The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Where are you and where are you going?
Post Reply
User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

ellarose24 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 8:37 am
I’m going to let the disagreement stand and quietly move on number one, because I see the political board is locked and this gets into that sort of territory and also because I am trying very hard, for the time being, to compartmentalize my ideas so that I can focus on ERE and become a master before bringing in other mastery. Number one, because with ERE I won’t have to be afraid of my job firing me for ideas and also because I understand I am a noob here and have a lot to learn, and want to respectfully engage with others and learn and put disagreements on the back burner while I absorb what I can from others.

I do think there will be an inevitable radical feminist and ERE clash in my thoughts and journaling eventually, but it isn’t the time or place yet.

It’s funny, in my feminist spaces I feel uncomfortable bringing up anti consumption and here I feel uncomfortable bringing up feminism but they both exist on the same spectrum of radically changing my world view.
i don't think compartmentalization is either possible or healthy. sure, setting things aside for a moment to clarify concepts or enable communication is one thing. but if things are connected, they are connected. to quote the ere book (strategies, tactics, and guiding principles), "you can never do just one thing"

so if your version of ere includes radical feminism, then it is what it is. you can' t exclude it from your life. it's central your web of goals.

now i understand that you might want to proceed cautiously bringing up some subjects which might rile up a certain sector, but your statement that you can't promote diminished consumption of natural resources on the one hand while advocating for the consumption of human bodies on the other hand... reads as very valid and justifiable to me, and not mere "politics", but actually central to your "lifestyle design" as it's called here.

the politics forum was locked because as i understand it was creating more problems than it was worth. but if politics informs your life project... it's also not separable from your ere project. and i think you bring valid criticism of some points of view advanced by some individual users in the forums. but yeah the purpose should not be to engage in ideological warfare. i didn't see you as engaging in sheer propaganda for partisan purposes though-- i saw an honest effort to bridge ideas.

and these worlds should be bridged somehow. i have a very radical feminist friend who is in deep financial shit in part due to feeling she "deserves" to eat at restaurants, go on trips, pay for pricey vacations, etc, she can't really afford. when she complains to me about her troubles, considering how much more she makes and spends than me, i bring up, oh... choices, personal responsibility, etc, only to get branded a neoliberal corporate apologist :lol: (we laugh it off afterwards, but she believes in a utopia of unlimited resources or something.) in any case, if there was a radical feminist way to advance the notion that she shouldn't keep digging her own grave with economic malpractice... yeah it would be great to have it available for discussion rather than the usual prescriptions--which are ideologically loaded after all.

so i don't see the discussion of both things combined as pointless or irrelevant or wrong or non-kosher. if anything, the culture needs it. and i understand you might wanna hit pause on one aspect of the discussion... to avoid contrary/heterotelic effects like time-squandering ptsd-inducing internet flamewars.

but it seems to me that you ultimately need ere and feminism to interact synergistically, and so one way or another you're going to need that conceptual bridge.

ellarose24
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by ellarose24 »

I agree with Alphaville that I cannot compartmentalize my thoughts on radical feminism and ERE. They weave in and out of each other too much.

I will try and write an apologia of both beleifs.


Number one: I want to say one thing as radical feminism often gets one branded as a “TERF” (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist)—while I do have critiques of some segments of the most popularly advertised trans movement, I do not consider myself trans exclusionary nor do I hate trans people etc etc. I just want to get that out of the way as it is my biggest fear when bringing up radical feminism. I can talk about my critiques of *some* aspects of the movement—but I do find the popular rhetoric of radical feminism to be entirely too obsessed with trans people and engaging in black and white thinking to the point that I’ve left almost all radical feminist spaces and now mostly read second wave feminists or studies from an academic perspective. Second wave feminism largely had nothing to say about trans people, and were mostly inclusive of them—however I do think they would likely be against some of the movement now, I do not think they would stereotype all trans people as bad/evil. However, even nuanced views like JK Rowling have people calling for a (literal) witch hunt—so it gets very tricky on this subject, but I would like to largely leave this part of radical feminism out except where needed.

