Here below we have the usual propaganda by modern feminists in image form. Women are the sexual plantation owners and men are the laboring servitor sex that serves them as walking talking wallets full of credit cards. You’re the tax mules and workhorses where that sexual release is going to cost you tremendously, is your sexual credit good?
Men must provide everything in order to generate value for themselves in order to gain, buy, purchase, rent, or be granted sexual access of reproduction. You must meet the socio economic exchange value model of the woman and her expectations negotiating an established sexual price rate. Pray that the woman has realistic expectations versus a majority of them which are completely unrealistic borderlining insanity.
Could this same woman understand economics, politics, and current events to sympathize with the plight of the struggling young man in our modern age? Unlikely and most females have no intellectual interests in understanding such worldly things anyways where if you tried explaining things it would be a waste of time.
No, there is only the mental whims and instant gratifications of the female feminist slave master dynamic where her sexual reproduction in terms of value or cost is something you as a man must simply afford.
Men provide in terms of resources and women receive payments, loans, gifts, entire livelihoods, or luxuries for granting sexual relationships. In the modern context and setting the sexual costs are far exceeding in outweighing the sexual benefits which brings us to the current male to female crisis of transactional conflict we’re seeing everywhere now.
If only these prima donnas weren’t so very demanding, am I right?
This “having ressources” thing is only partly true. Seduction is very socio-emotionnal, and the ressources the man have can merely be a part of the socio-emotionnal aura that determines how the woman sees him. Relatively rare are the women for which that is the main filter/selection criteria.
I personnaly never met this perfect stereotype, and when somewhat present it was diluted by other factors or was temporary - for exemple a mother I knew was saying “I was attracted by the fact that he had properties and money because of the idea that my kids would have more” although it was not part of her personnality and felt really bad about it after she ended the relationship because of too much personality discrepencies between them. Or another girl that was maybe the closest to that, was from a particularly dysfunctionnal family with bad influences from her superficial brother, but she still stayed with a guy I knew that didn’t have any job for a year and was living with his mother, etc. A lot of cases like that suggest that more is at play.
You can rather consider capital more as a weight in the balance. There is a lot of exemples (relationships) where this abundance of ressources is not present in the man and the woman is crazy in love with him (I mean there is the exemple of this woman I knew that worked her ass off to make live a guy, her boyfriend, who just play video games all day, spends nearly everything she wins in weed and is in depression, don’t go out or washes himself. And despite this intolerable situation she stayed with him for 10 more years before quitting because she was emotionnally attached to him.)
It should be without surprise that you can’t reduce something so complex to one variable although intellectually seductive and emotionnaly conforting.
Research however suggests that women are more attracted to “industriousness” on average, which we might confuse sometimes with the golddigger stereotypical behavior, but this is just data measured in labs mostly.
These sexual capitalism theories amongst men are so frequent, and always surprises me, but appart from movies or YouTube, you won’t see this kind of women much, reality’s more nuanced than that.
Mr A
what about reversing it, and say that capitalism is a form of sexuality? Of libido in any case. I mean capitalism as the ism of Capital with a Capital C, not just money or markets.
For me the opposite of female sexual capitalism is a sort of male patriarchal socialism where sexuality becomes more equalized. If female sexuality is hypergamous and capitalistic, male sexuality is more socialist.
But of course another aspect needed would be a sort of decommodification of society as a whole where society itself would have to revolve around entire new set of cultural values.
Sexual capital comes under many forms, money or economic wealth is definitely part of it but so is physical appearances. Physical appearance is another form of sexual capital.
In human sexual interactions sexual capital is another distinction of sexual perfection where dominance or lack of is always at play.
The perfect is desirable over the less perfect in human behavior where those less than perfect are punished, rejected, or made into social outcasts.
A lot of the hierarchy we find in society or human civilization stems from sexuality and sexual mating behaviors.
The feminist movement from the late 18th century was supposedly based upon sexual equality between men and women, or so we’re told at least. Women supposedly just wanted the same opportunities, options, and abilities as men in society. Yet when we look at our present post modern environment that isn’t entirely true at all.
The core of the 18th century feminist movement onwards beyond the pretense of written human history is where women or females were no longer bound in marriage to the authority of their husbands and no longer tied down to the economic class of who they were married to. No longer limited to lowly lesser men they now had the freedom and ability to sexually pursue higher ranking males in society, the true essence of liberal sexual liberation. The right to choose is simply the right to discriminate.
Divorce and cheating no longer a punishable offense in society, women or females completely unregulated have the freedom to do whatever they want where with the abortion pill not even limited by natural biology in their sexual behavior.
