within individual's lifetime) and unlikely to reverse millions of years of genetic encoding. I might be wrong about this. But it's a general quandry I have with the whole evolutionary psychology business - how do we take the proximal vs. the distal (and species vs. individual) and bring them onto the same plane of analysis?

You're right that it's all very speculative at this point. Descriptive at best and definitely not prescriptive, although I'll admit it's tempting to feel like you've "cracked the code" when you stumble upon a particularly fitting theory and want to look for ways to apply it in real life.

Anyhow.

Sexual economics explains the maintenance of the patriarchy as a way for men to "gain an upper hand", given their handicap in terms of avg sexual value. In this sense I can see how anyone that falls outside of the conventional gender roles would be a huge threat to male sexual access and penalised as a result. This model also predicts that women in such societies would conversely guard their chastity more tightly as a self-preservation strategy, leading to a vicious circle that feminists have always warned us about.

There's links between high testosterone with both bisexuality and promiscuity in women, so it might be the third factor there.

And as for the complaining, women do the same (i.e. the "men only like bxtches, they don't like nice girls like me" rhetoric). To me it seems like more of a mentality/personality trait rather than a gendered strategy per se.

Let's hear your dark theories, I'm intrigued!

*
I miss the old days; When men were men, women were bicycles, and children were automated inkjet spray printers.

check out my tumblr/procrastination device
bad baby is offline  
post #53 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-17-2019, 12:55 PM
.
 
Persephone The Dread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I've come to burn your kingdom down
Language: Eng (UK,) 下手な日本語
Posts: 35,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by bad baby View Post
From what I've read [iirc: Vohs, 2004], sexual strategies seem to vary along a gradient instead of multiple discrete categories, and either gender may take on aspects of the opposing strategy to a larger or smaller extent, depending on the culture/society/period etc. (possibly also other external factors).

This is from a heteronormative pov though - although iirc it was mentioned that things should operate more or less the same way in the homosexual "market" so to speak - and it takes a very dichotomous view of women as suppliers and men as the demanders, which explains a lot of the prevailing patterns but doesn't really address the gender-neutrality of the "universal shame" thing that I was wondering about earlier.
It seems lesbian relationships stereotypically tend towards monogamyand gay ones tend towards polyandry, casual relationships and open relationships, but it varies obviously on an individual level. I think heterosexual relationships fall in between the two on average instead though, because there's less similarity/more compromise. So it probably depends on, as in the paper you linked who has the upperhand in the sexual marketplace in a given dating environment. I don't actually think this varies based on gender typicality in other areas, which is interesting to me. Like I know I've read stuff before that suggests sexual preferences more generally don't always align with gender role typicality in women, and it seems anecdotally true for gay men (I think there's research that shows that too but I haven't bothered checking it out.)

I do wonder if the shame around sex really is universal though. It seems in terms of people feeling ashamed there are degrees to it (in general too of course the degree to which people experience shame varies from one extreme to the other,) and then even more degrees of variation when it comes to modifying behaviour in response to those feelings. Shames use generally definitely seems to be connected to status, and to keeping people in line but I think it can be used competitively too.

Also in some cultures women find shame more attractive:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...70491501300103

It's interesting because it seems specific to certain cultures. Probably a 'WEIRD psychology' thing.

Quote:
Intuitively I feel like shaming would be a highly inefficient tactic in a "zero sum game", which I don't think women are playing, anyway. But from a "quality over quantity" approach, it would make the woman herself seem more selective and in-demand than her competition, essentially elevating her own attractiveness in the sexual marketplace. Which is probably why men don't shame other men - it adds nothing to their sexual appeal and can only disrupt their social cohesion.

But I guess this would only work when women shame other women for being promiscuous, rather than out of having sex. I don't have enough evidence, either empirical or anecdotal, to expand further on this though.