With that out of the way

Radical feminism is the only type of feminism that cannot be advertised and used to further require consumption. In my opinion, that is why it is fought against by almost all public narratives. Radical feminists often talk about “choice” feminists or “liberal” feminists. The distinction here is that after second wave feminism, feminism was essentially rebranded to be consumable and to, instead of question the status quo, support it whole heartedly as a way to “empower” yourself.

It was also rebranded to be intersectional. Being intersectional is great—feminism should include all women… but should it also include men? Radical feminists distinguish women as a class and men as a class, they also say that women have been oppressed by men since the beginning of time on the basis of biology. With that view, which I agree with, including men in feminism makes zero sense. It would be like revolving BLM around the guilt that white people face for being racists. But modern feminism largely revolves around poor men and toxic masculinity that has become the excuse for all male abuse—and very rarely looks at the effects of this abuse on women. (This is largely changing in popular rhetoric and I am very happy about it—but growing up, the answer to men being abusive was to try and help them sort out their own socialization and gave zero onus for me to look at my own or to engage in literally any sort of boundaries—this was also largely supported by the mental health community).

The reason there is a distinction between “choice” feminism is because if you bring up certain things like makeup, high heels, etc—inevitably someone will come and tell you that “it is my CHOICE and I LIKE IT and how dare you try and tell me what to do! How can you be a feminist if you are telling women what to do!? And by the way, I find makeup and appealing to the male gaze EMPOWERING and I gain power from it!”

In this way, women themselves become very defensive when questioning the status quo. Sure, many women might enjoy wearing makeup and high heels and even objectifying themselves—no one is denying that. The question is why? 

The answer is usually a broad mix of socialization, including shame, and the feelings of power they get from being sexually appealing to the male sex. If it is truly a simple “choice”—how come women who do not wear makeup are constantly told they look tired and sick for the simple, radical act of NOT wearing makeup. How come women who simply exist naturally—meaning not shaving their legs or armpits—are somehow making a radical political statement if they dare leave their house? Why does the simple act of existing bring with it infinite judgements and opinions on something as simple as your NATURAL appearance?

Saying it’s a choice allows you to keep engaging with these options under the delusion that you are in complete control of your choices without thinking critically of the societal norms and pressures to behave in a very specific way. Choice does not equal freedom. We should all know this, consumption often keeps people consuming by offering many choices, an overwhelming amount of choices—so that people will simply buy what is best advertised. For women, often the easiest choice is the one that is most commoditized. Women’s identity is often revolved around being consumable by narrow definitions that society has set up for them—which means being sexually appealing to men. Women and men both defend and encourage this as status quo. Because of this, many men and women will claim radical feminists are anti-women because they are not listening to what women want. In my opinion, that is like saying that questioning the culture of consumption is anti-independence or anti-freedom because consumers are choosing to consume.

I want to make it clear that I also engage in these “choices”—as I need to. I am not shaming women for having to perform the status quo to keep engaging in the world, I am simply asking that women think critically about the choices. I am also not asking women to feel shame or guilt for engaging in choices, nor to feel like they cannot partake in femininity in any way without being a traitor to feminism—again, I am only asking that we parse out and examine the way we interact with the world and how this world has taught us what is and is not acceptable based purely on the sex that we are born. Often the only women who can truly reject these gendered stereotypes without very noticeable backlash are privileged—often because they have enough wealth to not need to appeal to men (this is very uncommon even for the wealthy, but you will see that the wealthy do not engage as much in obvious plastic surgery, gaudy makeup of makeup at all, etc—I think this can be analyzed another time).

