Sexual harassment and rape allegations rapidly being fired off against various streamers

[Buyetyen]

I don't think some people here understand what precognitive means.

You appear to be talking about receiving some sort of external stimulus. But that stimulus generates thoughts. And that is what cognition is.

Exactly. In order for something to be precognitive, you would have to sense and think about it before it actually happened. Putting a gramatically unnecessary hyphen after the "pre" does not actually change the meaning of the word. Emotions are part of human cognition, they're the lens on the camera that gives us a particular perspective on what we're seeing and inform how to react to it. The very notion that you become attracted to someone before you are even aware of their existence is fiction. And the whole purpose of the fiction is give the teller an excuse. "Why was that woman not into me? Well her uterus clearly evolved to only detect certain types of male pheromones within the ecosystem and I just don't create that kind of pheromone because my ancestors evolved bladdity blah blah."

 

[Houseman]

I don't think some people here understand what precognitive means.

You appear to be talking about receiving some sort of external stimulus. But that stimulus generates thoughts. And that is what cognition is.

Call it something else then. The point is that sexual attraction is not a decision that one actively makes.

 

[lil devils x]

Call it something else then. The point is that sexual attraction is not a decision that one actively makes.

But it actually IS within our control. You can be sexually attracted to a personality. It can literally turn a girl on sexually and make her want to jump a man's bones to see a man doing something she admires. What I choose to admire and not to admire is 100% in my control.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Exactly. In order for something to be precognitive, you would have to sense and think about it before it actually happened. Putting a gramatically unnecessary hyphen after the "pre" does not actually change the meaning of the word. Emotions are part of human cognition, they're the lens on the camera that gives us a particular perspective on what we're seeing and inform how to react to it. The very notion that you become attracted to someone before you are even aware of their existence is fiction. And the whole purpose of the fiction is give the teller an excuse. "Why was that woman not into me? Well her uterus clearly evolved to only detect certain types of male pheromones within the ecosystem and I just don't create that kind of pheromone because my ancestors evolved bladdity blah blah."

As a question here, does he maybe mean subconcious? Certainly when it comes to physical attraction I don't look at someone and think, hmm, yes, the shape of their face is correct, they have red hair in a particular style, their proportions are of a good ratio, therefore I will now find this person attractive. I just find them attractive, no concious thought goes into it that I'm aware of.
There's probably a pretty simple answer to this, but I've spent most of my life trying to destroy my brain, not understand it.

 

[Houseman]

But it actually IS within our control. You can be sexually attracted to a personality. It can literally turn a girl on sexually and make her want to jump a man's bones to see a man doing something she admires. What I choose to admire and not to admire is 100% in my control.

So, if it's 100% within your control, then homosexuals choose to be homosexual, and could just as easily choose to be straight?
Because you can just change what you're sexually attracted to, right?

Regardless, the women in that study didn't decide "I think I'm going to be sexually attracted to this scent", so you're actually arguing against science.

As a question here, does he maybe mean subconcious? Certainly when it comes to physical attraction I don't look at someone and think, hmm, yes, the shape of their face is correct, they have red hair in a particular style, their proportions are of a good ratio, therefore I will now find this person attractive. I just find them attractive, no concious thought goes into it that I'm aware of.

Yes, that's what is meant.

 

[Trunkage]

Holy shit dude, yell this at someone else. I made no claims to do anything to "cancellers"! Me explaining what the concept of cancelling is doesn't mean you should bite my head off as if I'm supporting the idea.

Nah, that was just me doing that stereotypical talking LOUDER and CLEARER to help someone understand a point of view

Doesn't translate well on forums

 

[Buyetyen]

As a question here, does he maybe mean subconcious? Certainly when it comes to physical attraction I don't look at someone and think, hmm, yes, the shape of their face is correct, they have red hair in a particular style, their proportions are of a good ratio, therefore I will now find this person attractive. I just find them attractive, no concious thought goes into it that I'm aware of.
There's probably a pretty simple answer to this, but I've spent most of my life trying to destroy my brain, not understand it.