I would be cautious in making the "resourceful women have more casual sex" link. Female attraction towards a "provider" is a phylogenic thing (evolutionarily hardwired into us), whereas resources are ontological (accumulated within individual's lifetime) and unlikely to reverse millions of years of genetic encoding. I might be wrong about this. But it's a general quandry I have with the whole evolutionary psychology business - how do we take the proximal vs. the distal (and species vs. individual) and bring them onto the same plane of analysis?

You're right that it's all very speculative at this point. Descriptive at best and definitely not prescriptive, although I'll admit it's tempting to feel like you've "cracked the code" when you stumble upon a particularly fitting theory and want to look for ways to apply it in real life.
Yeah I think shaming other women for promiscuity does elevate women's status in the sexual marketplace if they are physically attractive, otherwise I could see the approach backfiring actually like when a guy tries to act more socially confident than he is and seems fake. Also yeah I don't think shaming women purely for having sex is something most people do, and would be far less effective than shaming promiscuity I think since the former would make it seem like you don't like sex at all, which would be seen as unattractive.

I don't think it works on an individual level like that, like the more resourceful a woman becomes the more casual sex she has, but on a group level it seems that as societies become better off and as women feel more comfortable they end up engaging in casual sex more often because that's more of an option (less risks.) I think the introduction of the birth control pill must have had a huge impact on this too. There's still going to be many women who aren't satisfied with that idea though like you say, and I think the way the dating market is set up now punishes people who prefer the idea of a long term relationship. So I'm not sure it's an ideal strategy in current society from an evolutionary pov.

Certainly for women who want a monogamous relationship instead of casual sex or some kind of poly situation but are very well off and have a decent job or who are in academia, they struggle to find a partner due to a shortage of men in that environment, so they end up sharing partners with many other women. So they're at a disadvantage over those men and over women who like that set up especially if they're also very concerned with their partner being similar to them or higher status.

Quote:
Anyhow.

Sexual economics explains the maintenance of the patriarchy as a way for men to "gain an upper hand", given their handicap in terms of avg sexual value. In this sense I can see how anyone that falls outside of the conventional gender roles would be a huge threat to male sexual access and penalised as a result. This model also predicts that women in such societies would conversely guard their chastity more tightly as a self-preservation strategy, leading to a vicious circle that feminists have always warned us about.

There's links between high testosterone with both bisexuality and promiscuity in women, so it might be the third factor there.

And as for the complaining, women do the same (i.e. the "men only like bxtches, they don't like nice girls like me" rhetoric). To me it seems like more of a mentality/personality trait rather than a gendered strategy per se.

Let's hear your dark theories, I'm intrigued!
Yeah I think that contributes but it seems only some subsets of bisexual women have elevated rates of promiscuous behaviour (ones with a slight - moderate preference for men,) and then lesbianism is also associated with high testosterone, but as a group are more restricted than bisexual women so that seems kind of complicated. Then in a lot of studies don't seem to seperate lesbian and bisexual women for some reason.

Yeah women do complain about men a lot, but I feel like it's more balanced so they'll complain about men and women, and generally if you go to for example the subreddit r/Trufemcels it's a different kind of atmosphere compared to many places where male incels and similar groups congregate (though the more extreme places end up getting closed down a lot, and the more reasonable places aren't what I'm talking about,) which leads me to my next point which I shouldn't say because it's pretty edgy but I guess **** it. I'm not overly committed to it or anything it's just one idea.

 
Essentially just that certain groups of men form dysgenic brotherhoods of sorts, ultimately leading to gang rape, but in order to do that they either have to reach a certain point of hatred and anger or dehumanise women to a specific degree in the first place. Also drugs/alcohol seems to help a lot. I think for some low empathy men who fit into the hegemonic masculinity role this might be their primary strategy at certain points in life - like with some fraternities in college in the US, (these examples are pretty Western though,) but with others it's secondary after it becomes obvious over time that they can't have sex through other means, and that group are probably a lot more angry as well. Unlike the first group they probably need the anger to suspend empathy. They're also probably lower status than the first group and poorer economically. I don't think any of that would be conscious, but I think on an evolutionary level that occurs.

