posted
I'm posting to thank Sa'eed for getting the spelling of "hoard" correct eventually.
I think it's pretty rough to feel like you can't successfully compete for romantic attention. However, objectifying people and treating that attention like a commodity are not good solutions.
Paid-for sex doesn't really compensate for the problem in a very effective way. I understand wanting it, and even finding it satisfying in a way, but it's not going to solve the problem of feeling like an outsider who can't win at attracting people. It will probably only compound that.
I don't know a good solution. But looking at society, or those who are "hoarding" what you want, isn't going to get you anywhere.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh cool, the tired wrong historical fallacy that everybody in the US are still in thrall to Puritanism. Combined with the other historical fallacy that Puritans hated sex, and were scared of it.
Let's condemn the present by misrepresenting the past! Like, remember how we all love same-sex marriage because The Founding Fathers liked to hangout for extended periods of time in a closed door conference room?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see why you appreciated the 'article', Clive. It didn't take long at all to sneer at a woman for failure to marry and breed.
Remember: it's a gross systemic social injustice that make women shun you, and it's definitely not the palpable scorn you hold for women that they (and men) can scent a mile off upwind.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are braver than I to follow that link.
Sa'eed: When you never responded, I shrugged internally...but to ignore me for weeks then post a link as an afirmation of your horribly self destructive beliefs...well, I guess I'm just a tad disappointed. But hey, maybe this thread wasn't a cry for help, and I was just waisting my time in here at all.
Female erotic currency. How ghastly.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh cool, the tired wrong historical fallacy that everybody in the US are still in thrall to Puritanism. Combined with the other historical fallacy that Puritans hated sex, and were scared of it.
Let's condemn the present by misrepresenting the past! Like, remember how we all love same-sex marriage because The Founding Fathers liked to hangout for extended periods of time in a closed door conference room?
It wasn't the puritanism angle that I found interesting as much as the sexual economics side, which was my focus. And they used the same case I did.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You guys are braver than I to follow that link.
Sa'eed: When you never responded, I shrugged internally...but to ignore me for weeks then post a link as an afirmation of your horribly self destructive beliefs...well, I guess I'm just a tad disappointed. But hey, maybe this thread wasn't a cry for help, and I was just waisting my time in here at all.
Female erotic currency. How ghastly.
Sorry Stone Wolf! You and that other fellow are right about me! But what I think is also right!
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you say "what you seek is not sex. Ejaculating into a woman will not make you happy." I agree with that. At the same time, I think prostitution should be legal and those men in the OP did not deserve to have their desires thwarted and shamed in a way real criminals who do horrible things aren't shamed.
edit: good night!
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a libertarian I tend to agree in theory that prostitution should be legal, regulated and taxed. However that does not mean that current johns of illegal prosititution are guilt free of all the evil shjt that goes along with illegal prosititution, like human trafficing, using hard drugs or violence to keep women pliant or whatever other nefarious tactics are nessessary to keep an underground business running.
But that isn't even the point. -Thinking- about sex in the terms you outlined prevent you from ever partaking in a meaningful or emotionally fulfilling relationship with the opposite gender.
Do yourself a huge favor and banish the concept of "female sexual currancy" and just make a few friends who happen to be girls. Get know some women, learn to like women, then fall in love with one. And then think about sex. In that order.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As a libertarian I tend to agree in theory that prostitution should be legal, regulated and taxed. However that does not mean that current johns of illegal prosititution are guilt free of all the evil shjt that goes along with illegal prosititution, like human trafficing, using hard drugs or violence to keep women pliant or whatever other nefarious tactics are nessessary to keep an underground business running.