As politically liberal societies evolved overtime sexually so did female mating sexual preferences evolve with them where more and more of the majority of men are considered unfit sexual lessers as the essence of female sexual behavior is one of extreme inequality.
The contradictive paradox of liberal female sexual liberation is that overtime female sexual behavior becomes more inequal and as a result of a majority of men becoming sexual outcasts creates a societal environment of growing instability. The only men that sexually benefit from institutional feminism is the top successful percentage of males within society, were we lied to about sexual equality all along?
If a majority of males end up as sexual celibates, outcasts, unmarried, and childless, how can we ever say the political feminist movement was ever about sexual equality?
The true essence of liberal feminism was the emancipation from a majority of men that females or women see as sexual inferiors. The liberal myth of sexual equality was always just that, a mythology. Everything is just intentional confusion to obscure this plain simple fact.
A new paradox now emerges in liberal societies politically, how to have society remain intact where a majority of men are sexually disenfranchised made out to be lessers by highly judgemental females? Never in human society or past history has such sexual inequality like this been endured.
Men are entitled to absolutely nothing and women are entitled to everything. One wonders how long such a decadent culture and arrangement like this can last before it collapses under its own weight.
Again, I think you put too much weight on one variable. It is inevitably true that physical appearence can be a decisive factor, but on average it’s also a weight in the balence, not as an absolute criteria, but as a relative one. Let me explain.
Take Casanova for exemple, he was reputedly not that good looking but had his way with women like no one else because of “what he gave off”. Why so? Women and us men too are proved to stick to a person if this person makes us feel a lot of different and intense emotions - a mix of good and bad. Also physical preferences and fetish is so varied from person to person. You get attracted to the physique to which you associated emotions with.
Try to notice, there is always some couples with a guy you find repulsive who is with an attractive woman, that make you say “don’t know why they are with this girl”, why? Take people who have “twink” as their physical type, relatively short and slim guys is what they prefer, quite unusual it seems but they still do. In fact, so often that they gave a name for it in urban language, why? There is societal physical standards because of how often people feel emotions towards a more or less regular type of physique, and those standards often follows as it is “advertised” of course, but even more than that, if most people try to look like a certain physical model, a certain clothe trend, than you are more likely to feel emotions to this type of physique because you meet more persons looking like that. Although this preference can be found with a relative regularity, the preferences will be varied by the personnal experiences people will have. And in this aspect it is not just the visual (physical, clothing, accesories) who can become appealing. The attitude, the voice, the “feeling” someone gives off, the aura, the character type can all become bounded to some emotionnal valence.
To have to be nearly physically perfect for being succesful in seduction is the fantasy of the insecure and the naive. Social awkwardness and socio-emotionnal incompatibility do more in being unsuccesful than “not being close to perfect” physically, and social skills are something you can acquire, not that it is easy tho.
@MrAuthoritarian Can you actually argue against that without reference to sensationnalist media or imagery, with data and with a serious and diverse enough amount of experience as I did? Not trying to be confrontational. Just hope to help people looking at things diffrently, having perspective and foresee things I think they wish they knew cause it makes life so much easier. I know I wish I knew those things earlier, but it’s hard to convince someone who had just difficult experiences yet. The most convincing thing is good experience i guess
If you allow me to take a dive, I am rather saying that the videos and imagery you attach to your posts are of sensationnalist nature. I think to be honest that you are articulate, I can see it, but that the sources from which you seemingly inspire your thinking from is limited, therefore limiting your reach. Mainstream media, movie quotes, culture war contents, allegedly limited or person/group specific related experiences (meaning you might have made your conclusions from few people you met or people from just a certain group or like some particular groups amongst western/westernized women which are, I concede, arguably often dubious in some of the values they hold in more or less homogenic fashion. The culture they and you and I live in is not in its best shape right now, but for women and people of elswhere in the world it can be another story), etc.
What I really think, in my maybe really presomptuous opinion, is that your intellectual capabilities are there but that they are somewhat underexploited or taken prisonner by the emotionnally potent oversimplications you heard somewhere else and accepted maybe too easily to believe without doubting and verifying yourself throughly at some point.
You fall maybe in your own way (in terms of patterns, not the conclusions you make) in similar pitfalls we find in some of the college hard feminists you and I tend to criticize: making emotionnal and intellectual superstructures out of the partial experience they’ve had and the little or non exhaustive research they did and all of it while being under the influence of biases naturally occuring when involved in any partisan politics (on this aspect you can check scientific litterature, I always found myself becoming biased when I have been involved for too long in a political question, also well the echo-chambers created by social media algorithms don’t always help either to see a greater picture of any politicized question).