I don't think there's a mirror of this strategy in females because 'sperm is cheap,' but I do think that certain groups of women instinctively want to create matriarchies and find ways to control men or keep them away from women, either as a defensive measure or to get better access to women if they're gynephilic.

I do think that certain women are instinctively inclined to rape/kill men though, but mostly for sadomasochistic reasons or for dominance reasons like this woman, you get men like that too obviously since there are many different reasons people rape. I would be interested to know if there have been any cases of women gang raping men though, because I can't think of any anecdotes.

Quote:
Please don't attempt to raid Nevada to 'see them aliens' as part of the internet's joke du jour, the US air force will not be amused.
Slavoj Žižek on the horrors of tulips.

🎸

My computer thinks I'm gay
What's the difference anyway
When all the people do all day
Is stare into a phone
Persephone The Dread is offline  
post #54 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-18-2019, 12:34 PM
.
 
Persephone The Dread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I've come to burn your kingdom down
Language: Eng (UK,) 下手な日本語
Posts: 35,522
Got suggested this on YT:


The comments are all talking about whether or not this is insulting to the woman or lesbians but honestly the part where he's like 'it's normal to not enjoy sex with a man so you might be straight' after talking about how lesbians should help bring straight men's girlfriend's to orgasm because they can't be bothered. Selling the straight life lmao.

Also at one point he says 4 star lesbian but I think he means gold star.

Quote:
Please don't attempt to raid Nevada to 'see them aliens' as part of the internet's joke du jour, the US air force will not be amused.
Slavoj Žižek on the horrors of tulips.

🎸

My computer thinks I'm gay
What's the difference anyway
When all the people do all day
Is stare into a phone
Persephone The Dread is offline  
post #55 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-18-2019, 02:03 PM
pirate
 
andy1984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: chch
Language: english, silence
Gender: Non-binary
Age: 34
Posts: 5,969
My Mood: Amazed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Persephone The Dread View Post
Got suggested this on YT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNLDEBgnfmg

The comments are all talking about whether or not this is insulting to the woman or lesbians but honestly the part where he's like 'it's normal to not enjoy sex with a man so you might be straight' after talking about how lesbians should help bring straight men's girlfriend's to orgasm because they can't be bothered. Selling the straight life lmao.

Also at one point he says 4 star lesbian but I think he means gold star.
I'll have to watch it later, sounds good

"I take what is mine. I pay the iron price."
―Balon Greyjoy
andy1984 is offline  
post #56 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-18-2019, 02:09 PM
.
 
Persephone The Dread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I've come to burn your kingdom down
Language: Eng (UK,) 下手な日本語
Posts: 35,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy1984 View Post
I'll have to watch it later, sounds good
It's not really my thing but I'm probably biased because he seems like a dudebro. I checked out a couple of other videos afterwards since this seemed to be just talking to the crowd but it's kind of the same, mostly focuses on women and lesbians. I thought the lesbian thing was just because of the woman in the crowd but he incorporated that into another act as well:



His period standup was kind of funny though.


Quote:
Please don't attempt to raid Nevada to 'see them aliens' as part of the internet's joke du jour, the US air force will not be amused.
Slavoj Žižek on the horrors of tulips.

🎸

My computer thinks I'm gay
What's the difference anyway
When all the people do all day
Is stare into a phone
Persephone The Dread is offline  
post #57 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-19-2019, 12:29 PM
electroretard
 
bad baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: an accidental wilderness
Language: 中国語
Posts: 2,767
@Persephone The Dread

(I had to unquote your post because the whole thing became too long. Ugh word limits )

So in a way homosexual relationships go the way you'd expect if two heterosexuals of the same gender entered into a relationship with each other by this economic perspective, that's interesting.

