Category: sociology

On ‘anti-slut defence’ tactics, ‘slut-shaming’, and their critics

ASD, or anti-slut defence is a term used in the PUA or Red Pill space. It refers to behavioural and psychological tendencies of women to resist seduction by men they really want to have sex with, in order to maintain their non-slutty reputation and self-image.

An ASD is a method used by a girl to abstain herself from responsibility during a situation where there is a likelihood of sex/intimacy.

PUAMore

PUA discussion of ASD centres around methods to overcome it. They discuss methods of influencing the woman’s psychological state, heightening her sexual desire, and making her feel comfortable and safe from condemnatory judgement. The aim is to prevent ASD obstructions, or manage them when they arise.

Continue reading “On ‘anti-slut defence’ tactics, ‘slut-shaming’, and their critics”

Work and jobs

Just found this interesting essay. It included this quote from Buckminster Fuller:

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

It reminded me of the dichotomy of types of work presented by Bertrand Russell, in ‘In praise of idleness’:

Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two organized bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e., of advertising.

What’s this taxonomy good for? Russell’s purpose here is to show the absurdity of work as such. And it certainly is absurd if conceived materialistically, without any reference to values, as he does here. His aim is to denigrate industriousness. And politics too.

Here’s something else, icy’s formulation of two kinds of jobs:

671. What must be understood about the subject of “jobs” before any further discussion can begin on the subject is that there are two types of job: the one that you create yourself, and the one that others offer you, and it is always the latter type that subhumans mean whenever they use that word. But in order for the latter type to exist, the former must have originally created it (since “jobs” do not exactly grow on trees in the jungle by themselves now do they). Translated from Subhuman, “We need more jobs” means “We need more innovative, daring individuals to risk their lives’ savings (or borrow from banks by placing their property as collateral at the risk of losing everything and even going to prison) to launch mankind on new, daring and untried paths, and advertise whatever secondary subservient roles they might have for us under their tutelage and protection”.

 

Arousal as intoxication, and the infinite regress of reciprocal meta-desire; diabolical theorems

It’s time to write this shit down. I have not totally clarified these thoughts in my mind, and I doubt that I can communicate them in an optimal manner here and now, but I’ll begin my attempt anyway.

Before I begin: a warning. If you read and understand this theorem, you may never want to be involved in a sexual/romantic relationship ever (again). If the reasoning holds up, then the conclusion is that sex or romantic relationships are inherently anti-rational, unavoidably non-consensual (and therefore unethical).

Continue reading “Arousal as intoxication, and the infinite regress of reciprocal meta-desire; diabolical theorems”

“Refuse to date men who watch porn”

Crossposted from Your Brain Rebalanced:


This is a slogan being promoted by feminists. I want to ask the dudes here: what do you think about this?

Here’s some graffiti/street art spreading this meme, from Untameable Shrews:

https://twitter.com/untamableshrews/status/866257110580944896

Here they use the #PornKillsLove hashtag, a slogan used by Fight the New Drug, a Mormon-founded but non-religious anti-porn advocacy and education organisation. You’ve probably heard of it.

Continue reading ““Refuse to date men who watch porn””