Tags
disability, follow ozymandias271 for more sad gays, not feminism go away, ozy blog post, speshul snowflake trans
A lot of marginalized groups are desexualized. Desexualization is when someone expressing their sexuality is thought of as disgusting, laughable, or just unthinkable. It’s “this man is attracted to a FAT WOMAN” being a punchline in a sitcom; it’s someone assuming that an autistic person doesn’t have crushes or date or have sex; it’s someone saying to a person in a wheelchair that they’re very lucky that they don’t have to deal with dating; it’s thinking of being attracted to trans women as a fetish and being attracted to cis women as, well, normal.
Because this comes up every time desexualization is being discussed: I am not saying anyone is required to have sex with anyone else. If you legitimately aren’t attracted to fat women, then don’t fuck fat women. But lots of people aren’t attracted to redheads, and no one uses “a redhead expressed sexual attraction to me!” as a hilarious comedy setup, so I am pretty sure we can stop the latter without ending the former.
Monica Maldonado wrote an excellent series about the desexualization of trans women, How I Came To Hate My Body, which has unfortunately been mostly removed from the Internet. (I am not aware of her preferences about whether people access her work via Wayback Machine; if someone reading this knows that she prefers her essays not be cited, please inform me and I will edit.) In this essay, she vividly describes the eunuch/rapist dichotomy that trans women are trapped in:
One of the complex pressures that society uses to keep trans women’s sex and sexuality in check reaches back to almost as long as we’ve been in history and is drenched in sexist essentialism: namely, the idea that a woman is a lesser man, or even that a vulva or vagina is just the absence of a penis (hence the common “cut it off” tropes re: trans women). According to the social order, in order to exercise bodily autonomy trans women don’t become women, we become desexed eunuchs. Western societies that we often think of as accepting towards trans women actually pressure trans women into this desexed placement; and even though trans women are still quite often sexually active in these contexts, it’s usually shrouded in shame, hidden within the sex trade,trafficking, and pushed into the shadows. Instead, the public face of trans women around the world is often one where we are pressured to insist sex and our sexuality play no part in our lives.
Much like the eunuchs of days past our placement in society is one that is tacitly accepted on the condition that we remain without desire and subservient to the desires and needs of those who are permitted such things(our common involvement in sex work across the world reiterates that the focus is on the sexuality of others rather than our own). And due to the state of the world, this typically necessitates being submissive to the desires of men, because men are typically the ones permitted desire. We remain non-threatening assuming our sex is reserved for the moment that someone is interested in a “walk on the wild side.” If those who are disgusted — or who have their own sexuality or their gender/sex placement shaken to the core — by the reality of our existence are able to assure themselves that we, and our sexuality, are relegated to the fringes then they can live more securely in the safety of their binary cisnormative bubble…
The difference [between how men treat cis women and trans women] occurs at the moment that our trans status is revealed and our placement moves from sexually available woman to deceptive gender variant pervert. And since this is perceived under a cissexist society as a deceptive attack on the man’s sex and sexuality, and further a violation of the coercively assigned social contract regarding eunuch status, the contract becomes violently enforced, and that violent enforcement is even considered acceptable: a la trans panic.
Our implicit expression of desire through appearing sexually attractive to men is considered a violation, which is only exacerbated if we explicitly express desire.
Maldonado characterizes the eunuch/rapist dichotomy as a product of misogyny– the virgin/whore complex on steroids. However, I disagree: I think that the eunuch/rapist dichotomy is a form of desexualization commonly directed at men and people who are sexually interested in women, and it is directed at trans women because the kind of assholes who see trans women as either eunuchs or rapists see them as men.
To take a few examples: Many straight people are okay with gay and bi men who are a nonsexual “gay best friend”, but find them creepy and predatory as soon as they express their sexuality– particularly if they (gasp) have a crush on a straight man. On a more cultural level, straight fondness for Neil Patrick Harris coexists quite well with straight anxiety about gay and bi men and AIDS, cruising, or child molestation.
Developmentally disabled people of all genders are often treated as eunuchs, to the point that there is only one auxiliary and augmentative communication sexuality vocabulary set that is not designed solely for reporting abuse. However, when developmentally disabled men express their sexuality, a lot of people view them as inherently rapey (sometimes covering it with a thin veil of “he can’t help it, he can’t understand, he’s developmentally disabled”).
The Scott Aaronson case is another example– perhaps more vivid than most, because Scott Aaronson was so afraid of being a metaphorical rapist that he wanted to be a literal eunuch.
I’m not sure I can talk about lesbians and bi women better than The Unit of Caring did in her essay Pure Queers. The posts she quotes describe lesbians and bi women as eunuchs who would definitely not do something as horrifying and disgusting as “want to look at women in the changing room” or “be interested in casual sex”. The Unit of Caring herself describes how she viewed her sexuality as harmful to women, invasive, objectifying, and gross; many lesbians and bi women of my acquaintance have described similar feelings.
I think there are two things in play here. First, a lot of people view male sexuality (particularly marginalized male sexuality) as dangerous and barely controlled. (And they think trans women are men, natch.) I would like to be very clear here that while feminism is not exactly helping, this is not feminism’s fault. Feminism has a long way to go before it’s as hysterical about male sexuality as abstinence-only sex education convinced that men will be unable to control themselves as soon as they see a bra strap. Many nonfeminists warn women about the dangers of walking alone at night; many nonfeminists make jokes about fathers cleaning their guns in front of their daughter’s boyfriend, jokes that only make sense if you assume that male sexuality is a dangerous force that can only be controlled with threats of violence. There is a long patriarchal history of “women, you have to put yourselves under our control so we will protect you from those horrible violent other men”, and while feminists can rightfully be blamed for giving in to patriarchal ideas (come on, feminists! you had ONE JOB!), I don’t think we can blame this one on the feminist movement.
Second, people tend to view privileged women as victims. Black feminists have theorized about white women’s tears: the power that white women have to avoid accusations of racism by presenting themselves as victimized by cruel women of color. (Not to mention the long history of violence to protect the precious flower of white womanhood.) I think a similar dynamic is in play with women and marginalized men who are attracted to privileged women. Since privileged women are viewed as inherently victims, if someone makes them mildly uncomfortable, it’s clearly not because the woman in question has some oppressive beliefs she needs to work on. Clearly, it is because the marginalized person is a predator.
(I’d like to highlight that privileged women don’t always have this power– in particular, they’re quite often socialized to not protest when they’re uncomfortable that a man with more social power is hitting on them.)
I suspect that a lot of my readers might have internalized something like the eunuch/rapist dichotomy. In that case, I want to say that the eunuch/rapist dichotomy is a lie. It is not predatory to be sexually or romantically attracted to people, to flirt and ask people out, or to express your sexuality by yourself or with consenting other people. Your sexuality is not inherently harmful. If someone makes you feel that way, you are fine, they’re being a dick.
Thank you this is excellent!
LikeLike
>I suspect that a lot of my readers might have internalized something like the eunuch/rapist dichotomy.
I always get a chill like I dodged a bullet when I read something like this, or something like the posts by Aaronson and Unit of Caring. I somehow managed to reach adulthood without seriously internalizing anything like that. When I found my classmates, or celebrities attractive and fantasized about them I never felt for an instant that I was doing anything wrong, and certainly never felt that the odds of m raping anybody had gone up significantly.
I do remember feeling vaguely guilty when I first started watching porn, and deliberately seeking out hentai because the characters were drawings and not real people. But I don’t think it was because I believed sexuality was inherently predatory. Rather, it was because I believed looking at porn was Objectification, and Objectification was Bad. The concept of Objectification was a black box, I never understood what it was or how it produced Badness, I just took other people’s word for it that it did. Once I started seriously thinking about the concept of Objectification I immediately dismissed it as incoherent and silly. I didn’t believe for a second that it would somehow make more likely to rape people.
The best idea I can think of for how I was spared was the fact that I’ve always had a healthy level of trust in my introspective abilities. If I am told that I have some sort of negative trait, I diligently introspect and search for that trait (one reason I got into the rationalist community was because I felt duty-bound to find flaws in my introspective powers by studying cognitive biases). If I don’t find it I general conclude that the person who told me otherwise must be wrong, not that my introspection is wrong. When my parents told me that watching violent TV would make me more violent, I knew they were wrong through introspection. Ditto for videogames. If I’m told something will give me a propensity to rape a simple internal check will assure me I’m not a rapist. I imagine to someone less confident in their introspection would be much more affected.
Another factor might be that I became aware at an early age that it is easy for movements to splinter and become corrupt or extreme, partly because I loved history, and partly because my Lutheran upbringing taught me that everyone sins. So when the eunuch/rapist dichotomy was presented to me in feminist terms, it was fairly easy for me to dismiss it as a product of Corrupted Feminism, rather than the Good Feminism that I had learned about in school.
LikeLiked by 8 people
Having read material of the Two Scotts, I’ve recently came to the conclusion that early exposure to anti-Semitic hate literature actually improved my life significantly. Why? Because I realize looking back at my experiences with toxic feminism, I had already ran into a bunch of people who hated people like me and blamed my kind for all the evils of the world, and I’d already seen these beliefs crop up in the fringes of multiple other movements. And so I was as comfortable dismissing Dworkin but having no problem with feminism as a whole as I was Martin Luther and having no problem with Protestants.
It also kind of helped, as Scott Alexander pointed out, that you can find some really interesting pattern-matching between old anti-Semitic stereotypes and hatred of ‘neckbeards’. (I think that’s probably just because both the anti-Semities and the anti-neckbeards were grasping at properties to convey ‘physically and morally degenerate dangerous male’ and there was natural overlap there.)