For instance, one of the critiques of the transgender movement is that *some* (not all) people within the movement reduce being a woman or a male to gendered stereotypes. In that way, many women who do not fit into female stereotypes of liking makeup and clothes and enjoying the male gaze are put into another box—if they do not act like women, then they must be men. I know this is not all transgender people and i want to make that clear, but I also, (anecdotally), know quite a number amount of women who detransitioned (meaning went through hormone therapy, binding, sometimes even mastectomies, before realizing they are not trans)—and they all speak of this pressure to fit themselves into a gendered box—because they did not perform gendered stereotypes well enough, society presented them with the option to simply not be a woman anymore.

(When you delve into radical feminism— you will find an extremely large number of the women in these movements to be detransitioners as well as ex or even current sex workers. This may be the reason for the absolute vitriolic hatred that these women have for the trans movement and men in general. I think they deserve a space to go through the grieving process—but it is unfair that their voices are then judged as the de-facto voices for radical feminism, when often their voices are being filtered through unbridled and barely processed trauma).

This is absolute commodification of identity. If you do not perform the way society wants you to be, you are placed into another box that society will find acceptable. There is only a very narrowly defined way of being an acceptable women—exist outside of that, you simply aren’t a women anymore. This is very recent and is, I think, a direct consequence of fourth wave feminism making “womanhood” a consumable, performative act.


(Again, I want to be clear that I do believe there are actual transgender people, I don’t believe all trans men are simply women who did not fit into a box, I am simply saying the above scenario has become more and more popular as, like femininity, trans identity has become a consumable product more than an inherent identity. And again, to be clear, I think for many people being trans IS inherent. Two things can be true at once)

In that way, identities are becoming more and more commodified. There is also a post-radical feminist movement. It went by the name of Vindicta (now deleted)—there used to be a subreddit for it. It essentially stated that it acknowledges the pressure society places on women, but women could weaponize their femininity to gain material power in society. In that way, it called for “looksmaxxing” including extensive plastic surgery, learning to be subversive and machiavellian, etc.

Because radical feminism offers no real solution except a utopian womyn’s land, female separatism, etc—Vindicta seemed more practical to me. Be sexually appealing, play stupid, etc etc—anything to gain power in a sexist world.

This is where ERE comes in. Engaging in Radical feminism leaves no solution—it stemmed from marxist analysis and like Marxism, it is very good at point out problems and very bad at offering any solutions. Solutions range from female separatism, political celibacy, smashing the patriarchy—etc etc. Radical feminist often refuse to believe that there will still be human greed, sociopathy, competition, etc in a world without men—just like marxists refuse to believe there will be anything bad in a world without capitalism.

The Vindicta movement offered a solution which was to play the game and win. Similar to the FIRE movement—increase salary by learning and understanding corporate politics and then one day you can finally be free after sacrificing your soul.

There is, as of yet, not an ERE answer for radical feminism—but I think there should be. ERE, in my opinion, IS the solution. Femininity should not be commoditized, and in that way you must separate yourself from an identity defined by others. You can only do that when you are not dependent on others to define expectations for you. It is a very similar feeling of stepping completely outside of the realm of society. Except, I think it is even scarier than ERE are contains more risk. Never-the-less, it is extremely important.

I will likely write more on how women are commoditized as products themselves—through porn, sex work, prostitution—and some radfems claim even the surrogate and adoption industry. (This becomes very apparent in third world countries or even countries like Russia)

AnalyticalEngine
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:57 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by AnalyticalEngine »

This is absolute commodification of identity. If you do not perform the way society wants you to be, you are placed into another box that society will find acceptable. There is only a very narrowly defined way of being an acceptable women—exist outside of that, you simply aren’t a women anymore. This is very recent and is, I think, a direct consequence of fourth wave feminism making “womanhood” a consumable, performative act.
Hi ella, I'm curious if you're read any postmodern philosophy on this topic? I'm specifically thinking about "Simulacra and Simulation" here by Jean Baudrillard. In that book, he discusses this notion of hyperreality--where the real and the fictional blur together such that you can't tell them apart any more. The book was written in the 80s, and one example he uses is the Vietnam war and how most people got their idea of the war from popular films vs any knowledge about the war itself. Thus the war, in popular consciousness, became a kind of simulacra--or a copy without an original.