It's another case of a little bit of knowledge in the hands of fools. When MRAs say that attraction isn't a choice, it's very reductive. Our emotional reactions, attraction included, have a degree of nature, but are also heavily nurture in that your emotions will be shaped and contoured by your life experiences. When you're a little kid, you have an instinctive fear of the dark because your eyes are suddenly no good and you feel isolated and vulnerable. By the time you're an adult? You know that darkness can conceal danger, but you're probably not going to be freaked out going to the bathroom in the middle of the night without the hall light on.

All emotions work the same way. You have some basic wiring to get you started and from there it's what you make of it. We have emotional reactions first because, again, they provide important context to how we react to the world around us. Whether it be something as extreme as trauma or something as simple as just being used to it from a young age, how you feel about things is always informed by who you are, your collection of experiences and your takeaway from them.

 

[Trunkage]

If a person intends to get someone fired, and then they contact that person's boss, attempting to get them fired, and then that person gets fired... doesn't that mean that they really do have that power?

Or are you saying that it's really up to the boss, and it's entirely his responsibility?

If we think of it like blackmail, how much "power" does the blackmailer actually have.

Ah blackmailer would tend to attack a victim. There wouldn't generally be a third party involved

A canceller would involve a third party. And, I'd also point out that its usually much more public. Which means we can actually do something about it

So it's more like if you think Alex Jones should be in trouble for saying someone should shoot up a pizza shop. Or should Crowder be in trouble forshitting on the Vice guy and his listeners attacking him.

 

[lil devils x]

So, if it's 100% within your control, then homosexuals choose to be homosexual, and could just as easily choose to be straight?Yes, that's what is meant.

Considering I have had sexual relations with both males and females in my past, I am the wrong person to ask that question. I am sexually attracted to both males and females, however, only one of them have the right parts to satisfy my actual bodily needs. We are more than our bodily needs however, so I can only speak for myself on my personal choices. I disagree with the idea that humans have to " choose" between being male and female at all, as where I come from there are many genders in between, and sexuality is spiritual and to be celebrated openly and we do not have to be pigeonholed into between being one thing or another, as it is not stigmatized as it is in patriarchal cultures.. I think the idea that we have to be classified as one thing or another is a creation of the society itself, as when people live in societies where they are not forced to have to choose, they can be many things and no one thinks it is abnormal, as they are accepted for whatever they choose to be. In cultures where people are not forced, stigmatized or pressured to conform to other's ideas of who they should be, they often do choose who they want to love based on the individual themselves, even if that means more than one person or more than one sex. Trying to force someone who is only attracted to their own sex to not be able to be is wrong however. Trying to force anyone to be attracted to someone they are not is always wrong regardless of what sex/ gender they are.

EDIT: For example, in my tribes culture, transgenders were not considered male or female, they have their own genders and were never pressured to be anyone else so they didn't feel a need to change their bodies because they were always treated as being perfect the way they are. They could choose how they wanted to be and had prominent role models who were just like them. Them being celebrated by society itself also meant they did not have the trauma and need to change themselves as is experienced in cultures that persecute them. It is the society's expectations and pressure to conform that cause this to happen, not the fact that they are transgendered that causes the stress.

 

[gorfias]

That's the thing though: I don't buy the "human nature" argument. The evo-psych thing is all so much sophistry because for it to work, it has to make a lot of assumptions about human nature in a vacuum. Your assumption that Stalin threw soldiers into a meatgrinder because he valued men less than women requires so many leaps of faith to arrive at that it's in the same ballpark as creationism.

Sorry, I don't think you're even close.
Also, straight men value access to lots of women. You get 20 million of your countrymen killed? That's a lot of excess women around.
That's another problem of disposability: men are in competition with each other in a way that women are not. Bathsheba wanted to be queen bee but she didn't have to kill all of David's other wives. Uriah the Hittite? Not so lucky.

 

[Buyetyen]

Sorry, I don't think you're even close.
Also, straight men value access to lots of women. You get 20 million of your countrymen killed? That's a lot of excess women around.

I was initially a little bit insulted that you think that little of me, but then I remembered that no, this is what you think and you're assuming that I think the same thing. If you have the kind of personality that can look at a body count of 20 million and see the glass half full because your dating options ostensibly went up, you do you, boo. I personally can't get past the horror of 20 million dead people.