LikeLiked by 4 people
I am so happy for you! Really! You go, mate! =)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting that you close the article with the phrase “they’re being a dick” which encapsulates the idea that male sexuality is aggressive, stupid and at best selfish.
Which is not *completely* false, sadly, but as you point out, not *essentially* true.
When the rest of the kyriarchy has been dismantled, I’ll grudgingly relinquish that handy metaphor and try not to be a dick about it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think that “dick” is one of a variety of useful insults related to private parts (like “asshole” and, in some cultures, “cunt”) and I don’t think it has any particularly gendered aspects. (“She’s a dick” does not sound funny.)
LikeLike
At least in male American society there’s somewhat of a gendered layer to how an insult is used, but the insult itself isn’t gendered. For instance, a guy will call another guy a cunt, and it can be used in anywhere from a friendly greeting to fairly serious negative assessment of character, but a guy calling a girl a cunt in person is a nuclear bomb. However, dick and cunt tend to be perfect substitutes along gender lines in guy to guy conversations. Bitch is fairly similar across genders, but douche/bag and asshole tends to be only aimed at men with bitch substituting in for women. Whore as a suffix (so not the sexual sense) tends to be fairly even across genders, such as attention whore, which slut tends to be female oriented
In effect, bitch tends to encompass a lot more behaviors in regards to women that would otherwise have more specific words in regards to guys. However, many traits that would get outright insults in men instead get less harsh phrases such as “diva” or “drama queen.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never once read or heard that usage in my life! In my experience, “dick” = “bitch” with some qualifier for mildness. “He’s a dick” = “she can be kind of a bitch”. “He’s a raging prick” = “she’s such a bitch”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
” and I don’t think it has any particularly gendered aspects. ”
M-m-m-maybe, but only when it’s used between people of the same gender. I guarantee you if a man uses it to a woman, it’s an especially degendering insult, and it is nuclear. Ditto for “asshole” – weirdly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really? I haven’t found this to be the case when I’ve heard it. A dude calling a woman an asshole sounds much less inflammatory to my ear than a dude calling a woman a bitch. Same for dick, although that one does seem to be used more often between women, at least in my experience…
LikeLike
I have experienced being desexualized for years, and though I agree that it’s not predatory to be attracted to people or even ask them out, I do think that if the baseline of your expectation is that you’d be creating an unwelcome interaction by asking someone out because you expect them to find the idea of dating you to be unpleasant, you should avoid putting them in that uncomfortable position. This is what the Russian Spies game is for. I agree with dataandphilosophy:
If I found the idea of dating a particular person to be repulsive, I wouldn’t want them to ask me out, and I think other people feel the same way. Applying the Golden Rule, they shouldn’t ask people out if they expect it to be unwelcome because of who they are.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Do people really find an unwanted advance that unpleasant so long as it is in good faith and they take no for an answer?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just one person’s experience, and I suspect I’m on the tail end of the bell curve here: if it’s a complete stranger, or someone who I’ve had only brief professional conversations with, it’s a minor unpleasantness, but I sincerely wish that no one would ever do it.
Pretty much any advance triggers some sort of “Augh, I don’t know how to get out of this without it being awkward for me or awkward for the other person” type of response in me, a “How can I be as kind and polite as possible and also not have the other person misunderstand at all my total lack of interest” type of response. Which is anywhere from slightly stressful to quite stressful. And to be clear, I don’t think this means that people shouldn’t make advances at all! Nor do I think that everyone should be good enough at flirting or Russian Spies Game stuff that they only make advances when they have a high expectation of a yes. I think that fifteen minutes of mutually enjoyable personal conversation in a setting where people expect to socialize with strangers, like a bar or a club, is sufficient to meet the bar of “Okay, this person has a reasonable enough expectation that I might be interested in getting to know them better, and even if rejection is somewhat awkward it’s just a part of life as a human being.”
(I do not want to have personal conversations on the sidewalk or in the grocery store. I want to buy my eggplants.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
That ‘so long as it is’ clause is where the sting is. Unwanted advances that amount to nothing more than “Hey, you look interesting! Want to get to know each other better?” “I’m flattered, but no thanks! Have a wonderful day!” “Ah, sorry to hear that. Have a great day yourself!” are really not that unpleasant – they might even leave me with a good feeling.
It’s just that that’s not usually how it plays out. Strangers are often too insistent, only to be scared off by “I have a boyfriend” and sometimes not even then (I’m not someone who gets a lot of advances, but I still got “I won’t tell if you don’t!” over a dozen times, and I only deploy the boyfriend card after first insisting that I, personally, as an individual, am not interested). Friends often act weird after the sexual attraction is brought into the open (not that I blame them). I’d say 95% of approaches I’ve gotten left me with somewhat of a bad taste.
Quick mental arithmetic: 5% of approaches will give me a minor mood boost. 95% of approaches will give me at least a minor reduction in mood. Even if I disregard significant mood reductions (guys insisting on following me when I’m going somewhere) or absolute worst-case scenarios, and just factor in regular ol “pretty pretty pretty please? Why not? Give me a chance?” the predictive value of any approach is negative. Which is really too bad for the good faith/no for an answer guys, because their approaches will always have a slight tinge of “Phew, that really didn’t ruin my day as much as it might have.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I couldn’t agree more with both of these comments. I suspect that I would have little or no problem being asked out if I had any confidence that people would take no for an answer–unfortunately, this is the exception rather than the norm.
LikeLike
Agreed, and I too find unwanted come-ons to be terribly invasive.
All that said, I think it is also important that guys like Scott Aaronson feel that it is okay for them to at least try.
Which is maybe one of the (few) plusses of the PUA approach, at least in its default methods; namely, that they approach hot women at clubs, which means they are in an environment where this is expected behavior, and where the women (so far as I can tell) feel justified in giving a stern brush-off.
And they’ll get brushed off a lot, which I guess is part of the method. But the point is, they are not approaching the typical weird-shy girl, like many of us.
(Well except I hang out at clubs. But never mind that. I find PUAs kinda fun to interact with, cuz I know the schtick and it seems like most of them are just “practicing” on me, cuz the trans thing. But anyway.)
So yeah. If you’re a guy like Scott Aaronson, for heaven’s sake go ask out women. Be awkward and weird and let the chips fall. At least try, now and again.
Not strangers! Not cheap come-ons!
But is that actually a danger, that you’ll hit on strangers with cheap come-ons?
If you’ve never asked a woman out, tell your current crush that you like her. Just get some alone time and let it out. Forget the PUA nonsense. Say something like, “I’m kinda interested in you. If that’s like super awkward or something I’ll back off. But if that’s NOT super awkward, well, then let’s talk about it.”
Then listen to what she says. If she says no, or something that sounds no-ish, then back off. Keep a bit of distance, for a while. But don’t shut her out. From time to time you can ask, “Is this awkward for you?”
Again, listen to what she says.
If you’re really socially awkward say, “You know I’m super socially awkward, so please let me know if things are getting weird.”
Listen to what she says. 🙂
Oh, and if she goes down the “OMG you’re a nice guy and therefore worse than Hitler!” well then she sucks. But on the other hand, she’s just repeating shit she read on the Internet. Maybe she needs to think about it. I would suggest saying, “I’m a nerd and I’m definitely awkward around women. But I don’t want to be alone my whole life and I’m doing my best. Anyway, I like you. You cannot expect me to never tell a woman I like her, and I will probably always be a bit awkward. So whatever. In any case, if you want me to leave you alone, I will. I will respect your clearly stated boundaries.”
And leave it at that.
Remember, online nerd feminists (including me!) do not speak for all women. Some women want to never be asked out, some want to be asked out a lot, some hate nerds and wish all nerds were dead (or so it seems), others are totes pro-nerd and will be super understanding and patient. Most women are somewhere between these extremes. If you like a woman, you need to find out how *that woman* feels. To do so, you need to talk to her.
#####
Scott Aaronson was, of course, struggling with (what folks around here call) “scrupulosity,” which is to say he cared *too much* about discomforting other people. In the discourse following Aaronson’s blog comment, however, I encountered a number of people who seemed to have a different issue. They glommed on to Aaronson’s plight, largely with an anti-feminist message. They tried to enlist his issues into their war. But they were different. They did not suffer from scrupulosity. Instead, their attitudes toward women seemed like standard issue hetero-misogyny, which is that they desire women but at the same time hold them in contempt. These men hate feminism not in that it made them care too much, but in that it makes women strong. They want women weak, passive, and stupid. These types tend to be Redpill-adjacent.
Regarding *those guys*, no I don’t want them to hit on me, like ever. Yuck. They’re ugly on the inside, however their outside might appear.
But on the other hand, I’m a big tranny with “social justice hair.” I’m pretty sure they won’t hit on me.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Veronica, I appreciate your good intentions, I *really really* do!
But… your little cover-all-bases piece of advice is frankly a little humiliating in how horrible and worthless it actually is.
“But I don’t want to be alone my whole life and I’m doing my best.” – are you kidding? Literally everyone is subconsciously repulsed by that sentiment, from all genders. I am *very* attracted to shy nerd boys, and at best it might not *completely* kill my attraction. But I’d still feel an ugh reaction at the whole approach you recommend. I’d feel it if I was presenting/performing as a guy, girl, or otherwise.
And that’s why absolutely ALL dating advice, from SJ feminists to PUAs, agrees that desperation should at least be masked with heavy countersignalling. “OMG, I’m such an awkward dork… I can’t believe myself, lol [laugh and hide your face]” would be a far better way to show a girl where you’re coming from. A lot of things might be better still.
(Actual useful advice for pretty much all guys: make some good, trusted female friends and consult them – and hell, one might well be happy to be your emotional backup/wingwoman/etc on occasion!)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again, me appreciating your good-faith words and positive intentions? Sincere. I’m just saying that this is unsatisfactory for the intended audience.