Overwrought concern about "human trafficking" and "pimps" is how both feminists and the religious right frame their objections to prostitution, because their too chicken-shit to say " we don't think men should have the option of purchasable sex." The statistics concerning "human trafficking" are slippery and elusive, because it conflates women who immigrate with the purpose of being working girls with human smuggling/slavery. There are quite a few organizations that purport to fight "human trafficking" and seek to rescue prostitutes, who most often don't want to be rescued. Basically, a woman who says "I think I'd be able to make money in that country by working as a prostitute" = trafficked woman. It's bs.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as long as you get to angrily shake your fist as someone for spreading lies and being cowards then...Mission Accomplished ™
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you're spreading lies, not deliberately anyway. I think it's pretty counter-intuitive that "human trafficking" has basically become a euphemism for prostitution. But I find it interesting when people say "I'm a libertarian on this matter" but then go on to endorse the main arguments of those who want to prohibit it. I recently discovered this feminist writer through Salon.com, and she's made a career out of fighting the human-trafficking narrative:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As a libertarian I tend to agree in theory that prostitution should be legal, regulated and taxed. However that does not mean that current johns of illegal prosititution are guilt free of all the evil shjt that goes along with illegal prosititution, like human trafficing, using hard drugs or violence to keep women pliant or whatever other nefarious tactics are nessessary to keep an underground business running.
Overwrought concern about "human trafficking" and "pimps" is how both feminists and the religious right frame their objections to prostitution, because their too chicken-shit to say " we don't think men should have the option of purchasable sex." The statistics concerning "human trafficking" are slippery and elusive, because it conflates women who immigrate with the purpose of being working girls with human smuggling/slavery. There are quite a few organizations that purport to fight "human trafficking" and seek to rescue prostitutes, who most often don't want to be rescued. Basically, a woman who says "I think I'd be able to make money in that country by working as a prostitute" = trafficked woman. It's bs.
Given your well known-you've even admitted to it on occasion-contempt for women and your far-from-even handed concern for justice for the genders, is there any reason anyone should take what you say seriously as anything other than an affirmation of your pre-existing sexism and misogyny? "Pimps? Piffle! Feminazis just don't want men to have sex!" "Human-trafficking? That's complicated. Feminazis (and oh, yeah, conservatives) just hate men."
But listen, dude, people have been trying here for some time now when you actually let up on the female fear/hate to try and empathize with you and offer helpful advice, only to have it ignored with a shrug of your shoulders to be followed by, days or weeks or months later, more of the same. Since you've already admitted that much of this contempt for women on your part is due to your own experience with rejection, I wonder-do these stories seem even more compelling and infuriating after another dissatisfied experience at the hands of a woman?
You don't have to be as angry at and afraid of women as you are. Just like dudes, they're not bad people at all. But right now your 'compelling article' is one which doesn't go five paragraphs (or was it six?) without sneering at a woman for her appearance and not being a married mother. This, to you, is a sign of change a coming. I'd wonder as others have lately if there's something in the water, but then you've been here awhile, haven't you? Afraid of women and proud of it for years now, I think, under one name or another, which you sometimes admit to and others deny.
Which begs a question: in the past, you've often failed to muster up the...dignity? Guts? Simple civility? I'm not even sure which is most apt...to not flagrantly lie on the Internet. So I have to ask...why should some woman want to have sex with you? It's...geeze.
Hehe, anyway, Clive, by all means continue to make other dudes look better by the power of your own example.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I don't think you're spreading lies, not deliberately anyway. I think it's pretty counter-intuitive that "human trafficking" has basically become a euphemism for prostitution. But I find it interesting when people say "I'm a libertarian on this matter" but then go on to endorse the main arguments of those who want to prohibit it. I recently discovered this feminist writer through Salon.com, and she's made a career out of fighting the human-trafficking narrative:
It's a sign of how out of touch you are that you think prostitution is commonly equated to human-trafficking, when in fact human trafficking at all-of any shade-doesn't get much press or political attention period. Feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong by showing us when the last time was a politician at any level made a serious issue out of campaigning on human trafficking-and then show quite a few, to demonstrate how common it is.
But who do you think you're kidding, anyway? Are we supposed to believe now that you'd, y'know, seriously scrutinize the credentials of a brothel you were to visit? "I'm sorry, Madame, but I won't patronize this establishment until I can be sure the women here are well-treated." Out of, what, your long-held and commonly recognized respect for and concern about womens' rights?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The BBC did some "human trafficking" debate sponsored by the UN some years ago and various bigwigs were in attendance. Laura Agustin was on the panel and she gets yelled at by actress Mira Sorvino:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I don't think you're spreading lies, not deliberately anyway.
I was referring to the "religious right and feminists" not myself.
My point was that instead of focusing on your own life and improving it, it seems, you are more interested in angrily railing against at least partially imagined duplicity, that really doesn't effect you directly.