That's another problem of disposability: men are in competition with each other in a way that women are not. Bathsheba wanted to be queen bee but she didn't have to kill all of David's other wives. Uriah the Hittite? Not so lucky.

I wouldn't count the Old Testament as a solid guide to dating and relationships. If you do, I think I found part of the problem. You're taking this to a really dark place.

 

[Houseman]

Considering I have had sexual relations with both males and females in my past, I am the wrong person to ask that question. I am sexually attracted to both males and females, however, only one of them have the right parts to satisfy my actual bodily needs. We are more than our bodily needs however, so I can only speak for myself on my personal choices. I disagree with the idea that humans have to " choose" between being male and female at all, as where I come from there are many genders in between, and sexuality is spiritual and to be celebrated openly and we do not have to be pigeonholed into between being one thing or another, as it is not stigmatized as it is in patriarchal cultures.. I think the idea that we have to be classified as one thing or another is a creation of the society itself, as when people live in societies where they are not forced to have to choose, they can be many things and no one thinks it is abnormal, as they are accepted for whatever they choose to be. In cultures where people are not forced, stigmatized or pressured to conform to other's ideas of who they should be, they often do choose who they want to love based on the individual themselves, even if that means more than one person or more than one sex. Trying to force someone who is only attracted to their own sex to not be able to be is wrong however. Trying to force anyone to be attracted to someone they are not is always wrong regardless of what sex/ gender they are.

Okay.

But do you agree that there's at least an element of subconscious sexual attraction? It doesn't have to be that element is something that'll make or break a relationship, just... do you agree that it exists? Because that was the whole point in bringing up the t-shirt smell test.

 

[Eacaraxe]

And just where does this statistic come from, precisely?

One source I like pointing out is the now-defunct blog, OKTrends. They used to do blog posts about user data and analytics, all the way from perceived attractiveness ratings, to clickthrough and message percentages, and response rates. What I linked was just one blog post in a fairly lengthy series comparing trends in male versus female users. Their findings were often...not at all surprising when one thinks about it, but rather inconvenient all the same, which is why I suspect OKTrends got memory holed around the time OKC went "woke" and started ripping off Tinder.

Not to mention more oft-cited proper studies on hypergamy, such as this and this.

 

[lil devils x]

Okay.

But do you agree that there's at least an element of subconscious sexual attraction? It doesn't have to be that element is something that'll make or break a relationship, just... do you agree that it exists? Because that was the whole point in bringing up the t-shirt smell test.

Of course, but it does not play as big of a role as you may think it does. The initial " Hey that guy looks hot" while he is working up a sweat at the gym can instantly turn to "OMG he is the grossest guy I have ever met" The second he opens his mouth and says "You want some of this?", not understanding that actually saying that just removed the possibility of any "want" ever happening, ever again.. For some reason, most of the guys that you may have a slight attraction to in the first place are ALSO usually the same ones that tend to turn you off the fastest when they open their mouths.

Women can be sexually attracted to scents, while at the same time having ZERO desire to actually have sex with them, ever.

 

[lil devils x]

One source I like pointing out is the now-defunct blog, OKTrends. They used to do blog posts about user data and analytics, all the way from perceived attractiveness ratings, to clickthrough and message percentages, and response rates. What I linked was just one blog post in a fairly lengthy series comparing trends in male versus female users. Their findings were often...not at all surprising when one thinks about it, but rather inconvenient all the same, which is why I suspect OKTrends got memory holed around the time OKC went "woke" and started ripping off Tinder.

Not to mention more oft-cited proper studies on hypergamy, such as this and this.

People need to keep in mind that a majority of the population has never used dating sites, what applies to online dating does not even apply to the general population, but even from the small percentage of women who have used online dating, the majority have had a negative experience due to men's actual behavior.