LikeLike
Again, just one person’s experience here, and I think I’m pretty atypical, but I find an unwanted invitation for sex far LESS unpleasant/stressful than an unwanted invitation for a date. This is because when being sexually propositioned, it’s always been easy for me to say “Sorry, I’m not really interested in casual sex,” and, as I’m a straight cis woman and assumed to not like casual sex, this is generally believed and understood to be an impersonal, and thus inoffensive, rejection (it’s not that I don’t want to have casual sex with you in particular, I don’t want to with anyone).
Meanwhile, when someone asks me on a date/ confesses a crush to me, I generally worry about how to turn them down nicely/without hurting their feelings, and this is upsetting. However, even that isn’t so upsetting that I recommend not asking people out– and I certainly don’t blame people for asking. Also, generally anyone who’s asking me out on a date is already in some sense a friend, and thus not likely to be a jerk (I try not to befriend jerks).
LikeLiked by 3 people
Wait So you consider Veronica’s advice morally sound but practically ineffective?
(this subthread has become half ethical discussion, in which I take somewhat detached academic interest and half advice on how to pull, which I *really* ought to learn.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Multiheaded, I think Veronica was offering the ‘I don’t want to die alone’ script in response to a woman who says ‘nice guys are worse than Hitler.’ She’s already sufficiently turned off at that point that the script won’t change anything. And besides, I wouldn’t WANT to preserve the pantsfeelings of someone who just compared me to Hitler.
But the script might just make her think, and in the meantime it’s never a bad idea to practice saying ‘Actually, people, including me, have the right to pursue happiness, so that’s just what I’ll be doing, thankyouverymuch’ out loud. Most shy and awkward people need to remind themselves of that every now and then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Mircea: I think you’re right, but while that makes it less counterproductive for dates (since that’s already out of the question), it also makes it more disgustingly cringing. If you innocently bump into someone on a crowded, swaying train and they slap you full across the face, you don’t say “I’m unathletic, and I know I have poor balance and jostle people too much, but I desperately need to get where I’m going, and I’m doing the best I can. You cannot expect me to never take the train, and I will probably always be a bit unsteady on my feet. So whatever. In any case, if you want me to leave you alone, I will. I will respect your clearly stated boundaries.”
You hit them back.
And if a woman responds to you expressing interest in a relationship with “You disgusting Nice Guy, how dare you objectify me like this, you pig!?” you say[1] “Man, I thought you were worth my time, but boy was I wrong, you stuck-up, entitled piece of shit. Hey, tell you what, let me know if you ever decide to remove the sand from your vagina and stop attacking any guy who dares to be open about his attraction to you, and I’ll see if I feel like giving you a second chance. Toodles.”
[1] Ideally in a tone of astonished amusement laden with contempt, not seething rage.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Osberend: agreed completely, but I have taken Veronica’s well-intentioned advice as a proposed *general* opening line. Which, yes, still disgustingly cringing and humiliating. To start off by essentially apologizing for one’s existence… the guys who have already done too much of that in their life don’t need *that* kind of practice, I think.
LikeLike
Does the whole seething contempt thing really work? I mean, especially with the long follow-up, it sounds…well, obviously tactical. It seems to me like the optimal move, both from a status-play and a personal peace-of-mind position would be a shrug, a “Whatever.”, and a conspicuous disengagement. After all, once’s someone’s shown that they’re not worth your time, if you’ve not nothing to prove by continuing to talk to them, why do so? Hitting back both escalates the conflict and dignifies your opponent by demonstrating that they can get a response from you. I can’t imagine any way that hitting back verbally would improve my life ,and a lot of ways that it wouldn’t.
Of course, I also value pride and face a lot less than some people I know, so I might just be typical-minding here.
LikeLike
@Robert: I believe in virtue ethics (probably not exclusively, but to a large extent), and one of the things that I regard as part of honorable conduct is that when someone unjustly attacks you, you hit back, physically if it’s a physical attack, and verbally if it’s a verbal attack. If doing so accomplishes something “useful,” in a consequential sense, that’s excellent, but it’s not necessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Blacktrance,
Sorry, couldn’t disagree with that more. The gender dysmorphic, fat people, non-neurotypical people, socially awkward people, etc. have the same rights to public spaces, and to pursue romantic fulfillment as anyone else. If you don’t like them, then turn them down – preferably with some grace and courtesy. (If you don’t, then well… if you face social consequences for that, that’s not a violation of your freedom. That’s other people exercising theirs.) You don’t have the right to pre-emptively control their actions – that’s policing. And they don’t have the obligation to observe some sort of caste system, and they’re certainly not wrong for breaking it; on the contrary, enforcing a caste system is wrong.
This isn’t even getting into fact that attractiveness is subjective so there’s no way to know a priori if you would be welcome or not until you try.
I see that the person who posted this implies that they’re a feminist, and a female one at that:
So what if it makes me feel bad when fat women talk to me*? What if the women talking to me are too old for my taste – as in, less than five years younger than me*? What if it made me feel uncomfortable? Have they committed a moral wrong?
I strongly suspect that dataandphilosophy would say no. Which is just rank hypocrisy.
*I don’t, in real life, because I’m not an asshole. At least, not an asshole in this particular way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
dataandphilosophy is a man and I strongly suspect he applies the same standards to women as to men.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@veronica,
Of all the things to give PUAs credit for, putting very socially inhibited guys and forcing them to adapt to the nightclub scene shouldn’t be one of them. Not only is it a problem, it’s the cause and source of most of their other problems.
Finding the right social group is the most important step. Lonely people tend to either not have one, have one consisting of only other lonely people and thus become a hermetically sealed bubble, or have one that’s completely wrong for them, with the other members of the group not being truly supportive of them.
Sorry, but any environment where people feel completely free to give you a “stern brush-off” is going to be inherently a combative environment, and relying completely on combative environments will lead to you internalizing all the wrong things. That this whole process is supposed to be a slog, not fun. That the only way to make it fun is to completely desensitize yourself. (There’s an element of desensitization that’s necessary, but take a bunch of people whose main problem is that they’re overly sensitive and self-conscious and desensitize them through shock and force like this and you get some damaged psychologies.)
The better way is to build a strong social life that maximizes your “warm” connections (as opposed to having to go in “cold”). It’s an unfortunate reality that in “warm” environments, turning people down can be socially difficult, much more so than in cold environments or combative environments. Is there an intractable conflict of interest here between men and women? I hope not.
@multiheaded,
I took it as something you can say later on, deeper into the conversation, as the situation warrants. You’re right, saying it as an opening line would be absolutely cringeworthy for all involved.
@viviennemarks,
I think for a lot of people, being asked for unwanted sex is more threatening because the type of person who asks for unwanted sex tends to be more dangerous. In a perfectly sex-positive world, this wouldn’t be the case, but in the here and now, this tends to be the case. Of course, it doesn’t hold true in all subcultures. Because as you said, there’s a rational reason to prefer unwanted sexual propositions to unwanted romantic propositions.
What’s funny is that there’s a reverse of that with men. Men “go for broke” with some of their approaches, play it off as something funny and outrageous they’ll do in front of their friends, because there’s no real expectation that they succeed, so rejection is easier. And then any success is just a bonus. I’ve never been the type for these antics, but I’ve had a lot of friends who did stuff like this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The comment that he thought he’d be mistaken for a “prettier”-than-thou feminist led me to think he was a woman. My mistake.
It’s not so much about applying the same standards to women as to men. It’s applying the same standards to fatness and age as to social awkwardness and .
For a feminist, I wouldn’t consider saying the latter need to accept their place – across “both genders” – while not saying so for the former, to be not hypocritical.
But if he actually is consistent, then I respect his consistency, though I still disagree with him.
(His referencing NSWATM makes me a bit worried… there was a guy who seemed non-neurotypical and really self-identified as socially awkward, while saying some very worryingly self-hating things… it could be him. Well, if he’s blogging on Tumblr and has followers and everything, I suppose he’s doing well, which would be nice.)
LikeLike
@osberend:
Well, that’s fair. If you view hitting back (within the context of how you were hit first) as innately virtuous, then that’s your value.
Do you need to hit back there and then? Is it virtuous to, if you’re ambushed in a narrow pass, fight against a superior foe rather than withdraw and seek tactical advantage elsewhere?
The thing about confessing romantic interest is that it also makes you vulnerable. If someone’s looking to score social or status points, then they can use your opening to do so. And the other thing is that if someone is ready to leap into such an encounter (as evinced by the response that leaps to their lips), the odds are good that they’re not going to be dissuaded in any way, and may well be rewarded by the kind of verbal slap-fight they’re prepared for.
Even if we posit that it’s honorable to respond, I don’t think trying the withering contempt thing is a good move. As long as you’re affecting emotions, why not affect unctious attraction and start offering loud paens to the other person’s many obvious virtues, making it clear that you’re not going away or being affected by their words any time soon, thereby turning the entire situation into a giant awkwardness-nova? I mean, that’s a pretty horrible thing to do, but if you’re committed to hitting back, shouldn’t you hit in a way that the person your hitting will stop hitting first in the future?
LikeLike
@multiheaded — There is *no* good advice for shy, lonely men, other than get out and talk to women. And that’s REALLY FUCKING HARD AND OMG I KNOW THIS.
Those specific scripts were for men like young Scott Aronson, who are afraid to talk to women at all. It’s a simple, honest approach that probably won’t make panties drop, but is that man really expecting panties to drop? Realistically?
He wants a cool girlfriend who will appreciate him as he is. He is an awkward nerd. Pretending to be Captain Suave is *not going to work*.