Psychology is the unavoidable dictator of any philosophy, you and I naturally cannot escape it. To not know our inner workings is to risk being a slave to delusions and endless cycles of perspective-limited fierce argumentations and confrontations. I believe this is not contrary to the teachings of Siddharta Gautama you seem to admire a lot, which I do too. For me enlightenment is not only to understand that there might be something beyond what the senses can reach[1], it is also to transcend limiting psychological processes to be able to see beyond them.
But after reflexion, maybe I also got a bit caught in this game too here in my precendent reaction to you. There is a quote from Dosteyevsky’s Karamazov Brothers which stayed with me :
“Indeed, I always feel when I meet people that I am lower than all, and that they all take me for a buffoon. So I say, ‘Let me really play the buffoon. I am not afraid of your opinion, for you are every one of you worse than I am.’ That is why I am a buffoon. It is from shame, great elder, from shame; it’s simply over-sensitiveness that makes me rowdy. If I had only been sure that every one would accept me as the kindest and wisest of men, oh, Lord, what a good man I should have been then!”
This kind of vicious cycle I experienced personnaly in the past makes me see the same thing in you somehow in the way you interact with others, if not to say down to a sort of psychodynamic parallel with the clown faces you leave at the end of every posts. You stir reactions in people that in return reinforce your beliefs and attitude. Like a snake bitting his own tail unknowingly. I got slightly caught in it and I fear I might reinforce it by seemingly criticizing you here, which you might think I do, but what I really would like to do is taking an opportunity to maybe help you see further than you did or the reverse : be surprised and you making me seeing further than I do now in the end. In fact why not both?
I also think in a way that to put so much polarised care and attention on such a subject - women, sexuality, capitalism - is maybe symptomatic of clinging too much to earthly things, which Siddharta adviced against, as it makes the heart unpeaceful and the judgement blurred. They are subjects of importance, but we should be able to judge them with a relative detachement so we can see clearer. ↩︎
and the rest. If your various psychological hypotheses are correct, then you should be able to demonstrate this while focusing on the topic rather than him (ad hom).
No, not really. Physical appearance, money, wealth, social affluence, popularity, age, prestige, occupation, class, and social status all translate to different manifestations of sexual capital. Sexual capital itself is a manifestation of power, ability, dominance, or performance.
Sexual capitalism is merely a valuation of being sexually dominant in both genders. With females however they’re ultimately the judging selectors where performance comes down to everything concerning male reproduction.
What is interesting about human sexual behavior it is the most raw uncut of instinctual behaviors exhibited that seems to go virtually unchanged all throughout the various historical eras of human civilization.
Human sexuality is a very powerful thing you’ll notice in the daily motivations of human behavior. It is always constant everywhere there are human beings.
I am a bit of a cynic where I like to add visual stimuli for comedic effect in this divine comedy of existence. If you haven’t noticed already people’s attention spans have shrinked drastically in a matter of decades.
Long texts of treatises just doesn’t cut it anymore.
Actually a lot of this theory regarding sexual capitalism is from personal life experiences of mine. Of course it’s told from a male point of view but that’s because I am obviously a male.
There are some sociological and behavioral writings on the subject as well. My goal here is simply discussion and expanding upon the theory which for me is an accurate one.
I like acquainting myself with all views even ones I disagree with. So if somebody feels it necessary to challenge my views I definitely welcome it. I encourage debate and dialogue where I like listening to new insights.
Indeed, I like transcendence as well. In my opinion radical feminism has damaged this world and society in quite a lot of inexplicable ways. I recognize the need to repair human relationships or social interactions between men and women otherwise this thing we call human civilization will tear itself apart in not having much of a future at all. Unfortunately here in the west government institutions don’t like anything that counters or criticizes against orthodox radical feminism where subjects like this are virtually censored everywhere. If conversations are censored in terms of public discourse that only causes more problems.
The clown for me is the absurdism of this entire existence almost in an Albert Camus sort of sense. The needless and completely unnecessary suffering or misery human beings impose on each other constantly. A species that learns absolutely nothing at all. Still, even being a cynic and pessimist I try to offer glimpses of hope in between the despair. Something in my much younger darker nihilistic days I did not do at all.
It was my introduction to Buddhism several years ago that transformed a violent proned fatalistic nihilist into the cynical pessimist that I am nowadays. Buddhism gave my life new meaning, purpose, and insight, so yes, I venerate Buddha a lot who I hold in the highest esteem. The awakened one and destroyer of illusions.
I consider myself a moral and ethical cynic who feels that the current crop of humanity has lost its way almost completely.
Do I antagonize? Sure, but my goal is to get people to see reality in another way by mental provocation.