I think about this topic a lot, especially with how it relates to how the internet is recreating notions of identity. I believe a lot of womanhood identities now are simulacra, just like how most identities in our culture have become simulacra. Everything is very detached from reality so that it becomes a kind of hyperreality, where you can no longer tell what the original even was. I believe this notion of hyperreality explains a lot of the identity politics that you now see on the internet. It's all become very detached and hyperreal.

(Granted Simulacra and Simulation has nothing to do with feminism, but I think about it a lot in how you see people who spend way too much time online start to adopt these strange simulacra-type personalities)

ellarose24
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by ellarose24 »

AnalyticalEngine wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 1:55 pm
Hi ella, I'm curious if you're read any postmodern philosophy on this topic? I'm specifically thinking about "Simulacra and Simulation" here by Jean Baudrillard. In that book, he discusses this notion of hyperreality--where the real and the fictional blur together such that you can't tell them apart any more. The book was written in the 80s, and one example he uses is the Vietnam war and how most people got their idea of the war from popular films vs any knowledge about the war itself. Thus the war, in popular consciousness, became a kind of simulacra--or a copy without an original.

I think about this topic a lot, especially with how it relates to how the internet is recreating notions of identity. I believe a lot of womanhood identities now are simulacra, just like how most identities in our culture have become simulacra. Everything is very detached from reality so that it becomes a kind of hyperreality, where you can no longer tell what the original even was. I believe this notion of hyperreality explains a lot of the identity politics that you now see on the internet. It's all become very detached and hyperreal.

(Granted Simulacra and Simulation has nothing to do with feminism, but I think about it a lot in how you see people who spend way too much time online start to adopt these strange simulacra-type personalities)
Post modernism was discussed quite a lot in radical feminism, with most radical feminists outright rejecting it as they believe it led to current gender identities and politics.

However, I am familiar with Simulacra--my first introduction to it was through "Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco which I quite enjoyed. I also discussed it quite a bit, as in my online spaces I ended up becoming very good friends with a number of trans women who were de-facto post modernists and we enjoyed debate/discussion on the topic. I think Post-Modernism in general is the easy way out. I quite like modernism. I don't know, I go in circles with these ideas.

However, I have not thought about current identities of womanhood being hyperreality. I will have to think more about that. I believe the radical feminist argument would be that outwardly women may try to have an abstract identity, but their biology will always bring them back to the reality of the class and oppression of womanhood.

One thing I have found is that twitter and other online spaces do not reflect reality at all. In that way, I would say hyperrealities clash and even their enemies because fictional character they create in their own mind, project, and create--and they themselves become fictional characters in the others mind. For instance, radical feminists, would sometimes ironically quote Valerie Solanos or say things such as "kill all men" simply to get a reaction. Then, men would say things back like "women deserve to be raped" etc. The discussion would build on itself where you have two evil seeming entities simply reflecting and magnifying the opposite to what was stated. In that way, discourse completely breaks down and you no longer know who is a troll, who is genuinely evil, who is mentally ill, etc. Any semblance of vulnerability, authenticity, or earnesty is met with shaming and mocking--encouraging you to become a caricature of your beliefs that is then taken literally by the opposing side. The opposite side then makes their entire identity about being against this fictional creation. So in that way, yes I believe most online spaces, including radical feminism, do not exist in reality. However, I believe the academic study of radical feminism is rational, logical, and although a very narrow view of society, is largely correct even in it's narrowness.