I did that once, by the way, back in my “boy” days. My friend Z had a crush on E, and she was a slender, dark-haired hottie who worked at the mall. She owned a car and dated guys who looked like underwear models.
I mean, she was *seriously hot*, like way out of my league hot. Like, she was “hottest girl in school” hot. I’m not exaggerating.
Anyway, Z asked E who she liked, hoping she liked him. She said she liked ME.
Like what the fuck!
I was cute enough, I guess. But what the fuck!
I may have been okay looking, but I was still weirdo autistic kid. I think she just liked my mohawk. (This was during my punk phase. Maybe she wanted a *walk on the wild side*.)
(Boy I could give her one NOW!)
Anyway, blah blah blah. I got a date. We went on a date. I was ME, which means I did not get another date.
Fuck that shit. I was afraid of her.
The lesson: date people kinda on your own level —
Not that I think “level” is some objective concept. It’s not that. It’s more like, you need to be comfortable with this person, kinda on their wavelength. You need to figure out what to say, when to shut up, when to touch, when to kiss, all of that. I had no chance.
If you’re a weird, shy, nerdy man, then be *that*, and find a woman who wants *that*. You’re looking for mutual comfort.
[cw: blunt language about nerds]
Okay look, if you’re a big fat neckbeard, or if you’re a skinny, nebbish fellow with an endlessly runny nose, or if you are some guy convinced that your fedora makes you dapper, and no one can convince you otherwise, then sure, you’ll have a really hard time. No doubt.
But pretending to be suave guy won’t work. Be YOU. Own yourself, trust yourself, know your own strengths.
(There is nothing wrong, by the way, with being fat or nebbish or having a runny nose or even wearing a fedora. But those things make it harder to date, and that’s kinda the way it is. Which sucks. But one should know the score.)
This is about self acceptance, self expression, and (in a sense) countersigning.
“I’m so cool I can get away with being a weirdo nerd!”
(It works for me.)
#####
@osberend — Responding to a “nice guy” accusation with a sexist rant is precisely the wrong thing to do. It’s literally a stupid thing to do.
Okay, the *theory* of the “Nice Guy” is that he is superficially nice, but that is a thin layer atop a font of seething resentment and sexist anger. So when you respond that way, you basically just made her point for her.
And honestly, saying “remove the sand from your vagina” kinda clinches it. That certainly raises my eyebrows.
Anyway, she won’t really feel insulted. The status structure is just too far in her favor. You’re a nerd, who in all likelihood lacks romance and seldom has sex. She’s a (we assume) decent looking woman, who likely has more romantic and sexual success than you. (You were asking her out for a *reason*, one presumes.) So your attack is simply nonsense, and she knows it, and you probably know it also. It’s petty.
To call that “virtue” is ludicrous.
So she might be momentarily distressed as you bark at her, but she’ll roll with it. After a bit she’ll actually be *quite pleased*. After all, she’s read about this stuff on the Internet a lot, and now she got to reject a “pissbaby manchild” (her terms) face to face. She’ll tear in to you with perfect theoretical aplomb, all the while pondering what a great Tumblr post this will make.
And indeed, the next day her Tumblr will be bustling.
Go you! You’re a winner!
@Robert Liguori has the correct answer: dismissive contempt.
But for myself, I see virtue in *rising above*, which is to say, I see these shitty cycles that women such as her and men such as you get caught up in, who use the dumb behavior of the other to justify their own shitty behavior.
Keep in mind, any Jezebel-style feminist will have a long line of men willing to say shitty things to her, which taken in sum entirely justify her belief.
(I follow the Tumblrs of a few of these women, and indeed, they get a constant barrage of really awful men saying awful things.)
You would be one more such man.
So rise above. *That* is virtue.
Actually, a better script looks like this: “Yeah, I’ve done some ‘nice guy’ stuff in the past, and it’s really awful and doesn’t work for the guy either. Anyway, these days, if I like a woman, I tell her I like her. Then I listen to what she says. If she’s interested, then yay. If not, then whatever. I’ll leave her alone. That’s respect. Anyway, I think that’s the opposite of a ‘nice guy’. But you get to choose your friends. I’ll leave you be.”
If she continues on being ranty-mc-rantypants, then shake your head and walk away.
After all, if you’re really *together*, then you can surely find someone better than her.
#####
@pocketjacks — That makes sense. My point was, that’s at least better than sending them out “PUA style” versus nerdy women. I think that would be really messed up. The women at clubs can handle it.
And it *is* adversarial, cuz PUA is an adversarial approach. Personally I’ve met plenty of women at clubs who were totally non-adversarial. It depends on you and on her and on many things.
PUA is incredibly *stilted*.
But anyway, yeah. You’re thinking about this the right way. Be yourself and find social spaces that work for you.
######
@Robert Liguori — “Hitting back” with awkwardness would perhaps work better than sexist anger, but I think it would still fail, since now he’s being a “clingy nice guy,” which is going to encourage her go for a heavy status kill, just to get peace. And in the meanwhile the man looks legit creepy as fuck. I mean, seriously pegging out the creep-dar.
Anyway, are we talking about some random woman in some random place? Why is he hitting on “random girl” anyhow? Let’s assume this woman goes to the same school as the man, or hangs at the same gaming shop, or whatever. So there’s a decent chance they have mutual friends and the consequence of this will be isolation.
This is a status game, and you guys are coming up with seriously wrong moves.
“Yeah, the nice guy stuff sucks. I don’t think I was quite doing that, but I’ll respect your boundaries” — *that* is the winning move.
Which is to say, the “winning move” is not playing a stupid game.
“I don’t know what her deal is. I told her I’d leave her alone, but she won’t drop it. Whatever. Anyway, I ain’t gonna make a fuss if she don’t. What time are we all meeting Thursday?”
And if she tries to get you booted from the group — did you really have zero loyal friends?
If so, then work on *that*.
#####
To everyone,
It’s actually fairly unlikely that the woman will go full ranty “OMG you’re a nice guy” on you, unless your come-on was really messed up. If from the start you express both 1) interest and 2) a willingness to respect boundaries, then she’s probably not going to do that. Even if she pulls that card, she’s probably not going to pursue it, once you leave her alone.
I mean, this stuff happens, but we spend a lot of time talking about it, and so we get that whole “availability bias” thing. Except this is not even about actual events, but instead about stuff that *could happen*.
I bet you the world has far more hypothetical “die in a fire you creep I’m going to ruin your life” scenarios that what actually occur.
(And sometimes this stuff is about men who were actually creepy. Keep that in mind as you peruse blogs. If a man complains about how terrible some woman was, ask yourself, how terrible was he? And yeah, the other way too.)
Furthermore, this is about you, and about some woman you have a crush on. We hope you *talked to her first*, to find out what she’s like.
It can still backfire. I know it happened to Scott Alexander that one time.
I’m not saying you won’t get called “creep” or whatever. Who cares? Rejection always sucks. We’re talking about consequences beyond that.
If you lose her as a friend, well she lost *you* as a friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
pocketjacks,
I think the non-neurotypical, socially awkward and worryingly self-hating guy from NSWATM you are thinking of might have been me. I am not the same person as dataandphilosophy, and I have no Tumblr blog (which, given my inclinations toward severe self-hatred due to my gender and my disability, is probably best for both me and Tumblr). I know I wrote things along the lines of it being morally wrong for unattractive people to inflict themselves on others.
I am doing quite well these days, in most ways better than I ever thought possible for me. I have a great girlfriend who is also a wonderfully weird nerd, I have a steady job that I enjoy and that pays my living expenses, I am as socially functional as I care to be (which is fortunately well below my limited maximum capability in that regard). I have lost most of my excess body weight, and am in better shape than I have ever been before (I changed my dietary habits and took up a solitude-friendly endurance sport). I still sometimes have some very bad depressive and self-hating episodes (I think I probably always will), but compared to the NSWATM days I have become much better at coping with them.
When I left the gendersphere back then, I also had a terrible depressive crash, and this coincided with me losing my old job. I know some people worried about me; I got some worried emails and there was one person on an antifeminist blog who put up a message asking about me; he was worried I might have committed suicide. I rarely follow gender blogging anymore (and only peek into places like this when I feel reasonably sure I can take it), because I know that it is a subject that tends to make me hate myself. I have occasionally commented under other names (mostly to mentally distance myself from the utter wreck of a human being I was back then), but I have never kept up the same sustained presence that I did on NSWATM, and probably never will. I guess my sense of self-preservation has improved.
I hope life treats you well, and I apologize for the offtopicry.
-RF
LikeLike
@Veronica: That’s my point! The nuclear tactic is to drive the needle of her creep-dar through the roof while retaining plausible deniability for each individual act, so as she gets progressively and progressively more rude, and you keep saying things that make you look like you’re in the social role of the nice guy who will go away with a firm angry rejection and then not going away. Now she’s stuck with dealing with you (which she doesn’t want), she’s stuck dealing with the fact that you’re completely ignoring her wishes (which is worse), and the cherry on top is that she’s primed to think the worst of you because she started by invoking the threat of physical harm you presumably represent, so you not leaving, not listening to her, and not following the social script will maximize the stress you put on her.
This does make you look like an asshole to all present, of course, but I think that if you’re committing to hit back, you should try to hit back in ways that hurt, and accept that hitting back effectively will almost always make bystanders look at you and go “Geez, that guy’s an asshole.”
Impro teaches a lot about status games, but so does the Book of 5 Rings. (Specifically, that book taught me “Wow, being a swordsman sucks, Im’ma structure my life so that I don’t get into swordfights instead.” The metaphor-extension is left as an exercise for the reader.)