But hey, I get it man. SO much easier to get pissed at a "group" that has "done you wrong" than actually examine the validity of your beliefs or change, which is seriously hard.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, focusing on societal problems is not focusing on personal problems, but I'm right about these issues. I get a thrill from it, the same thrill that feminists and civil right activists got from their agitation in the 60s.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lack of legal prostitution is hardly a real "social problem" and comparing the "struggle" of trying to get pay for sex legal with civil/gender rights is not going to gain you any support...to put it gently.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prostitution is a gender issue. Its prohibition makes men dependent on relationships/marriage for regular sexual activity.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really sorry you seem to despise women so much and yet are not gay. That would have been easier.
Sex is not and never will be a right. Nor should it be.
Most men are not "dependent" on a relationship for sex, most people -want to be in a relationship-. And those who don't go to a single's bar and get waisted and eff whoever will have them.
Whatever trauma you presumably suffered at a female hand to cause this unbalanced and unhealthy view of sexuality...I am sorry for you for. But please, please seek a healing and do not wrap your wounded soul in an intelectual macro theory that provides emotionial soothing through feeding your anger and isolation.
Be strong enough to be weak. Show the bravery needed to be hurt. Be not okay. You don't need to know the answers, you don't need to have everything figgured out. Start from a place of not knowing and of feeling what you feel and put your feet on a path to letting people in, to healing and growing and trusting and loving.
It is the harder path, but it leads to somewhere worthwhile. You deserve to be loved. And you can be. But it takes bravery and risk and stepping off the comfortable tower you have raised to keep yourself safe. There is no safe. There is only alone.
People are worth the risk, worth the hurt that will come from opening your walls, because, trust me, you will be hurt again. And again. And again. But when you take away that hurt, when no one can get in and touch you, you loose all touch at all. You loose the good that is far more abundant then the bad. The good that gives you strength and tempers your resolve and holds you up when things are bad.
You loose your humanity and become a hollow, brittle shell, so lonley and afraid that you push everyone away for fear that they will break you. So oversensitized by lack of touch that any kindness is seen with suspicion and anger.
It is never too late to pick the hard road and get busy living.
I'm rooting for you Sa'eed. I am holding a hope in my chest just for you.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Although I guess getting waisted might be some specific kink I haven't heard of.
Sa'eed, you don't think there's a significant problem with pimps bringing women (and young girls [Edit: and young men and boys, too, I'm sure, but Sa'eed seems to be talking about female prostitutes]) to a country under false pretenses and then forcing them to have sex with johns to pay off their debt?
I think the libertarian point of view on prostitution would skip the taxation and regulation.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think the libertarian point of view on prostitution would skip the taxation and regulation.
There are a lot of different types and beliefs among Libertarians. Me, I believe in liberty for EVERYONE. Since prostitution is an industry that has shown a complete lack of ability to regulate itself, government regulation and enforcement is necessary to insure the liberty of those working in the industry. Such regulation should be kept to an absolute minimum but at least some is required.
As for taxes, well I would rather see prostitution taxed than more necessary everyday things like food or housing.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that gays despise women, but that he might not be as conflicted if his attraction was to men.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Although I guess getting waisted might be some specific kink I haven't heard of. ... I think the libertarian point of view on prostitution would skip the taxation and regulation.
Hey, not bad for typing that all out on a three inch touch screen with no auto spell check.
Personally I think of libertarian views not as anti government and taxes, just streamlined and self sufficient. Taxing things to pay for it's own overhead is just an elegant solution. Tax cars to for roads, tax bullets to pay for shooter safety classes, tax johns to pay for sex worker's disease screening.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's the right way to handle it, but it's not easy. If you look at countries in Europe with legal prostitution, they still struggle to regulate it properly. Just like it's hard to get rid of moonshiners even though there's a legal regulated alcohol industry (but probably worse in the case of prostitution for various reasons including the fact that properly regulated prostitution has a price floor well above the illegal kind, as well as the fact that some of the johns are probably getting off on doing something illegal/secret/dirty).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a sidenote, I find it interesting to speculate why in the couple of decades, there has been this increasing, visible trend of young men who share much of the same views that have been expressed in this thread. The talk about gender-specific "market values", the contradictionary bitter worship of "alpha males" who get all the women. The right of lower value men to have sex with upper value women, etc.