AnalyticalEngine
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:57 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by AnalyticalEngine »

I tend to read postmodernism more descriptive than prescriptively. Some of the later postmodernist tend to be prescriptive with it, but the earlier ones (including Baudrillard) are descriptive. Toward that end, I view Simulacra and Simulation as something descriptive of modern maladies rather than something in which we should aspire toward.
However, I have not thought about current identities of womanhood being hyperreality. I will have to think more about that. I believe the radical feminist argument would be that outwardly women may try to have an abstract identity, but their biology will always bring them back to the reality of the class and oppression of womanhood.
In many ways, womanhood has become a simulacrum of an identity when you consider things like makeup, certain clothing choices, etc. It's even worse in online spaces where the idea of womanhood is often, for lack of a better descriptor, "anime catgirl." I've seen a lot of this debate come down between women who are dressing in the hyperreal feminine style for gains of personal power then criticize the trans trend for doing the same thing, while both of these groups have forgotten they are both caught up in hyperreality.

(Note I do think there is a real argument to be made about the current transgender movement being the result of internet hyperreality that's developed over the past 10 years, but that is a digression)

ellarose24
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by ellarose24 »

LOL... I've witnessed not only anime cat girl, but anime nazi cat girl. Yes I like your take--I have not read the actual book that discusses Simulacra, only other people's takes--I may read it as it keeps coming up.

I don't think radical feminists would every dress in a hyper feminine way--in fact they often state that hyper-femininity is oppressive, and that is why they are often offended that to some trans groups, women means nothing more than gendered stereotypes. Although I try to make the distinction clear that women themselves should not feel guilt for performing femininity, in the more extreme radical feminist takes I have been told wearing dresses and skirts is oppressive. Those are usually just people with really bad takes though lol. Personally, I think everyone should allow the sweet sweet freedom of a breeze between your legs.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7348
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

We all have our varying experiences, but I don’t grok the focus on fashion as being terribly important issue of feminism, because many or most men are almost tone deaf to fashion. Also, it has been my experience that wearing the same pair of overalls every day and no makeup in no way exempts you from sexist behavior. OTOH, like you, my closest sister is an INFP, so her own strong aesthetic informs her that fashion is important and highly noticeable by others, but I think it’s mostly only important to men who also have more artistic personality types themselves. I think it’s more an internalized/socialized thing within women themselves that they ought to strive to be validated for being beautiful that leads to so much effort and shopping. If you value sex and you prefer heterosexual male partners, all that’s really necessary to attract partners is feeling relaxed and comfortable in your own skin. For instance, when I achieve acceptance of my new post-menopausal body, I have no doubt I will be able to find some male partners who will appreciate my look. Men are very visually wired sexually, but it’s women who torture themselves with Vogue. It’s more about status than sex. We are free to seek status in ways that don’t necessarily intersect much with our sexuality even though sexism is more likely to appear in any strong power dynamic. For instance, PhD microbiologist who styles herself in academic drab may still face sexism as she works to advance within her department while also having a great love life with a male partner who has a thing for her very soft chubby legs in addition to appreciating her quick wit.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 4:25 pm
I don’t grok the focus on fashion as being terribly important issue of feminism, because many or most men are almost tone deaf to fashion.
huh??? (i mean this in more ways than one)

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7348
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Yeah, I didn’t phrase that well. I didn’t mean that the focus should on what men do or don’t consider “important.” I meant it seems to me that it’s a bit of a miscalculated projection, not unlike when men think women would like to see photos of their junk.

ellarose24
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by ellarose24 »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 5:13 pm
Yeah, I didn’t phrase that well. I didn’t mean that the focus should on what men do or don’t consider “important.” I meant it seems to me that it’s a bit of a miscalculated projection, not unlike when men think women would like to see photos of their junk.
I can’t reply to all yet but :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 5:13 pm
Yeah, I didn’t phrase that well. I didn’t mean that the focus should on what men do or don’t consider “important.” I meant it seems to me that it’s a bit of a miscalculated projection, not unlike when men think women would like to see photos of their junk.
lmfao, oh--right!