LikeLike
@Robert Liguori — Perhaps, but I kinda suspect that the guy who could pull that off is *not* the guy who gets accused of being a “nice guy.” Furthermore, if the awkward, shy nerd guy I’m talking about tried it, he would end up the face-to-face equivalent of the guy in the “kitty’s got claws” episode I posted a few weeks ago. It wouldn’t be a pretty sight.
Anyway, this is all to say, the target of my advice is a young Scott Aaronson type, who is afraid to speak to women for not-so-good reasons, but who is indeed a genuinely decent man. I think he should give it a shot.
And regarding the “oh you horrible nice guy, watch me destroy your life” thing — I suspect it’s a pretty unlikely response. However, these days it seems like a lot of shy men fear this, probably because we talk about it endlessly, and Tumblr is full of long threads of redpill turds saying shitty things to SJ feminists, who say shitty things back. So my point is, sure it could happen, but if so you can probably deal with it. *Here is how you disengage and keep yourself safe.*
On the other hand, if someone’s goal is to be a holy warrior against the evil SJ cause, swinging their fiery sword of manosphere justice — well whatever. Good luck with that. I suspect such people end up in a hell of their own construction.
And yeah, structure your life to not get into sword fights. Yep.
I mean, there are fights I cannot avoid, cuz just *existing in public* is enough to bring violence on me. But anyway. The point is, I know how to walk away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Responding to a “nice guy” accusation with a sexist rant is precisely the wrong thing to do.
I’ll give you “rant,” although frankly I think it’s a bit short for that title. But “sexist?” Literally the only thing in there that’s gendered at all is “remove the sand from your vagina,” and that’s gendered because it’s responding to gendered bad behavior — guys do the broader “how dare you think it’s your place to hit on me” thing too (and I think one should hit out at them just as much as at women who do the same), but they don’t frame it in terms of “Nice Guys/Girls, ugh.” Are you asserting that gendered insults for gendered misbehavior are automatically sexist?
Like . . . the reason that it’s usually bad to call a woman who’s misbehaving in a gendered fashion a bitch is that there are a non-trivial number of guys out there who think all women are bitches, and as a result (a) one of them might overhear and feel supported and (b) an innocent woman might overhear, and, assuming that you’re one of those guys (or just having a conditioned response), feel hurt.
But is there anyone out there who thinks that all women have sand in their vaginas? Seriously? This seems like a non-issue. Would you find it sexist for a woman to tell a man to let her know if he ever manages to untwist his balls?
You’re probably right in your analysis of the likely consequences; I just see that as being at least partially beside the point. My views here are somewhat mixed or (actively) ambivalent, but I have a lot of sympathy for the analagous attitude to that presented in the Hagakure (which, to be clear, is not a work I endorse in a general sense):
To everyone,
It’s actually fairly unlikely that the woman will go full ranty “OMG you’re a nice guy” on you, unless your come-on was really messed up.
This part, I do actually agree with. I do think that availability bias is an issue. But . . . I’m a virtue ethicist. I think it matters what one would do in such a situation not only because it’s important to do the honorable thing if it actually comes up, but also (on probably more importantly, given the probabilities involve) because it’s important to be the sort of person who would do the honorable thing if it actually came up.
LikeLike
@ osberend
Problem 1: That’s not actually a thing. No one ever says that. Instead, both women and men get the “sand in vagina” comments. This indicates that the insult derives its force from a cultural belief that a bad attitude is somehow related to having a vagina. (Similarly, you can fling “bitch” at both women and men with great effect, but calling someone a “dog” would just make them laugh.)
Problem 2: The correct solution to Problem 1 is not to come up with more hurtful expressions involving dicks or balls (something about size?), but to fucking stop bringing up irrelevant (and invented) shit just to hurt your opponent. If they have just done/said something awful, you should already have plenty of relevant things to say. That you, a self-proclaimed virtue ethicist, would defend such dishonorable and unvirtuous use of language, is a bit weird.
LikeLike
That’s not actually a thing. No one ever says that.
Per Google, some people do. Admittedly, damn few, judging by the number of Google results. I thought about going the “small dick” route (which is extremely common) but decided to try for a more direct analogy. (And I still think “would you call it sexist if . . .” is a valid test of an interlocutor’s consistency, even if it’s purely hypothetical.)
Instead, both women and men get the “sand in vagina” comments.
Huh. A bit of Googling does confirm this. This does not agree with my experience, but since I’m not sure that my experience actually involves hearing it more than once or twice (it’s evocative, and I have a fairly good memory for insults), that’s hardly remarkable. That does potentially complicate matters a bit.
This indicates that the insult derives its force from a cultural belief that a bad attitude is somehow related to having a vagina.
. . . Sort of? I mean, virtually every gendered insult for women gets applied to men sooner or later, and obviously that has a lot to do with (a substantial number of people’s) attitudes toward women, which is bad. But I’m not convinced that that means that virtually every gendered insult for women derives its power against its original targets from negative attitudes toward women in general, any more than every gendered insult for men derives its power from negative attitudes toward men in general. Obviously some of them do. But “you have poor hygiene” is a pretty common gender-neutral insult trope, as is “your hostility to me is a result of physical discomfort of a crass nature” (e.g. “hey, how about you take that stick out of your ass and . . . “)
fucking stop bringing up irrelevant (and invented) shit just to hurt your opponent. If they have just done/said something awful, you should already have plenty of relevant things to say.
If someone replies to something you say in an argument with a blow, and you hit them back, are your knuckles “relevant?” Do they need to be? At the point where someone is saying “omg nice guy, worse than Hitler,” we’ve long since left rational argumentation behind.
Like, if you’re discussing later (with her or with someone else) whether she was justified in saying what she said, then certainly you shouldn’t bring in the state of her vagina as an ad hominem. But simple insults aren’t ad hominem arguments, because they aren’t arguments at all, just as hitting someone (in appropriate circumstances) isn’t argument ad baculum. They’re just insults.
But I agree, relevant insults are better. The problem is that they tend to depend on one’s opponent actually caring about the morality of what they’re doing. Like . . . the sort of person who actually makes an “ugh, nice guy” attack in response to a reasonable proposal probably has a tumblr with “misandry” in the title, or at least has the attitude for it. How do you relevantly insult a person who views relevant insults as compliments?
That you, a self-proclaimed virtue ethicist, would defend such dishonorable and unvirtuous use of language, is a bit weird.
We’re probably operating from different assumptions about what the language in question means (see above). But we may also just have different notions about what is virtuous and honorable.
LikeLike
@ osberend
In a society where the use of fists or insults is normalized, people with bigger fists, harsher insults or more friends will de facto enjoy more freedom, whether they act ethically or not.
Additionally, lower-status individuals are more vulnerable to insults (due to the existence of various minority-specific slurs) and more likely to be outnumbered, so any conflict will have higher expected costs to them. But we should uphold social norms that protect vulnerable people from unequal treatment, rather than make them live in fear.
And yeah, “small dick” insults are sexist — not to mention that their use probably does more damage to men with small penises and/or penis size anxiety than to the intended targets. If someone sauntered into Ozy’s comment section and recommended using small dick insults, I would also be annoyed.
…is an imaginary character? 😛 I think most owners of tumblrs with “misandry” in the title are tiny girls who are too scared to yell at anyone in real life, so they come home and rant on the internet. A bit like most “nice”-but-not-actually-nice guys, actually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[reposting because my first attempt seems not to have gone through]
[cw: reference to/approximate quoting of hostile attitudes regarding various stigmatized traits]
On your first couple paragraphs: Yeah, sure, and that’s part of why I don’t support[1] being the first to descend to mere insults, just as I don’t support[1] (to put it mildly) being the first to descend to throwing punches. But throwing the first punch is one thing, and throwing the second is another. There’s nothing wrong (and often, a lot right) with hitting back. And the same goes for insults. And under that standard, if someone with smaller fists or weaker insults doesn’t want to crushed . . . well, that’s just all the more reason for them to do what they ought to do anyway and not attack the other person first.
Remember, this is not my take on “You expressed interest and she shot you down; now what?” or even “You expressed interest and you found her response to be kinda rude; now what?” It’s a response to veronica’s suggestion for what to do “if she goes down the “OMG you’re a nice guy and therefore worse than Hitler!” path. And if that’s rare (as both veronica and I think it is, although I suspect we have different estimate of how rare), then my advice applies to rare situations.
Or maybe a little less rare, if you broaden it a bit. Because I hold the same attitude about the broader “how dare you express an interest in me attitude,” even without the “Nice Guys” aspect. The exact nature of the insults may change, but the principle remains the same. You’re a dorky/awkward/low-status high-schooler, regardless of sex, who confessed an attraction to someone popular, and they took offense at your presumption, but without framing it in “feminist” terms? You’re a fat girl, and a guy you hit on felt the need to express his shock that you would think he could possibly be interested in such a whale? You’re gay, or trans, or visibly body-modified, or any number of other things, and your (up-till-now) crush berates you for taking them for a pervert? Or any other variation on the same general theme?
Then fire away. Don’t apologize, attack. They’re a snob with a [locally relevant status symbol] lodged up their ass. Girls who aren’t skin-and-bones terrify him because any girl with a little bulk on her makes a better man than he does, big tits and all. Sure, they’re not gay/(hard/wet) for (girldick/boypussy)/turned on by piercings, just like all the other people who feel compelled to shout that. Oh, and they’ve got an obvious sublimated public humiliation kink too. How wholesome.
Or come up with better ones, if those strike you as problematic or weak. The details, apart from certain moral limits regarding hurting people who aren’t your target, don’t matter. As I said above, actually hurting the other person is, while desirable, ultimately less important than sincerely trying to hurt the other person, because it’s the latter that manifests your character. When hit, hit back, even if you’re not realistically going to do damage.