I blame two things: TV and internet.
I blame TV, because it has brainwashed several generations of men. We are living in a culture, where entertainment and arts have repeatedly fed us a very particular idea since we were born. And they have fed that idea for as 24/7.
The idea is, that all men are entitled to get a beautiful, sexy woman. It doesn't matter whether you are handsome or ugly. Fit or fat. Smart or stupid. Rich or poor. Charming of awkward.
Everyone gets that girl of dreams in the end.
It happens in movies, in novels, in comic books, in songs, in magazines, in music videos. And it especially happens in TV, which for the last 50 years has been our primary source of cultural information. We grew up on TV. TV told us what the world is. TV brought the world together. Before TV, world was a different place. We didn't have quite as many stories being told to us. We didn't get to see quite as many very beautiful women delivered as prizes to men of very different levels of attractiveness.
So when we don't get that beautiful girl, a pact is broken. Everyone else got that girl, in almost every story we have ever been told. Forrest Gump was a silly looking *retard*, but even he got an intelligent supermodel girlfriend.
But we were left without.
That makes you bitter. You were entitled to get the girl of your dreams, it was promised to you since you were just a small child. But she just never came. Most people get over it. They realize that they have to seek for someone who is on their own level in terms of attractiveness (Which means different things to different people).
But some people cling to that sense of entitlement.
So what happens is, these young men refuse to date women who are somewhat ugly, or overweight, or socially awkward. For these men, it feels humiliating to think that you have date someone who isn't pretty, fit, and socially smooth. It used to be different. Back in the old times, people were more willing to settle for what they got. The social pressure from the media, and the sense of entitlement, weren't that strong.
...And about the internet:
The amount of men who feel this sense of entitlement is fairly small. How small? I don't know. Probably only about 1-3%. That's based on anecdotal evidence. But when that 1-3% gangs up in the internet, you get millions and millions of young men making a lot of noise. And that noise we seem to hear more and more every year.
For these men, I think there is a fairly easy solution:
Get drunk. Got to bars and clubs. Talk to all the women who are *not* on the upper or even medium level of your market value system. If you start with 2's, you get to move on to 3's the next year. And to 4's the year after that. Do it for 5 years, and hell, you'll be hitting on the 7's.
It's really that easy. And no, it's not really a humiliation for you to hit on the 2's. Because mostly everyone around you knows that everyone has to work on their own level. Other men or women don't generally give a damn who you are talking to, or who you are dating with. As long as she's a nice person. The other men and women around you are a lot more likely to object to a beautiful, but bitchy girl.
If you combine your attempts in the nightlife with other life-improvement projects, you'll score better. Get a better body, better clothes, a better haircut. Get theatre classes, improvisation classes, speech classes. Learn to play a guitar and join a crappy rock band.
Get hobbies that are of interest to women. Being an interesting person isn't about learning intriguing pick-up lines. It's about living an interesting life, with interesting hobbies. If you play in a band, act in amateur theatre, do mountain-climbing, exotic cooking and poetry, it gives you a lot of interesting things to talk about with women.
Be interesting. You achieve that by doing interesting things in your life.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's odd how that post started out as a critique of creepy sense of entitlement to date at a certain "level" and then turned into advice on how to climb those "levels", complete with a use case for the "market value system". I was thinking maybe the advice would be to get over it, be friendly with people, and seek fulfilling relationships instead of upping your score.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Especially don't get drunk and sleep with someone if that person is also drunk. You'll probably be raping her.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, for people who have social anxiety problems, or are just awkward with women, a few drinks can be a great help when breaking the ice. It brings relaxation and greater confidence.
Of course, no one finds a sloppy, falling down drunk attractive other then other falling down drunks. But the two aren't exactly the same thing.
As the t-shirt says, "Alcohol, helping ugly people get laid since 3000 BC."
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: On the contrary, for people who have social anxiety problems, or are just awkward with women, a few drinks can be a great help when breaking the ice. It brings relaxation and greater confidence.
Of course, no one finds a sloppy, falling down drunk attractive other then other falling down drunks. But the two aren't exactly the same thing.
As the t-shirt says, "Alcohol, helping ugly people get laid since 3000 BC."