Not a big fan of the advertised “PC softie” stereotype you seem to refer to here myself. My arguments and accounts are going against naivity of both sides in terms of stereotypical points of view.
“ideal” in the article is the key word for me. We need to undersrand ideal for what ? In the context of the study, it was an estimation for economic confort assessed in a sober intellectual conversation/survey. In reality, most women have more complex decision making in real life situation and, well, women often don’t happen to settle down with people stuating themselves around this threshold - either they can’t because there is a limited set of such people either there is more at play in the women’s choice. My argument is that they are indeed more likely to choose men with ressources and physical appeal, etc. because it provokes psychological triggers that makes them lean on a decision regarding the man, but that it is highly naive to think that it’s either unimportant or the sole/main criteria for women at large if not every women. And I was defending the side of the medal which here I thought was neglected.
Every action, thought, attitude and feelings have an origin, a cause. It doesn’t come out of the blue like magic. Personnaly, when I understood that, I became so much less resentful, more mercyfull, comprehensive, although in a realist way, meaning that we still need to act on problematic behaviors, thoughts, attitudes and feelings but in a more enlightened way, that is searching for root causes to effectively change the course of things and not just doing wishfull thinking or let ourselves go to bitter rants. Human nature is a big beautiful symphony in a way, and I can’t help to marvel at the beauty of such a vision.
If it is really out of a strategy of some sort that you began to do this, aren’t you scared to fall into the same traps people with short attention spans have? Namely, being under the influence of contents more shallow than deep? We are highly influencable creatures after all and maybe there is other ways to trigger emotions and thinking, or at least we can capitalize on choosing better the public relation maneouver we want to put off, even if it is an oversimplification on the facade, the thinking behind can be deepened and perfected if you catch my drift.
More or less in those lines: “Apparently, the only way in which collective conflicts, as well as individual conflicts, can be successfully and hygienically solved is by securing a redirection of behavior toward a more feasible environmental objective. This can be accomplished most successfully by the rational reconditioning of attitudes on a higher neuro-psychic or intellectual symbolic plane to the facts of science, preferably through a free discussion with a minimum of propaganda. This is not an easy road to mental and social sanity but it appears to be the only one which arrives at the goal.” Kimball Young, Social Attitudes p.72
I think however that there is always a risk that the public relationnist ends up believing, even partially, in the oversimplification he puts forward and preaches, to avoid cognitive dissonance and so on.
I feel that. Interesting the way you put it, I have been through a long “laughing at this grand devine comedy” phase as well, where I would laugh at the suffering of life. It almost reaches a archetypical root in us isn’t it? “Why seeing it as a tragedy, when in fact it’s a comedy?” I saw this kind of attitude in some rare instances in other people as well, and interestingly in some fictive works probably reflecting this “archetypical” behavior - namely in the movie Joker, the novel Incendies, Karamazov, etc. I find this truly fascinating. You feel kind of flying a bit above everything in a way, observing things above normal human condition and concerns. I think there is deep things to understand here.
The great absurdist novelist and theater writer Eugene Ionesco once said that “sometimes I think intuitively of something to be true, but I’m not totally sure of it, so I say it through comedy.” I think it is very true for a lot of us. A kind of a compromise between the feeling that you might know something other people don’t and the fact that there is this lurking and sometimes sublte insecurity about our ability to fully understand the thing we are talking about so we kind of hide ourselves both from ourselves and from others at the same time through the, not only social, but also intellectual and emotionnal lubricant that is laughter.
Comedy is something quite interesting for the sake of the transformation of values as it makes you change the way you see and give importance to things. Like Cartman worshipping Mel Gibson and caricature of Jesus fighting godzilla - the sacred becoming mundane and the mundane becoming sacred - and whatnot other things they did in South Park. I heard of a popular french canadian comedian who was active in the 60s or something like that. Back in the day it was still taboo to talk about conjugal violence and there was no well defined laws around it. By joking openly about it, being provocative at times but in a light and funny context and way of saying it, he apparently significantly changed the vision of a lot of people back in the day as he was quite talented and popular. This kind of exemples is interesting to me to show how much comedy can help transcend your thinking - beyond mere intellectual capabilities even.
True that, I concede. I was lazy much to substantiate my speculations/analysis/theories after this long arrogant-ish “essay” I made and maybe shouldn’t have done haha, as even seemingly criticizing someone often don’t bring much results - the person is usually more focused defending him/herself than on the points being made. Although the posts mrauthoritarian, in themselves, in my perspective substantiate the direction of my thoughts I believed, but it is true that I could have done an extra effort to assure myself to bring it to you guys’ perspective. Maybe if the motivation comes strong enough at some point, who knows!