white belt
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:15 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by white belt »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 5:13 pm
Yeah, I didn’t phrase that well. I didn’t mean that the focus should on what men do or don’t consider “important.” I meant it seems to me that it’s a bit of a miscalculated projection, not unlike when men think women would like to see photos of their junk.
Well I can tell you some women certainly do request to see that sort of thing. Perhaps there are generational differences at hand here? But I agree with your comment that most men are completely oblivious to women’s fashion and the ways that some women compete with each other using accessories, makeup, clothes, and so on.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7348
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Yeah, in the olden days when some cars still had bench seats, first introductions were usually tactile and constrained behind tight layer of worn denim and zipper. Also, I can’t get used to how small stuff looks on my phone screen.

ellarose24
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by ellarose24 »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 4:25 pm
We all have our varying experiences, but I don’t grok the focus on fashion as being terribly important issue of feminism, because many or most men are almost tone deaf to fashion. Also, it has been my experience that wearing the same pair of overalls every day and no makeup in no way exempts you from sexist behavior.
This is absolutely true that sexism exists however you look, but in my opinon and experience, men do have a lot to say about fashion. For instance, in college I could pass off as normal attractive female, and had many men try and sleep with me through various experiences, but when one of my suitors saw me wearing a dress with combat boots, he incredulously asked me why I would ever do such a thing, and didn't seem to understand my answer "because I want to."

My father legit stopped speaking to me when I shave my head, and all of the previous male suitors were extremely.. disappointed is the only word that I can think of. I did begin to attract the more "artistic" men, as well as male feminists which are the absolute worst variety of male

Fashion is certainly a way of communicating, but this way of communicating did not exist for anyone but the most upper class until consumerism took hold (see Century of the Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04). The fact that what you wear means anything at all is based on an individualistic, society who has commodified themselves to the point of needing to develop their own "brand"--as if you are an advertisement. The fact that this commodification is experienced by women at a much larger degree is not, I think, an accident.

While I agree that women notice details far more than men, men do care about women's appearance. (See the number of men who claim they dislike makeup and point to literal models as an example).

Another thing to question is why beauty standards change so radically, with only 20 years ago heroine chic being "in" and now Kardashian being in--leading to epidemics that almost exclusively impact women such as bulimia/anorexia and now plastic surgery being not just the norm, but expected. I think framing it as men vs women enforcing these ideals is not the right thought--if women are told their value is in the way they look, and if they have had relatively little power historically, of course they will hyper-focus on their looks beyond what they need to.

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 4:25 pm
Men are very visually wired sexually, but it’s women who torture themselves with Vogue.
Why do women do this?
white belt wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 6:09 pm

Well I can tell you some women certainly do request to see that sort of thing. Perhaps there are generational differences at hand here? But I agree with your comment that most men are completely oblivious to women’s fashion and the ways that some women compete with each other using accessories, makeup, clothes, and so on.
I can tell you only anecdotally that me and (I believe) every women I know have been sent dick pics that were not asked for. In relationships, I sometimes pretend that I like them to appease ego. Thankfully my current SO does not do such a thing nor has an interest in it. I do not think this is generational, I talk with women in their 20s and they all have the same stories that vary from disturbing to humorous. If a woman asks you for it, be my guest, but 7wannabe was talking about the phenomenon of men being very proud of their members and thinking that a picture of it is okay to interject whether out of nowhere or in between declarations of love.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

im too much in a state of postprandial stupor to compose anything cogent at this point but just wanted to throw in the comment that this journal is a good journal.
ellarose24 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:15 pm
I think framing it as men vs women enforcing these ideals is not the right thought
i wanted to throw something along these lines earlier at @7w5 but was too busy laughing at dick picks. but yeah, no más "polarities" por favor.

also
ellarose24 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:15 pm
"artistic" men, as well as male feminists which are the absolute worst variety of male
lmfao this is true. very hard to make friends with such narcissistic, sensitive assholes--worst of all poets :lol:

sculptors are ok.