And the universal shame thing. Well, it's just kind of an intuitive idea - but it seems to me that very young pre-school aged children already display an innate sense of shame surrounding things directly and indirectly related to sex, like embarrassment about liking/crushing on opposite sex playmate, and their own private areas. My feeling is that they know this innately and it doesn't need to be taught to them. But I mean, I could be wrong, it could just be the result of very thorough socialisation, constant reinforcement from adults about "proper" behaviour, etc.

Across cultures there's varying degrees of openness towards sex, but there's a kind of a baseline that sexual activities are fundamentally private and inappropriate to bring up in certain contexts. You never see some cultures where there's absolutely no restrictions wr/t sexual activity, like in the animal kingdom.

(Well I guess all known societies were all pretty interconnected at one point before they drifted apart. It would be interesting to study the sexual attitudes/conventions of extremely isolated cultures with zero contact with the outside world. I wonder what brave soul would or has already done this?? ...I recall a study done a while ago, where they played these horror film soundtracks for some isolated tribes, and the tribespeople showed no signs of fear at all, so it's likely that our perception of music is entirely culturally-bound. But I digress.)

Re: shaming other women - reminds me of a term I learned from a college friend, the "Madonna-wh%re complex". I think guys would say that a girl who likes sex or is open to sex is never a bad thing, but at the same time they need to feel like they've earned it somehow. Most of the dating advice I've heard from men given to women say that if her end goal is a committed relationship, then she should probably wait until after getting at least some form of commitment from him before sleeping with him. (And ofc they preface it with the women's right to sexual freedom and discourage slxt shaming/judgment etc., but from a strategic pov, this seems to be what works in attracting men.)

The results from that shame-attractiveness study you linked are interesting. It's funny that they referred to shame a "highly valued emotion", I mean, as much as we respect our hierarchies, we're not immune to the universal instinct to want to cover up our inadequacies and insecurities lol. But anyway, it's kind of a counterintuitive study, given how much emphasis Asian cultures place on humility and self-awareness. I would like to see what they actually used as the "shame" and "pride" display visuals, like, how 'overt' the pride displays were.

..It also reminded me of the otoges I used to play, where there's typically one type of guy that's younger and romantically inexperienced, so he's awkward af and makes tonnes of hilarious rookie mistakes (well, given that these games are targeted at teenage girls, usually both of them are inexperienced and it's a riot).

My mind keeps autocorrecting that subreddit to r/truffles (in my defense they are a thing where I live). Lol yeah. Now onto the dark stuff (...#darktruffles?):

 

Intuitively I wouldn't have associated frat boys with the kind of "woe is me" guys who complain about women on the internet, but I guess both groups have that toxic masculinity mindset going on there. I remember one of my psychology professors said: "Rape has nothing to do with sex. It's all about power and dominance." ...Kind of a bold claim given that rape does involve the sexual act after all. But I get her drift. I have a hard time imagine frat boys on a college campus having *such* extreme trouble obtaining sex that they have to resort to this. It's more like an exertion of their masculinity and dominance, spurred on by thheir peer group and that kind of "bros before hos" ethos.

I haven't seen a prevalence of incel/blackpill types turning to rape as a solution. (But then I don't really follow this kind of thing very much heh.) In highly patriarchal Asian cultures, there seem to be trends of guys committing physical violence against women who rejected them - e.g., Japanese guys stalking and killing exes who refuse to get back together, Acid throwing in South Asia, etc. They seem to differ from the frat rapists in that they are after reciprocation (and consent, by extension) more than the sex itself. Maybe it's also a power/dominance issue.

*
I miss the old days; When men were men, women were bicycles, and children were automated inkjet spray printers.

check out my tumblr/procrastination device
bad baby is offline  
post #58 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-19-2019, 10:28 PM
Permanently Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Rich elitist liberal city
Posts: 77
Mainly I've watched non-white comedians from Western countries. While their humor can be fine and all, it's all very painful to watch.

Maz Jobrani is semi-funny and seems to be a really sweet person. I get him to a certain degree. But he does, unintentionally, highlight just how much Iranian Americans have it so much better than my unmentionable type of people.