Obviously, the amount of physical risk involved in this course of action varies depending on the context, but that’s true for alleged “Nice Guys” too — insulting someone higher status in a perceivedly anti-feminist fashion invites White Knighting, after all, and the corresponding attitude to physical violence (when hit, hit back) risks legal trouble. I think our previous discussion/debate about honor vs. safety basically left us at the “we have different moral axioms, there is no resolution to be had” level (although it’s been a while, and my memory might be off), so it might be useful to focus discussion on the permissibility of the sort of actions that I endorse, rather than their active desirability.
On small dick insults: I don’t think they’re (necessarily) sexist, but I do agree that they’re bad because they’re unfair to men who can’t help actually having a small penis. But I assume that we can agree that, whatever the potential problems with my proposed line of insult, “it hurts women who in fact, no matter what they do or how good people they are, will always have actual sand in their actual vaginas” is not one of them.
[1] At least, outside of extreme edge cases.
LikeLike
Pocketjacks:
What does a right to pursue romantic fulfillment entail in practice? If it’s something like creating an OKCupid profile, dating people who want to date them, and so on, they have the same right as everybody else – they can do it as much as they’d like. If it’s imposing an interaction that has a significant probability of being unwanted, they also have the same right as everybody else – which is to say, none. No one has a right to approach anyone, so when you do, you should be sure that it’s something they’d be okay with. If you’re someone with a low probability of having your approach approved of, that’s unfortunate for you, but that doesn’t entitle you to anything. Otherwise, people would have to tolerate unwelcome approaches.
“Subjective” is not the same as “random”. People have different preferences, but some are far more common than others, and most people have some knowledge of whether a preference is common or rare.
LikeLike
We’ll probably never have a single, socially approved “cold approach” script that people can follow. Just, it ain’t gonna happen.
Sorry fellow borscht lovers, but that’s the score.
I’m the only one who gets to decide her own comfort level at being approached, and by whom. Fact is, I’m a lesbian and I don’t really need men to approach me much. On the other hand, if men *never* approached me, I’d wonder what I was doing wrong.
Just, make it easy for me to brush you off. Please. I’m flattered, but I don’t want to say something shitty to you and I don’t want a BIG AWKWARD, I just want to go on with my day.
With a smile, of course, cuz it is flattering.
Nerdy guys and other weirdos act at a disadvantage, but do we really want them to NEVER TRY?
I mean, I guess some people think that way, but it seems pretty shitty.
Social skills are a big deal. Right? You really do need them, as best you can.
But I recall that “Hugh Ristik” guy once said that “These are *not* basic social skills. They’re intermediate and advanced social skills.” That’s probably true.
If *society* at large is going to tell a bunch of people that they shouldn’t approach — well what about the people who want to be approached by nerds and weirdos?
I mean, presumably there are folks totally open to dating a weird tranny like me, but they’re hard to find. So I should pound sand?
Fuck that.
On the other hand, being approached is invasive. It just *is*. Like, in a big way. Romance and sex are psychologically big deals with all kinds of *stuff*, so don’t act like it’s the same as asking the time of day or when the bus arrives.
I guess be careful, be observant, pick your settings and your targets, pick your social scene, know the score, and then give it a shot.
And fail gracefully.
That’s the biggest social skill of all. Get that one down, and much will become easy.
LikeLike
Great to hear that you are doing well! And yes, it was you I was thinking of, and yes, the last sentence of your first paragraph was the reason why.
I hope you keep maintaining your positive mindset and yes, stay away from places that are triggering for you.
When in a public place where social interaction is to be expected, you should expect people to socially interact with you. It’s fine to turn them away if you are not interested, provided that you are not overly rude, but you have no right to impose a selective silence on others.
The “rape model” does not work for all situations. In fact, it doesn’t work for most situations. Sex is an exception because it’s intensely private experience for most people. The “rape model” being that the utter default assumption is non-interaction between any two people, that if any occurs it better have a good justification. Human interaction in a social space is the default assumption, not the lack of it, and it doesn’t need good justification. The notion that it should be is completely alien to me and I suspect to most other people, and is an example of LW-insularity run amok.
There is some reasonable disagreement over what constitutes a public space or a social space, but that’s a topic for another time. The notion that such spaces don’t exist, however, is not reasonable, and is completely contrary to how people live.
They already do. There’s no escaping unwelcome interactions as human beings, as social creatures, and there’s no way to clamp down on it . I’m all for having better scripts making it easier to turn people down, especially for those very self-conscious, awkward, or even ASD people who happen to get approached. But we can’t get rid of unwelcome interactions entirely without sacrificing something greater, such as removing all spontaneity from human interaction or having to enforce a caste system.
———–
@veronica,
Okay, but PUAs did not invent club culture. The vast majority of things they do is no different than what people native to those environments have been doing for decades before this subculture broke up. Which makes me suspicious when people get selectively angry about these norms in the context of PUAs but get, if anything, defensive toward the type of people who normalized those norms for weekend nights in the first place. (Because they’re so unfairly cast as villains by Hollywood and disgusting dorks are portrayed too sympathetically!) Makes me suspicious about their true motives, because clearly they really couldn’t care less about club behavior otherwise. I mean, more of my friends have been the regular club going type than not, even though it’s not really my scene, so I know these people aren’t bad by any means as a rule. The extremes of how some people can act in those environments, I see as an unfortunate but largely unavoidable side effect of the fact that young people want to hook up, interests don’t always align, and emotions and pride can run high where sexuality is concerned. Singling out people who may be trying it out for the first time because they’re lonely and they realize they have to try something new, strikes me as cruelty masquerading as morality, which is always the scummiest type of cruelty.
Also, I realize that we had an argument about Hollywood before, but I was speaking generally and wasn’t implicating you in that above statement there.
There’s a particular subset of people who intensely identify as “awkward” and take it as a point of pride, refuse to change that about themselves, and adopt it like some sort of tribal identity. Those people are overrepresented in the LW-sphere and places like here. Most people who are awkward, though, are not happy about being so, and it doesn’t represent their “true selves” – whatever that means. Rather, it is something that masks their true selves, something that has been enforced upon them by status policers or negative formative experiences growing up. I reject any faux-morality that suggests that people who are shooting themselves in the foot by adopting low-status behaviors in social situations, are morally obligated to keep doing so, and that trying to forcibly try and adopt higher status behaviors and mannerisms is wrong somehow. On the contrary, I think opposing the latter is wrong. It’s status-policing. I don’t know what on earth you have in mind when you oppose people acting like “Captain Suave”, but it can easily be read this way.
Otherwise, there’s quite a bit in what you wrote that I actually agree with, and I regret that attention is always drawn to the points of disagreement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@pocketjacks — On the club culture thing, I cannot deny that nerd-hate plays a role in the critiques of PUA, but I don’t think it plays a singular role. Plenty of folks, including me, despise the “bro culture” at clubs at least as much as we despise the PUAs. That said, I probably do write more about the PUAs. However, I would say this is largely due to the conversational context. Which is to say, unless you hang out in bro spaces, you are unlikely to have to deal with many bros. On the other hand, if you hang in nerd spaces, you’ll run into PUA stuff. Plus the PUAs post their stuff online as essays and on forums, which invites the kind of written engagement you see here. The bros just bro-out in their bro lives, or in bro-tastic media, which is usually simply ignored by the nerd set.
In my case, I do go to clubs. In fact, I went clubbing last night, and one of the places was a “mixed community” kind of thing, with the upstairs mostly gay and the downstairs a mix of gay-straight. Anyway, the dancing was better downstairs, and there were ample het-bros being bro-tastic toward the clusters of straight women on the dance floor. It seemed kinda gross to watch, and while this one cluster of women played along with this one gaggle of bros, I could tell that they weren’t so keen on them.
Maybe they later hooked up with a different set of bros. I didn’t stick around.
Actually, that’s very perceptive, and I would put myself in the latter category. While I’m weird and geeky and marginally autistic, I never accepted that I should not have a reasonably normal social life.
Which, I mean, it’s never quite been “normal” exactly, but I find ways to make it work. I love Johnstone’s *Impro*, and I think I am able to make that “status play” stuff work well enough.
But yeah, my “true self” is not unhappy and isolated, and for me, the effort to learn how to act sorta neurotypical has been worth it. I certainly will not begrudge others the effort.
That said, genuine status play involves the subtle use of countersignalling, and the “Captain Suave” guy is someone who does not get this. Which okay, you can say, “He’s practicing and how is he supposed to learn?”
Good question, but status is at its core about dominance and submission, and when Captain Suave approaches a woman, with his affected, unsubtle behaviors, he’s attempting to put himself dominant over her. If nothing else, he is trying to command her attention.
And this is out in the world, the “real game,” and she might be playing along, or she might be damn serious about stuff. He doesn’t know until he imposes himself on her. Don’t be surprised if he finds her counter-moves to be unpleasant.
In any case, I tried that shit in 11th grade, playing the big-bad dominant person to everyone. I lost all my friends. Which, no surprise. Since then I’ve found better tools.
One tool is this: confidence is the fuel for social stuff, and you can combine confidence with generosity and positive energy, and *that* will win you friends.
LikeLike
Pocketjacks:
I think you may be treating both “social interaction” and “public space” as more homogeneous than they really are. Different kinds of social interaction are acceptable in different kinds of public spaces. For example, approaching someone in a club is much more acceptable than approaching them on the street, though they’re both public spaces. But that doesn’t mean that all interaction on the street is forbidden, because presumably someone would be okay with being approached to be asked the time, or something minor like that. But if you reasonably expect someone to find your approach unwelcome and yet you still approach them, you can’t hide behind the fact that it’s a public space – this is why it’s okay to approach people in clubs but not on the street. And who you are matters for the same reason that location matters – people are more okay being approached by attractive socially adept people, so they can expect welcome interactions where others can’t.