I'm one of those people. I need a few drinks to talk to any stranger but especially an attractive woman. Fortunately I'm quite good at drinking just enough to loosen up without getting drunk.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: On the contrary, for people who have social anxiety problems, or are just awkward with women, a few drinks can be a great help when breaking the ice. It brings relaxation and greater confidence.
Of course, no one finds a sloppy, falling down drunk attractive other then other falling down drunks. But the two aren't exactly the same thing.
As the t-shirt says, "Alcohol, helping ugly people get laid since 3000 BC."
Well then we as people need to find better ways to communicate and socialize with other people without stressing them out then.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well then we as people need to find better ways to communicate and socialize with other people without stressing them out then. [/QB]
As an introvert with social anxiety, I know of no such thing short of alcohol but I've never sought professional help for it either. But don't misunderstand, I haven't been drunk in probably 15 years or more. I figured out real quick that getting drunk sucked. But a few drinks on social occasions does wonders for my inhibitions. In fact, that's about the only time I drink. I guess I got lucky in that it wasn't addictive for me. Unfortunately, many others are not so lucky so I can't really advocate this approach.
Now that I think about it, every woman I have ever asked out, I had a drink or two in me first. The only exceptions being a couple times when it was the woman that asked me.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
I agree that's absolutely been an issue (that media have presented picture where any man gets the hot girl or perfect girl or whatever at the end of the story).
This is where you get the bitter "nice guy" meme from, which is a pretty sad little emotional death spiral.
On the other hand, media in the last decade especially has also caused pretty severe body image issues especially among young men. For every episode of King of Queens where fat Kevin James has a hot wife, there are five Abercrombie ads. Attractive men attracting attractive women is far more prevalent in our society than ugly men attracting women.
But I'd also present the flip side, would the media be healthier if it presented ONLY attractive people being together? I mean, I've been in relationships with women way, way more attractive than me. I think they probably liked me for personality reasons rather than looks, not that I'm hideous, but I'm not an even attractive normal looking person let along a model. I'm nondescriptly blah. Isn't that a BETTER message to send? Or would it simple be solved by having less attractive women paired with them?
I also know that there's a whole class of women I won't even bother asking out. If a woman is very attractive, I don't even bother, because I don't play at her level.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have anything to add to this discussion topic directly, but I thought this TED Talk might be of interest in the broader view of sexuality in general: Sex needs a new metaphor
I'd never really thought about the baseball/game analogy that much, though it always viscerally annoyed me as vaguely off-putting and competitive. By the end of this video I was hearing Homer Simpson in my head. "Mmmm... Sex Pizza."
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: It's odd how that post started out as a critique of creepy sense of entitlement to date at a certain "level" and then turned into advice on how to climb those "levels", complete with a use case for the "market value system". I was thinking maybe the advice would be to get over it, be friendly with people, and seek fulfilling relationships instead of upping your score.
That's because my post was intended to the people who suffer of the nice guy syndrome and desperately feel that they *must* do better.
If someone believes in the "market value system", they are unlikely to respond that well to the advice of just getting over it, being friendly, and seeking fulfilling relationships.
They aren't emotionally wired to genuinely believe that advice. They don't feel like getting over it, they think that they are already friendly (Even if clumsily so), and they suffer of low self-esteem, that prevents them from seeking fulfilling relationships where they could find them.
My advice was to start looking for that lost self-esteem with self-improvement hobbies, that get you out of your comfort zone. Because well-chosen hobbies are great at boosting self-esteem. As is alcohol, even if only temporarily. But those temporary few hours can be crucial, when you for the first time really *talk* to an attractive girl. Or when you kiss a girl.
When the effect of alcohol wears off, you are still left with the knowledge that hey, it actually wasn't really that scary at all. You made it! Alcohol also has a nice side-effect of making people feel more attractive, than they might seem when you're sober.
Once you have more self-esteem and more social experience, it's a lot easier to be friendly with people. And there is a distinction between *dumb* friendly and *smart* friendly. Self-esteem combined with smart friendly helps you to establish a fulfilling relationship.
I think that usually the more practical advice you give, the more people listen to it. If you can advice them to *do* something, instead of merely *thinking* something, it gives better results. Your advice is wonderful in principle, but it somewhat equals of merely saying: "Just change they way you think".