but no, haha, that depends.... but look--artists--modern artists anyway--are just traumatized people trying to cope with a broken brain. nobody sane goes into that kind of thing voluntarily.

nevertheless, there are many kinds of worsts, i think. where does one begin...

ok, stupor resuming now

--

ps but also yes, we have predator eyes (front of the head) & we register eeeevery glimpse

white belt
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:15 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by white belt »

ellarose24 wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:15 pm
I can tell you only anecdotally that me and (I believe) every women I know have been sent dick pics that were not asked for. In relationships, I sometimes pretend that I like them to appease ego. Thankfully my current SO does not do such a thing nor has an interest in it. I do not think this is generational, I talk with women in their 20s and they all have the same stories that vary from disturbing to humorous. If a woman asks you for it, be my guest, but 7wannabe was talking about the phenomenon of men being very proud of their members and thinking that a picture of it is okay to interject whether out of nowhere or in between declarations of love.
Ah ok, I misunderstood that 7WB5 was only talking about unsolicited dick pics. I can’t comment on the unsolicited dick pic trend since I’ve never sent one of those.

ertyu
Posts: 1820
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by ertyu »

I mean, if a picture is interjected out of nowhere of in between declarations of love, as long as no one explicitly said, "hey can you send me a picture of your dick, id love that," it is still unsolicited? Being in a relationship with someone doesn't automatically make every sexual act consensual

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7348
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Self-deprecating old lady humor aside, I would note that I am not just distinguishing between solicited and unsolicited. MMF threesomes are fairly popular within the context of polyamory and the manner in which one of my male partners would choose to “shop” for a male third and also the method by which he would assume that I would “shop” for a male third are very different than the way I actually would prefer to “shop” for a male third. And these differences almost directly correspond to the science I have read on differences in wiring of male vs female sexuality. IOW, the “masculine gaze” applies to men “shopping” for men as much as it applies to men “shopping” for women and men tend to project their own “shopping” tendencies on women and vice-versa. In simplest terms, there is no way in hell that it would be my preference to pick a partner, even for the most casual of sexual encounters, from a catalogue of pictures or videos of assorted available genitalia. Obviously, any generalization is going to be a gross over-statement, but it has been my observation that men are okay with this kind of shopping whatever their druthers in particular parts preferred.

OTOH, I shop like a girl, so if I want an MMF encounter, with one partner casual, it is more like shopping for separate items of clothing that each have their qualities coordinate in a way that intrigues me, and also look good on me. And I also want at least the level of back story that, for example, an upscale clothing brand would offer on the sourcing of a catalogue item. So, for instance, I was quite happy with my own selection of tall dark, 58, Oxford educated photographer to go with tall blonde, 61, on the board of social justice non-profit, both primarily interested in me, both very capable of amusing conversation and civilized behavior. OTOH, other MMF encounters where I have allowed my primary male partner to engage in any level of male-style shopping towards choosing a casual third have not been as much to my liking or nearly as successful in general objective sexual terms.

IOW, I don’t think it’s a generational gap that is informing my perspective.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7348
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

ETA:

Another example of what I am trying to convey is that in a previous entry to this journal, ellarose described a couple of men she dated exactly in the sort of way that another woman would comprehend. In fact, when I read her descriptions, I laughed and thought “Yeah, I’ve kind of dated that one too.” If the two of us and maybe another female friend were in real life conversation over drinks, it is quite possible that the subject of “what type of penis he has” might come up, but it’s almost always going to be considered within wider context.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:02 am
Another example of what I am trying to convey is that in a previous entry to this journal, ellarose described a couple of men she dated exactly in the sort of way that another woman would comprehend.
i guess the part that always grates me about this approach is the implication embedded in this sort of sentence:

- all women understand each other
- women and men can't understand each other

i am so tired of the men from mars women from venus shit im ready to puke the breakfast i haven't even eaten yet.

Post Reply