LikeLike
@blacktrance,
You’re misunderstanding me. I reject the basic premises you and the Tumblrite you quoted are coming from. There is no such thing as an absolute right against unwanted interactions. Living life as a social person means having to stomach unwanted interactions. 99% of relationships, friendships, and networking contacts ever began because one person or the other did something that could have been uncomfortable for the other party, except it turned out it wasn’t.
It’s not a question of how the publicness of a venue modulates the right to only interact with those you find sexually attractive, because that right does not exist in the first place. I brought it up because when I say generally that humans are social creatures, there’s obviously an exception in the form of non-social spaces. Within social spaces, though, it’s to be expected that everyone will try to talk to everyone, and people will put out feelers for dates, hookups, friendships, or other potentially rewarding relationships. This is how the social world works, it’s how it’s always worked, and I certainly don’t support gutting it to accommodate a new right invented on Tumblr by agenda-pushers.
More generally, I’m skeptical that a general right against social discomfort exists – if it exists at all, it’s the lowest-tier, most limited and conditional right – because nearly every time it’s invoked, it’s to limit other people’s more obvious rights and freedoms. Often from a SJ angle, though as we see here, not exclusively. Take trigger warnings as an example. But at least the call for trigger warnings limit themselves to academic or moderated settings, so it’s not completely unworkable. This here is more akin to enforcing trigger warnings on everyday life and spontaneous everyday conversation.
@veronica,
The only thing I have to pick with your post is an overly broad interpretation of “bro” and “nerd”. I really don’t think self-described “bros” are solely or even mainly to blame for the superficiality and atmosphere of one-up-man-ship that often exists in the most heavily social environments. In my experience, this just naturally starts taking place once parties get above a certain size, and since parties and clubs self-segregate by subculture, this is true even where there are hardly any bros present.
You could argue that when an otherwise non-bro-seeming guy acts like this then he’s become an honorary bro for the moment and the word encompasses him too now, but that seems unsatisfactory and motte-and-bailey-ish.
I also really wouldn’t associate nerds with PUA. The only people I’ve heard in real life using PUA lingo I would definitely not classify as nerds, including the friend in high school who first introduced me to its existence. I recall mentioning in an earlier post a guy I knew in a frat who was sort of picked on by the other brothers and had a chip on the shoulder over it. Let’s call him Adam. Adam-types seem to me PUA’s base: guys who are part of traditionally masculine subculture, but tend to be low-status within it.
I agree; no one should have to accept that they should not have a reasonably normal social life if that’s what they want.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Addendum: it may just be the fact that I’ve been reading through the entire archives of Cliff Pervocracy, but why the Russian Spies Game? .Is talking about stuff so forbidden that we must resort to such antics?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s from Scott Alexander’s Fourth Meditation on Creepiness, which is on livejournal, and appear to have recently been made friends-only. However, the bit pertaining to the game is already quoted in a comment on Scott Aaronson’s Walter Lewin post (the one that also contains Comment 171, which blew up the fucking internet), and which I’ll re-quote here:
I like Nydwracu’s encapsulation of the in-my-view correct alternative, although he states that few people can get away with it (and I say, do it anyway, if you can’t get away with it with her, then she wasn’t worth your time anyway — fair disclosure, I am not always good at following my own advice): “I hear you like borscht. I am a Soviet spy.”
LikeLiked by 5 people
. . . and now I see that you asked “why,” not “what is.” Man, and I had such being-helpful warm fuzzies too.
As for “why,” though . . . I think some of it’s scrupulosity, some of it’s fear of social punishment, and some of it’s social anxiety/fear of rejection. The relative amount of each (as a fraction of “reasons for not taking the direct route”) varies from person to person from nothing to the entire explanation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Osberend, that’s like gaydar. That conversational dance was what gay life was like until the early oughties.. That’s’ what the closet is like, living as a hunted spy.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I think the problem is that most social interactions involve a lot of nonverbal communication. Nonverbal communication is really hard to describe on the internet.
So, an interaction that’s really, “Man sits near a woman. She sees him, but keeps an open posture. He moves slightly, preparing to speak. She turns her posture slightly, looking over her book with an expression of anticipation. He starts to speak.” Gets stylized as merely, “He said Hi”.
Change the body language very slightly, and the tone of the interaction could be completely different. (He sits. She turns her shoulders away. He starts to speak. She raises her book, feigning focus on the page. He starts to speak)
The problem is that people are generally writing advice for people who have trouble reading the non-verbal part of the conversation. The advice has to work — or at least be non-damaging — for people who are applying it even when the subtle communication is going badly.
This imposes a limit on how ‘far’ you can advise people to go. An explicit conversation about being interested in the person would be fine in some contexts. In a lot of other context, it would only come up after the person had ignored a whole bunch of “go away” signals.
The especially bad thing is that an overly explicit proposition requires an equally explicit denial. This removes any sort of plausible deniability and tends to make people really uncomfortable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
For what little it’s worth, I’ve been asked out by people I didn’t want to date, and the only real distress it caused me was worrying that I might accidentally hurt their feelings. If anything, I felt flattered/proud. (The same goes for the more unsubtle levels of the spy game.)
No idea how typical I am – anecdotaly, I think it’s more common for men to feel “flattered” someone would “offer” them sex, and women to feel offended that someone would “demand” sex “from” them – but still. Typical Mind Fallacy is a real pitfall to applying the Golden Rule sometimes.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Out of curiosity, how often do people who ask you out get upset or angry at you if you turn them down, or insist that you must date them despite your preferences? Because while I feel like I sort of intuitively recognize the difference in mentality you’ve described between an ‘offer’ of sex and a ‘demand,’ my attitude tends to change based on…well, whether the question sounds like an offer or a demand.
Occasionally, someone will hit on me, and it will be like : “By the way, I think you’re cute, in case you happen to feel like having sex with me.” “Sorry, I’m not really interested.” “Okay then.” And I have basically no negative feelings about these exchanges. They are flattering, when they happen. But much more often, as soon as I get as far as, “Sorry…” the person is like, “But whyyyyyyyyy?” Or they become suddenly incapable of understanding the word “no,” and just press on regardless. Or if I’m exceptionally lucky, they might outright insult me once they realize I’m not interested. And this situation I feel extremely negative about.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Honestly? I’m a coward, so I tend to avoid saying “no” point-blank.
Can’t recall anyone every getting angry, exactly, but a couple have seemed a bit … sad and desperate? In the nicest possible way, I mean.
Definitely gotten a few “but whyyyy?”-ers, some people who “press on regardless” a bit (but not to the point where they kept doing something sexual when I expressed my discomfort). Nobody has ever insulted me for turning them down.
But to be fair, I don’t get insulted or harassed that often regardless, especially by strangers. I’m lucky. (I’d imagine that’s at least in part because I happen to be a tall, reasonably fit man, and could potentially pop them one.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
… and I’m pretty fine with people being recklessly optimistic or “whyyy”-ing about their romantic chances with me! Those things are fine, at least for me. Dammit, forgot to make those clear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Same here. I’ve never felt bad because someone I didn’t want to date was interested in me. Like you, my primary concern was not hurting their feelings.
I have disliked it when some drunk women got too touchy-feely with me at parties, but thinking back that was more a function of the manner in which they did it, not the fact that they did it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think a part of this is also that ‘legitimate’ attraction to women in our patriarchy is a masculinity thing. So like, if you are a Good Man Provider, your interest is legitimate (and then if the woman won’t have sex with you she is treated as the one doing something wrong). If you are Very High Performance Man then your interest in lots of women is kind of like ‘this is the deviant thing we’d all like to do but can’t but you get to’ (see James Bond, particular kinds of rich men, etc).
But under this patriarchy model, trans women are effeminate men, disabled men cannot do either Providering or High Performance, so they do not have the masculinity to get access to this.
LikeLiked by 7 people
I never fail to be stunned how every female friend I’ve ever hit on – not a long list, but still – has been so incredibly more kind and respectful then these horrifying messages I have internalized.
Also, agree wrt feminism, but I feel like AMAB people can feel so hurt by it precisely because it logically promises inclusion and tolerance in theory, then snatches it away in practice.
I am also so sick of how *perverse* it is that I can discuss these things as a nonbinary trans person without actually being called ~entitled~ once, but that would have been sure to follow had I been just the same person but calling himself a cis dude with dude pronouns. I am MORE privileged then the men who are told to shut up and make women less uncomfortable – including binary trans women, and hell, partly in my name, too.
This – overwhelmingly widespread – feminism does not represent me, and I refuse to let it pull up the ladder behind me because I am a precious trans snowflake that must be protected from the delusional gross entitled dudes. And I also am often anxious that behind closed doors, even the binary trans feminists would thereby silently judge me as actually too male but deliberately dishonest, and misgender me…
LikeLiked by 6 people
I am also so sick of how *perverse* it is that I can discuss these things as a nonbinary trans person without actually being called ~entitled~ once, but that would have been sure to follow had I been just the same person but calling himself a cis dude with dude pronouns.
This feels rarely weird (and annoying) from the other side too.
[cw: possibly incoherent and/or irrelevant babbling about emotions and identity]
Like . . . I don’t have the greatest insight, and I might be completely wrong here, but I think I probably could identify as some sort of genderqueer or genderfluid[1] or something of that nature and be not entirely wrong. Not entirely right either, mind you, just . . . a legitimate way of making a call on an ambiguous situation.