Pew: 30% of US adults have used online dating; 12% found a committed relationship from it | TechCrunch

Dating app usage in the U.S. is on the rise, but so are the issues it brings. According to a new Pew Research Center report on online dating, out today,

techcrunch.com

What I and the many other women like me want in a relationship has not even been recorded in any of those studies you presented. Other women representing more of what I value in a relationship however, was represented in the study I linked earlier in the thread .
Oh and Evo psych is honestly just "pseudo talk out my ass and make a bunch of shat up drivel" without actual scientific basis. Hell. we have had the professors admit they just made shit up as they went along. It is all garbage that isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Philosopher Flattens Evolutionary Psychology

Rejecting evolutionary psychology means realizing that we cannot both claim to represent “Science!” and refuse to be bound by its standards.

mindmatters.ai

 

[Worgen]

Yeah they are. You make tinder account as reasonably attractive man. No responses. You make tinder account as reasonably attractive woman. Hundreds of responses. The 'incel argument' is shared by millions of men so I don't see how that is a contentious point of debate. The supply & demand rule is definitely in favor of women. It's simple biology. I agree incels are not 'entitled' to women but that is a moral or ethical dilemma inherent to the values of civilized society. Same as why we don't let nature decide who is fit to survive and reproduce but instead let medical science intervene and prioritze genetic regression over survival of the fittest(to put it bluntly). At the same time men having a much higher sex drive but a fraction of the opportunity women have is a curse on the male gender so to speak. It is exactly this tension that will always lead to some form of excess. Men did not ask for their high sex drive, women did not ask for unwanted attention. It's a problem as old as humanity itself and will persist till humanity dies out. You also can't deny that with the advent of the welfare state sexual selection criteria have also been deeply in favor of women. The reason why millions of men today are incel is because criteria such as survival/immunity or being able to provide; criteria that men have been selected for in hundreds of thousands of ancestral years is now moot. Again, just as medical science a sign of progress so is the welfare state and highly advanced society but for many men also reason for not unreasonable frustration. Partner choice is simply in favor of women. Anyone who claims otherwise is a moron.

Ugh dude. Abandon ship, I can feel women of the future actively avoiding you now because of this post. Like they will just feel what you did and know, they will KNOW. Go get yourself a flesh light and chill out, you will be much more attractive to the ladies if you do.

 

[ObsidianJones]

If anything has been learned in this thread alone, it is that men and women perceive things differently.

What is a nothing come on to you might seem horribly out of place to her. What might be a blatant come on in her mind is exactly how your female friends treat you and you see nothing to it.

How about we talk out more stuff? Forget preconceived notions and just lay things out on the table when we deal with each other. If it 'ruins the mood', that person wasn't mature enough to form a relationship with in the first place and thank them for showing you that so you don't have to waste time.

This all strikes me as something that can be avoided if we just talk more and be respectfully frank and earnest.

 

[Eacaraxe]

People need to keep in mind that a majority of the population has never used dating sites, what applies to online dating does not even apply to the general population, but even from the small percentage of women who have used online dating, the majority have had a negative experience due to men's actual behavior.

30% of a population being plenty large enough to produce statistically significant results even accounting for self-selection bias, but do get your red herring and appeal to sympathy on about negative experiences from men on dating sites when my point -- and the blogs more than amply point out -- is about women's shitty behavior on dating sites.

What I and the many other women like me want in a relationship has not even been recorded in any of those studies you presented.

Frankly I'm sure it isn't, because online dating is generally trash and people act like complete and utter donkeys on dating sites. Including women, which was my point. In that I'll wholeheartedly agree.

Oh and Evo psych is honestly just "pseudo talk out my ass and make a bunch of shat up drivel" without actual scientific basis. Hell. we have had the professors admit they just made shit up as they went along. It is all garbage that isn't worth the paper it is written on.

You're gonna be pissed when you hear about the grievance studies hoax...

 

[gorfias]

I was initially a little bit insulted that you think that little of me, but then I remembered that no, this is what you think and you're assuming that I think the same thing. If you have the kind of personality that can look at a body count of 20 million and see the glass half full because your dating options ostensibly went up, you do you, boo. I personally can't get past the horror of 20 million dead people.



I wouldn't count the Old Testament as a solid guide to dating and relationships. If you do, I think I found part of the problem. You're taking this to a really dark place.

Stalin would have appreciated your point of view.

 

[Buyetyen]

Stalin would have appreciated your point of view.

I'm sorry, what is that supposed to mean?