People don't really change their attitudes by merely deciding to do so. They change their attitudes when they physically *do* something, gain more life experience, and then reflect on that life experience.
Hobbies and *moderate* drinking of alcohol are safe, easily achievable ways of gaining more positive life experience. They are something you can start doing the next week.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
I agree that's absolutely been an issue (that media have presented picture where any man gets the hot girl or perfect girl or whatever at the end of the story).
This is where you get the bitter "nice guy" meme from, which is a pretty sad little emotional death spiral.
On the other hand, media in the last decade especially has also caused pretty severe body image issues especially among young men. For every episode of King of Queens where fat Kevin James has a hot wife, there are five Abercrombie ads. Attractive men attracting attractive women is far more prevalent in our society than ugly men attracting women.
But I'd also present the flip side, would the media be healthier if it presented ONLY attractive people being together? I mean, I've been in relationships with women way, way more attractive than me. I think they probably liked me for personality reasons rather than looks, not that I'm hideous, but I'm not an even attractive normal looking person let along a model. I'm nondescriptly blah. Isn't that a BETTER message to send? Or would it simple be solved by having less attractive women paired with them?
I also know that there's a whole class of women I won't even bother asking out. If a woman is very attractive, I don't even bother, because I don't play at her level.
This is a complex, interesting question.
I think a part of the problem is that those beautiful women are often characterless trophies, existing primarily to award the man in the end. The woman's only real value is her attractiveness, and her only real function in the story is to be a trophy.
I also think there has actually been a positive change in this. There are more and more active roles for women in stories. They are more like humans, and less like trophies. But we are still dealing with a very long history of trophy-attitude, that became really culturally prevalent with TV, due to the enormous on amount of story content it started feeding to us all.
Regardless, the more you have *real* people in stories, with realistic emotions, the less you have a problem of misleading cultural brainwashing, that supports emotionally damaged people to form skewed world-views.
Just to cite an example: Think of all the countless high school movies where the geeky guy gets the most beautiful girl in the entire school. The ugly and even average looking girls are all ignored in the story, the geeky guy never ever notices their existence. It's very rare for that to go vice versa, for a genuinely geeky girl to get the hottest guy in school. And it's even rarer for the geeky guy, or girl, to find someone who is more or less equally geeky.
Superbad was a terrific film. And I really loved the story of Michael Cera and Martha MacIsaac, because it was realistic, even poignant in many aspects. The two were a good match, vulnerable kids who might easily get together even in real life. But of course they had to spoil that by pairing Jonah Hill together with Emma Stone. Jonah got Emma merely because... He deserved her? Because we liked Jonah, our hero, and he deserved his trophy?
With Michael and Martha, you can understand the attraction. It's based on reality to which I can relate to. With Jonah and Emma, it's much harder to understand. To me it was fake, and misleading.
(I'm sure that in real life Jonah Hill can date very beautiful women. He's rich, famous, powerful and probably very self-confident. But he's character in Superbad was none of those things).
Maybe the real point is to have emotional, intellectual and cultural honesty in the stories that are being told to us. But much of entertainment is about feeding us fantasies, things that we might want to be true, even when they aren't. Those kind of fantasies sell well.
I think experiencing wish-fulfillment fantasies is healthy to an extent, but when culture gets overcrowded with them, it starts getting unhealthy. And we have crossed the line into unhealthiness a long time ago. There is just too much of it, everywhere around us.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
how about: responsibly manage your alcohol intake inside or outside of the context of trying to break the ice with dates, or it'll be causing you more problems than it fixes
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real trap here is believing that these rating systems are real. They are not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Different societys at different times have elevated different features as the ideal and as undesirable. Bigger, paler girls were the ideal as it was easy to be skinny and tanned back in the day. Instead of allowing society's standards decide what you think is attractive, make up your own mind. Because everyone is a "ten" to someone. And it isn't just about physicality; morality, personality, kindness, personal interests, etc all should be a part of what people find attractive in others.
Find your ten. Find the person who thinks you are a ten.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that usually the more practical advice you give, the more people listen to it. If you can advice them to *do* something, instead of merely *thinking* something, it gives better results. Your advice is wonderful in principle, but it somewhat equals of merely saying: "Just change they way you think".
This rings true to me. There's really not a lot you can do to change what traits you're attracted to physically.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