That’s not how I identify, because it feels less right and more misleading than cis-by-default with qualifications. Even just saying “I’m a cis male” (which I generally do) seems like the best approximation available at that level of detail.
But it does something weird to my head, that I have trouble putting into words, to have SJWs (offline as well as online, though more rarely) giving me grief, and to know[2] that they’d — not give my ideas actual serious consideration, no, of course not, but at least . . . dial it back a bit — if I made that call the other way. It doesn’t make me want to do that, it just . . . I don’t know. It’s hard to get a handle on, but it’s clearly not good.
I hate signalling, and I hate norms that reward it, and even more so norms that punish its absence. I hate doubting my own motivations. I hate the fact that I am not sure, as I’m writing this, whether, if I post this, it will be because of the possibility that it will make some of the people here that I feel like evaluate my statements unfairly negatively stop doing that. I hate that I am not sure whether, if I don’t post this, it will be because I’m repulsed by the possibility that it will make someone, anyone, evaluate my statements unfairly positively/sympathetically. Completely apart from the (more important) question of what makes the most sense to me, I don’t want people to apply in-group biases or outgroup biases to what I say. I want people to judge what I say, independent of who’s saying it.
[1] Really, I think I’m wannabe sexfluid, but thats not really an option, you know?
[2] Or, at least, feel like I know. I recognize that substituting “entitled cismale” -> “entitled male-socialized, male-identified Fake Trans pervert” is a possibility here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is how I experience mainstream SJ and its attitude to my gender stuff.
First: http://tacticalnymphomania.tumblr.com/post/99257107868/subducting-slenderlock-its-not-fair-girls
Then: http://tacticalnymphomania.tumblr.com/post/100452428603/terezi-pie-rope-shamelesslyunladylike
And finally some AWESOME INCLUSIVITY: http://tacticalnymphomania.tumblr.com/post/91094684143
(I bookmarked that one person’s stuff at random because I felt like they are representative – but I’ve seen much, much worse, and often all in one original post or comment too.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
[cw:slurs, hostility to gender non-conformism, maybe social anxiety triggers?]
Man, the OP on that first one is amazing:
Any guesses as to whether she (and all the approving rebloggers) apply/ies the same standard when women talk about what they have to wear to work? Or how they can’t go out alone at night? Or how they “just have to put up with” various behaviors that they dislike?
I also love subducting’s reply:
Because women never call men whom they perceive as effeminate faggots. Nor do they ever call socially non-conforming men weirdos, creepers, or perverts. And absolutely none of them desexualize men in either of those categories, or respond to romantic interest from them with contemptuous amusement or hostility. Nope, it’s all those evil patriarchal men! (Never mind that the system of enforced gender roles in this country depends at least as much on female socialization as on male, and the latter is done mostly by other women. Shh!)
LikeLiked by 5 people
Also, seriously, does anyone actually use that argument “to try and prevent girls wearing trousers!?” It’s an argument about female “privilege” that’s used (usually alongside others) to counter claims about (unidirectional) “male privilege,” not an attack on girls in pants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A person on my dash has once replied to the “slay them” bit with the actual murder statistics for us. Which, uh, chilling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But yes, I personally do not want to wear an actual dress thing, but I agree with your more broad take on this!
I absolutely do experience the fear of “weirdo”, “pervert” and “undeserving” when I’m just stereotypically un-masculine & intimate with a girl – too emotional, too personal, too conspiciously affectionate, not stoic enough. Even when I’m not feeling heterosexual!
(A very special fuck you goes out to all the ~kink-positive~ AFAB feminists who erase the problem of how much AMAB people on the dominant/sadistic side get objectified and shamed and pigeonholed.)
My non-cisness and neurodivergence intersect in a way that neurotypical SJ seems to completely deny or even aggravate! I suffer plain ol’ ~transmisogyny~ from men – I’m actually rather wary of men IRL – but the kind of transphobia I feel as a burden when being heterosexual at girls is much more of the “creepy pervert gender-failing freak” sort.
This is part of why I am so invested in ~men’s~ issues – as much, or more, as described in the excellent “Pure Queers” post. Feminism has SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEMS talking about *gynosexuality* – and it *is* aimed at AMAB people, even though only this “collateral damage” type of complaint is currently ~respectable~ rather than derided as ~male entitlement~. I really want to speak out for the straight-ish cis-identified guys first! Because the avowedly and noticeably feminine folks like myself already do get some direct support… and some do sadly pull up the ladder behind them.
(See this FUCKING AMAZING post http://ughsocialjustice.com/post/110590892621/trans-community-middle-finger )
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jesus. Can I ask why you don’t stay off places like Tumblr entirely?
LikeLike
You think that’s bad? Try this compilation of response to a basically unobjectionable (genderswapped) post. [cw: appalling, through-the-roof hostile misandry on a lot of them]
LikeLike
Puns. Tons and tons of awesomely terrible puns.
LikeLike
Hahahaha wow… please, please save these links. People need to be reminded that these kinds of people exist.
Honestly, though, I had a hard time getting as upset about this as I did for what was said to multiheaded. They’re like cartoons.
LikeLike
I agree with everything here, except:
> If you legitimately aren’t attracted to fat women, then don’t fuck fat women. But lots of people aren’t attracted to redheads, and no one uses “a redhead expressed sexual attraction to me!” as a hilarious comedy setup, so I am pretty sure we can stop the latter without ending the former.
I… don’t think that’s true? It is my impression that “not attracted to redheads” is a much, much more minority opinion than “not attracted to fat people”, to the extent that I suspect a typical man would be shamed for turning down an otherwise attractive girl just because she was a redhead. It looks an awful lot like society categorizes all classes of people as either “you must be attracted to this person” or “you must not be attracted to this person”.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m not entirely sure what your objection is, here. There’s a difference between having a preference and desexualization, and it’s encapsulated in how redheads are treated vs. fat people. The problem is, desexualization is often defended as being a “preference”.
We can stop desexualization (fat people being sexual is inherently a punchline) without getting rid of the concept of preferences or forcing people to have sex with someone they don’t want to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I would like to be very clear here that while feminism is not exactly helping, this is not feminism’s fault. ”
God knows I’m no feminist, but I think feminism deserves credit for at least getting the conversation started. Feminism’s terminology has been the vehicle for this conversation and I don’t think it could have happened without it. I absolutely do not mean the terminology was developed for this purpose, and that’s where the disconnect comes in. Feminists have done quite a bit to demonize male sexuality – “testosterone poisoning”, “rape culture”, and the whole disgusting shit show around F>M rape. But that is anti-feminist, not feminist, even when feminists are engaging in it. This is just an aspect of traditionalism they haven’t thrown off, similar to the Pure Vessel white woman trope.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Goes for trans men, too, who have literally been tried for rape for not disclosing their trans status. We’re also total sleazeballs who strut into women’s spaces so we can get laid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pessimistic hypothesis that I do not actually endorse:
Most people would apply the eunuch/rapist hypothesis to anyone they’re not attracted to if they could get away with it. I can’t find it at the moment but there’s that old comment of Sarah’s (I think?) which suggests the mechanism that “I need to reject this person” + “I can’t reject someone who hasn’t done anything wrong” yields “This must be a bad person”. (I think I’ve seen other people suggest that as well, actually.) The “rapist” side is when this is actually invoked, the “eunuch” side is just all the background times when it’s not.
See also Anon’s comment above — the eunuch/rapist dichotomy being applied to groups is nothing other than that group generally being considered unattractive and people having common knowledge of such.
…on the other hand, this is also kind of an optimistic hypothesis, in that it suggests a target, namely, the incorrect statement “I can’t reject someone who hasn’t done anything wrong”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s common for people to be unattracted to trans women, so isn’t it therefore automatically a fetish? What definition of fetish are you using?
Fetishes aren’t necessarily bad things, of course.
LikeLike
I think what makes it a fetish or not a fetish is whether its the transness thatd making you attracted to them in the first olace.
Taje a cis person youre attracted to, make them trans. Are you MORE attracted to them? Or take a trans person youre attracted to, make them cis, are you less attraxted to them? If yes, its a fetish.
If you are attracted to someone and despite their transness/ their transness is irrelevant, then its not a fetish.
Amputees arent very common, so similar things woyld apply there. If you seek out amputess or ask someone out BECAUSE they’re an amputee, thats fetishizing. If youre dating someone and they happen to be an amputee, its not.
No comment on whether fetishizing is always/ ever bad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alright, this post is ten thousand years old, but I have to point out something that I noted about it: I don’t think the part about the dichotomy being inherently directed at men is correct. Rather, I think that the eunuch/rapist dichotomy is directed at EVERYBODY…….. with special exceptions for those who are both considered generally desirable and have generally acceptable desires.
You start off with an example about fat women, and I think that’s, anecdotally, where the “this is about men” thing breaks down. While many of the other categories of people are often classed with men by wider society, (trans women, wlw, and all neurodivergent people – though that is likely because people don’t tend to understand that women who have the kind of neurodivergences that get hit by the e/r dichotomy exist), fat women almost never are. I can’t think of a single situation, other than being considered “universally not attractive”, where fat women are classed with men.
Therefore, I don’t think this is necessarily a “thing directed at men” problem, but rather, a “there is a small group of people NOT affected by this, and that group is made up of disproportionately women, because the standard of conventional attractiveness to enter the good group is higher for men, because men are considered inherently less attractive.”
Now, there is a second aspect to this – the consequences for getting hit with “rapist” are much worse for some groups, men included. Heterosexual cis fat women, of all groups discussed, probably have the least to fear from getting hit with “rapist,” black men and all trans women probably have the most to fear, and nerdy, non-black, cis men fall somewhere in the middle. But consequences are not the same as who the dichotomy affects.
LikeLiked by 1 person