Russell Peters was my favorite comedian back in the day, when he was actually funny and non-offensive. He seems to be suffering from a long sophomore slump, and he's very offensive now.

Joe Wong is funny, but he's making a career out of being far too stereotypical. That's painful in and of itself.

Chappell is probably on the list of Top 10 Comedians - but I find him offensive, too.

I don't like anyone on anyone's Top 10 list - definitely not Louis CK or George Carlin.

I dislike the Daily Show host's standup - Trevor Noah.

Watching comedy is, overall, very painful for me.
SASsier1 is offline  
post #59 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-21-2019, 03:02 PM
.
 
Persephone The Dread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I've come to burn your kingdom down
Language: Eng (UK,) 下手な日本語
Posts: 35,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by bad baby View Post
@Persephone The Dread

(I had to unquote your post because the whole thing became too long. Ugh word limits )

So in a way homosexual relationships go the way you'd expect if two heterosexuals of the same gender entered into a relationship with each other by this economic perspective, that's interesting.

And the universal shame thing. Well, it's just kind of an intuitive idea - but it seems to me that very young pre-school aged children already display an innate sense of shame surrounding things directly and indirectly related to sex, like embarrassment about liking/crushing on opposite sex playmate, and their own private areas. My feeling is that they know this innately and it doesn't need to be taught to them. But I mean, I could be wrong, it could just be the result of very thorough socialisation, constant reinforcement from adults about "proper" behaviour, etc.
Uh yeah the post count is annoying.

Yeah I think it's difficult to say, I do think the rate to which people experience shame varies though whether inherent or socialised.

Quote:
Across cultures there's varying degrees of openness towards sex, but there's a kind of a baseline that sexual activities are fundamentally private and inappropriate to bring up in certain contexts. You never see some cultures where there's absolutely no restrictions wr/t sexual activity, like in the animal kingdom.

(Well I guess all known societies were all pretty interconnected at one point before they drifted apart. It would be interesting to study the sexual attitudes/conventions of extremely isolated cultures with zero contact with the outside world. I wonder what brave soul would or has already done this?? ...I recall a study done a while ago, where they played these horror film soundtracks for some isolated tribes, and the tribespeople showed no signs of fear at all, so it's likely that our perception of music is entirely culturally-bound. But I digress.)
Huh that music thing is pretty interesting, but I guess that makes sense. Makes me wonder how the sounds became associated with emotions in the first place before film and such.

Quote:
Re: shaming other women - reminds me of a term I learned from a college friend, the "Madonna-wh%re complex". I think guys would say that a girl who likes sex or is open to sex is never a bad thing, but at the same time they need to feel like they've earned it somehow. Most of the dating advice I've heard from men given to women say that if her end goal is a committed relationship, then she should probably wait until after getting at least some form of commitment from him before sleeping with him. (And ofc they preface it with the women's right to sexual freedom and discourage slxt shaming/judgment etc., but from a strategic pov, this seems to be what works in attracting men.)
Yeah there's a compartmentalisation in attraction for a lot of people, and I kind of experience this myself (not quite in the same way because I'm very weird as an individual, but I can basically 'get off' to stuff that's quite different from what I find romantically or sexually attractive in other contexts.)

And yeah I think there's a general idea that sex should be difficult to get, men are thought to put in more work but since women don't they have to defend more advances to balance that or something. Reminds me of the attitude people have towards money really where 'easy careers' (often they're not but perception wise,) are looked down on. YouTubers and such.

And I have seen politicised viewpoints from certain men who basically have a romantic attraction to women who present as more elegant and beautiful than overly sexualised, and behave in certain ways, but then are sexually attracted to others but don't want to commit to them, they see them as sex objects. So there is a separation there between women men want relationships with and who they are willing to have sex with casually.

Quote:
The results from that shame-attractiveness study you linked are interesting. It's funny that they referred to shame a "highly valued emotion", I mean, as much as we respect our hierarchies, we're not immune to the universal instinct to want to cover up our inadequacies and insecurities lol. But anyway, it's kind of a counterintuitive study, given how much emphasis Asian cultures place on humility and self-awareness. I would like to see what they actually used as the "shame" and "pride" display visuals, like, how 'overt' the pride displays were.

..It also reminded me of the otoges I used to play, where there's typically one type of guy that's younger and romantically inexperienced, so he's awkward af and makes tonnes of hilarious rookie mistakes (well, given that these games are targeted at teenage girls, usually both of them are inexperienced and it's a riot).
Yeah I assumed they viewed some kind of facial expressions or body language, but I didn't read the whole thing.

Quote:
 

Intuitively I wouldn't have associated frat boys with the kind of "woe is me" guys who complain about women on the internet, but I guess both groups have that toxic masculinity mindset going on there. I remember one of my psychology professors said: "Rape has nothing to do with sex. It's all about power and dominance." ...Kind of a bold claim given that rape does involve the sexual act after all. But I get her drift. I have a hard time imagine frat boys on a college campus having *such* extreme trouble obtaining sex that they have to resort to this. It's more like an exertion of their masculinity and dominance, spurred on by thheir peer group and that kind of "bros before hos" ethos.

I haven't seen a prevalence of incel/blackpill types turning to rape as a solution. (But then I don't really follow this kind of thing very much heh.) In highly patriarchal Asian cultures, there seem to be trends of guys committing physical violence against women who rejected them - e.g., Japanese guys stalking and killing exes who refuse to get back together, Acid throwing in South Asia, etc. They seem to differ from the frat rapists in that they are after reciprocation (and consent, by extension) more than the sex itself. Maybe it's also a power/dominance issue.
 
I definitely don't think most frat boys have to do use coercive means to get sex, I think they just do because they're opportunistic and low in empathy (and I think that's somehow encouraged by the hegemonic culture they're surrounded by.)

But yeah I basically think there are multiple paths to getting to that point where men kind of encourage one another to engage in certain kinds of behaviour. It's not something that would happen with most incels (and related groups,) because they communicate online, and that makes a difference as well as mainstream cultural practices, but I do think that in a certain cultural environment and where they meet up in real life that would be the end result. I have seen them endorsing rape. Not all of them, and that kind of thing often gets removed/shut down like I say (their forums/subreddits are shut down a lot,) but even on this forum there was a poster doing that a while ago.

I do think that it's similar psychologically in some ways to as you pointed out some of the behaviour that's more common in other parts of the world but on the milder end possibly. If you see it as a spectrum of behaviour/attitudes. It's interesting to see how these things interact with culture though, because of course the other side of things with incels is you have some advocating for sex redistribution, or socialised sex workers, which is a very Western left-wing political kind of thing.

Also in a lot of cultures of more conservative cultures women are often forced to marry their rapist, sometimes that's legally mandated, which incentivises the action.

Rape is definitely about dominance and power in some instances (homophobic rape comes to mind, and rape used as a punishment in general,) but I don't think that the idea that it's always about power and dominance exclusively holds true. I think there's probably a mixture of internal motivations.

Quote:
Please don't attempt to raid Nevada to 'see them aliens' as part of the internet's joke du jour, the US air force will not be amused.
Slavoj Žižek on the horrors of tulips.

🎸

My computer thinks I'm gay
What's the difference anyway
When all the people do all day
Is stare into a phone
Persephone The Dread is offline  
post #60 of 73 (permalink) Old 06-21-2019, 03:24 PM
SAS's Chief Meteorologist
 
Maslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Denver
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,507
Pete Davidson videos have been showing up in my YouTube feed. He can be pretty funny.

Seth Meyers hosts one of my favorite comedy shows. I'd have to say that Norm MacDonald is probably my favorite comedian. He cracks me up. Louis CK is pretty funny, too. And Seinfeld.

Nobody loves me but my dog, and I think he might be jivin', too.
Maslow is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome