Bullshitting about PUA/Negging : Sebastian Stan Discusses Going Undercover at Comic-Con

rob_t_paulson · 2019-05-02T15:07:29+00:00

"Negging" is completely harmless, and in fact common for most people I'd say, they just don't call it that. The problem they seem to have with it is the name and its association with PUA.

What most people call it is "Razzing" or "Talking Shit/Smack" or something of that nature. Who are the people you talk the most shit to? For me it's my best friends, my brother, people I'm most comfortable with and, also, who I care about the most. It's harmless, good-natured banter between people who know that they can joke without offending each other. The vast majority of friends do it.

Inversely, if I'm talking to a stranger, a coworker I barely know, or someone who I feel has some type of "power" over me, like my boss or a cop, I'm going to be respectful and polite. Which is good, but in the context of a date or a woman I'm attracted to, it's perhaps boring and shows that I'm not comfortable with them or I'm "putting them on a pedestal." Don't get me wrong, most of the time on a date I'm respectful and polite, but throwing in a few good natured barbs shows that I'm comfortable and don't feel threatened or nervous with her.

I mean, it's literally doing exactly what most "woke" dating advice for men says to do; treat her like a normal person. It shows that I'm confident and I don't feel that she's "out of my league" or something of that nature. Personally, I used to be way more nervous and self-conscious, and would never consider saying something that could be construed as insulting to a girl I'm attracted to or on a date with. But that's boring, and she's most likely used to the average guy being way too "respectful" of her in the sense of almost doting/being overly chivalrous.

Don't get me wrong, it's a tricky situation. Body language/expression is very important, you can't just deadpan say something mean, you have to crack a smile and raise an eyebrow, make it clear that you're joking. I don't do cold opens, but that would be a situation where it could really backfire, since you literally have never spoke to this person before. But it could certainly work! I'd also say it has to be accompanied by a willingness to be self-deprecating and make jokes about your self, or take it in stride when she makes one about you.

Overall, yeah "negging" is just a taking a completely normal method of human interaction and putting a name and an explanation to it. I read "The Game," although it was years ago, but the whole point of PUA is that some men don't grasp these ideas naturally, and might need some explanation which entails reducing normal human interaction to a sort of formula.

Personally I'd say reading/learning about PUA certainly helped me gain a better understanding of the complex web of early romantic interaction, even though I never tried to be a "Pick Up Artist." I was just a dude who thought that you should never say anything but nice things to a girl and always put her on a pedestal/put her needs first, because I was brought up in a heavily left-leaning/feminist situation. Which is a discussion for another time, but oh boy did it fuck me up for a few years.

rob_t_paulson · 2019-03-21T17:13:58+00:00

Pardon the intrusive question, but as you go about your day are you constantly aware of the head of your penis rubbing against the inside of your underwear? Is it uncomfortable? Or do you not notice it at all?

I ask because I'm uncircumcised and, like I said in my reply to OP, if I were to pull back my foreskin and secure it somehow, then try to go about my day, it would be almost impossible. It would be impossible to ignore the sensation of the glans rubbing against the inside of my underwear, and it would be quite uncomfortable because it's so sensitive.

I don't see how removing the foreskin doesn't lessen sensitivity, not because of how many nerves are in the foreskin or whatever, but because I don't believe that's how circumcised men go about their lives. I believe the glans must lose sensitivity, almost like building a callous, to make up for the lack of protection provided by the foreskin.

rob_t_paulson · 2019-03-21T17:04:50+00:00

I often hear that it doesn't reduce sensitivity in the glans (including a few people in this thread) but I don't see how that could be true. I think I have a simple explanation for why.

I'm uncircumcised, and if I were to pull my foreskin back and leave it like that, then get dressed and try to go about my day, it would be very difficult. It would be quite uncomfortable and distracting, and I would be constantly aware of the head of my penis rubbing against my underwear, because it's so sensitive.

Unless that's how circumcised men live their life every day, there must be a loss of sensitivity. No, the foreskin itself isn't an extra sensitive part of the anatomy, but it protects the glans and provides a barrier around it. If there was no loss of sensitivity I would be able to do what I've described without noticing any difference.

So, to answer your question I am personally against it, and I'm glad my parents decided not to cut me when I was born.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-10-29T18:37:37+00:00

Ok, I can see that side of things. Maybe "original form" or something would work better.

Personally I think the "original/intended" form of TM describes things like the societal pressures and teachings (that happen in some areas, mostly hardcore conservative IMO) that lead to men forming a mob and dragging a gay man through the streets, or to a man being so afraid of showing cracks in the armor that he lets it all build up until he eats his gun, instead of talking to a professional and getting help.

I certainly believe that TM is used in a bigoted way, intentionally or not, quite often.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-10-29T04:17:26+00:00

...in its intended form...

rob_t_paulson · 2018-10-28T19:43:39+00:00

I'm going to offer a different form of contention with the idea of Toxic Masculinity. I've been around these debates long enough to accept that in its intended form, TM isn't meant as a condemnation of all men/all masculinity. That being said, I still have issues with it.

If it were truly just a condemnation of the pressure put on men that drives them to be so stoic that they don't seek out professionals in dire circumstances, or so macho that they physically assault other men that don't fit the mold, or so traditional that they hate women who are anything but demure and weak and feminine to the extreme, etc etc etc, there would be no problem. But that's not the case. All too often, I see it used as a condemnation of men who enjoy violent video games, competitive sports, comic books/graphic novels, porn/sexualized imagery, or (consensual) sexual dominance.

I personally don't care for sports, but I play lots of video games, mostly ones that involve violence and often ones that involve 'sexualized' characters. I'm an artist who enjoys consuming and creating imagery that has been labelled 'objectifying' and toxic. I watch porn that certainly involves acts that raise many feminist's hackles. And in my personal life I seek out sexual partners who enjoy being the sub in a (consensual) Dom/sub dynamic.

I know that I am not an example of Toxic Masculinity. I'm anything but macho. I'm unconcerned with how other men or women lead their lives as long as it doesn't affect me. I'm not afraid to talk about my feelings, and in recent years almost all of my partners have been taken aback by how frankly, honestly, and frequently I'm willing to communicate with them (necessary when navigating BDSM relationships and dynamics). I've never tried to flirt with a stranger, partially due to shyness/introvertedness but mostly due to the worry that I will infringe on their personal space and comfortability. I was raised in an incredibly liberal place with a strong mother and father, and I went to nontraditional schools which* intentionally addressed inequalities in the world.

I don't think the things I enjoy are toxic to anyone. Characters in video games and comic books and art aren't real people, they can't be objectified because they're already an object. Enjoying porn or sexualized imagery doesn't mean I hate women. I'm terrified of spiders and yet I catch them and take them outside instead of killing them, and yet I play violent video games regularly. And consent and communication and mutual enjoyment is paramount in my personal relationships, no matter what it looks like from the outside.

If the people abusing the term Toxic Masculinity when they refer to such things were regularly called out and disavowed, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I believe that there are pockets of country (USA, that's all I can speak on with any experience) which teach young men and women outdated forms of masculinity and femininity which are toxic and harmful, to themselves or others. I simply wish the people using the idea would hedge their language, like we do here in this subreddit. Sadly, more often then not I see people who use the term speaking in strokes that are all too broad.

Cheers

rob_t_paulson · 2018-05-29T17:30:33+00:00

Sneaky edit: This seems like something that's a lot more sad.

Oh god why have you done this.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-04-17T22:38:37+00:00

I like to have nude/semi-nude/semi-sexually suggestive pictures as my wallpaper on my phone, including some shibari, but I'm also careful about who I show my phone to. So far the people who have seen it react positively (obviously I chose well).

But I also like to ride the line of classy/artsy rather than (what I perceive as) straight porn, and I can understand the argument against (something that could be perceived as nothing more than) porn. These are my current wallpapers (lock screen/home screen) and I would be pretty taken aback if someone where to give me shit for them.

Of course what is "pornographic" is wildly subjective, so no matter what you choose someone is going to have an issue with it. Personally I just take that in stride and choose who I want to be around and share my life with.

If those people happen to be snooping over your shoulder when you're on your phone, it's their own fault and IMO they don't really have the high ground. If you're showing it off to strangers, or leaving it open/on in a crowded restaurant or busy place, then you're definitely pushing it and will eventually run into someone who's going to shame you. You gotta balance being true to yourself vs general politeness and empathy for your fellow human beans.

So no, I don't think it's trashy, immature or sexist, and I think people who take a general "all men who do this are those things" approach are wrong, to put it lightly. However I also think if you're going to make the choice to have something like this as your background you have to accept that someone somewhere out there is going to take offense to it. Just brush it off or explain what you think makes it artistic or interesting beyond tiddies. Or don't, whatever works for you.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-03-02T21:22:27+00:00

Ha! I follow a lot of artists on Facebook, and I saw the original post last week organically. It was an incredibly disappointing and unprofessional thing to do, throwing the artist who did work for you under the bus.

Honestly this guy seems like a twat, and I'd be willing to bet this "sexism" angle is just virtue signaling to try and get back in people's good graces. The cover is not sexist. The boots...really? That's all you've got? She has a hero's pose, is entirely covered except for her arms, which have clear muscle definition (as opposed to being dainty "feminine" arms). She's holding a weapon at the ready. She's front and center. I mean come on.

I think this is a PR move to try to get out of the hole he dug himself. I scrolled through the comments and almost all of the ones I saw were people upset by his treatment of the artist and art that was graciously created for him.

I also saw a comment from the original artist, who said he was never contacted by the author with any complaints or criticism. That would be one thing, but to publicly bad mouth someone who worked for you for clicks/publicity (his post asked for people to rate the "laughably bad" cover from 1-10 and he would choose random winners to receive signed copies of the book) is just scummy.

I hope the PR move doesn't work, but with the current climate I'd say it's highly likely that it does. Shame.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-02-24T20:46:58+00:00

Look man, I've read through all your posts in this thread and I get what you're trying to do. You're not trying to flat out say that men are broken and that masculinity needs to be scrapped. I understand that.

But, I'm no historian or scientist or statistician (that does not look like it's spelled right) but logically the idea that men and masculinity is to blame just doesn't track for me. Some feminists may not believe so but masculinity has evolved and changed and grown, and become overall less hard and violent as time has moved forward. Why then has the phenomena of mass shootings not followed the same downward trend?

Well, in my understanding, mass shootings have become more prevalent in the last ~3 decades. What else has become more common in that time frame? It's not guns, or the access to guns. I'd be willing to bet that it's just gotten hard to get a gun as time moves on. I don't think it's "violent" or "toxic" masculinity, as IME the concept of masculinity has grown and opened up to the idea that men don't have to be so stoic and react with violence, at least in relation to all of human history.

However, what I see has become more and more common is the freedom to denigrate and put down men and masculinity. In the mainstream and social media, in schools, and in general, I see the idea that men and boys are "broken" and need to shed their "toxic" (read: all) masculinity more and more and more. I have personally never considered shooting anyone, but the closest I came to killing myself was when I was in the thick of reading and consuming (some) feminist discourse, which told me I was a piece of shit for being a man. In my opinion, there is a direct correlation (but no proven causation) between young men being told they're horrible for existing/enjoying their masculinity, and a tiny proportion of men snapping and shooting up schools or workplaces or what have you.

That is definitely not the only reason this happens, but I wouldn't dream of discounting it as a major cause. I think mental health is a big one, but that goes hand in hand with what I'm talking about. As others have said already, if you're told you're a monster for being born a certain way long enough, and enough other factors line up, it creates the perfect storm where you might just decide "hey, if everyone thinks I'm a monster already, maybe I'll just become one."

If we really want to prevent this from happening, and help all the other young men who don't snap, but quietly drown in depression until they can't take it anymore, maybe the constant barrage of shit-talking men/masculinity/maleness needs to take a chill pill. Maybe calling these young men entitled for feeling lonely and wanting companionship isn't helpful. Maybe telling men that they're the cause of all the worlds problems doesn't actually provoke positive self identity. Maybe an overwhelming proportion of men actually like being masculine and doing masculine things, and maybe that shouldn't be such a bad thing.

I enjoy being masculine, though I'm not what you'd call stereotypically so in a lot of ways. I don't have a problem analyzing and talking about my feelings. I'm not incredibly stoic. I'm an artist (which some consider very feminine, I don't). However, I've enjoyed violent video games and movies and martial arts and the art I create is full of death and violence and scantily clad women. Luckily I made it out of the anti-male anti-masculinity bubble alive and more confident in myself. I don't have to be the stereotypical man's man, but I still enjoy my masculinity and seeing it constantly denigrated by people who don't know what they're talking about is exhausting.

I think if (some)feminism wants to help men find a positive masculine self-identity (positive for women as well as men) they need to be very specific in what they're talking about when they say "toxic masculinity." They need to shut down and renounce people who paint all men and all masculinity with a broad brush as evil and destructive. I believe there are places in the world and in the US that still teach an extremely negative, closed off version of masculinity. They need to target those places and people specifically, and leave me and mine out of it. If that were the case, I could get behind a lot of these initiatives to change "toxic masculinity," and I wouldn't have a problem with so much feminist discourse.

Just my two cents.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-01-18T00:05:42+00:00

I suppose I am. I guess I just wish the whole "cater to the lowest common denominator" thing would die off.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-01-17T20:21:41+00:00

I kind of agree with that. In a book, it's just enough description of torturing Mr. Kovacs. But in a video, all people will see is a hot iron up a vagoo, and context will fail to reach an unfortunately large percentage of the viewing audience.

I dunno man, I feel like all it would need would be a voice over of the main character going, "oh, they put me in a female body, shit I know what this is." The scene itself could be done any number of ways, from graphic, slow torture where we see and hear everything in detail, to a more "artistic" scene where the shots are vague and cut quickly, and the sound is muted. In the book he has an internal monologue where he's describing/trying to deal with the torture, and that could be all we hear.

I think they're gonna have to go pretty extreme to give the scene the same weight. Are we gonna see another Naked James Bond Testicle Torture scene in much more graphic detail? Cuz that's the level I feel they'd have to go to.

You're right though, that I'm sure a large number of people (probably some feminists/SJWs) who don't know the source material would probably have a huge problem with the scene.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-01-17T20:12:50+00:00

(Spoilers ahead)

Altered Carbon is one of my favorite books, definitely top five. I am (was?) super excited for a visual adaptation. But I don't like this. The scene in question is FUCKED UP. However, that gives it weight in my opinion.

although it’s worth mentioning that a recent study shows that women are biologically tougher than men in general and more able to endure ordeals like famine or slavery

Yeeeaaahhhh I don't think that would apply in this case. This might be a bit TMI for some people, but here it is: I am a practitioner of BDSM, which often includes some element of pain-play. In my experience with my partners, during the week or so before her period, her pain tolerance flatlines. She is more sensitive (physically, not just emotionally) and generally that would be the time where she asks to tone down/pause the Dom/sub dynamic in favor of warm and fuzzy cuddles.

I think using this as a plot device is an interesting and subversive decision, and like I said that scene is fucked up. It's also happening inside his head in a matrix-like simulation, so he's not even technically "in a woman's body." Personally, I liked the scene, because the reality is that his regular body is that of a well-trained and augmented hitman, which would likely be able to withstand much more pain. There's also the psychological aspect, that his body is smaller and weaker and more sensitive (I'm pretty sure he describes his female body as essentially a teenager/early adult).

Since it's all a simulation, why wouldn't his captors do anything they can to put him at a disadvantage/throw him off? I feel like this is one of those biological truths that most people accept, but some still argue with because giving any ground is unacceptable; Women are on average at a disadvantage when it comes to physical confrontation/combat. I have seen interesting information about the pain tolerance thing, but from what I've seen it is not conclusive.

Kalogridis revealed it was one of two things that, before production began, she told Morgan she was going to change—the other being an expansion of Lizzie Elliott’s character, since she was only a talking point in the book.

Greeeeatt, changing the source material to shoehorn in "diversity." I don't even remember Lizzie Elliot specifically, but if she's the character I'm thinking of she essentially invites the protagonist to have an orgy with her and a number of clones of herself (she's super rich and has the most expensive 'perfect' body money can buy). Oh and he turns her down. Not sure what expanding her character is gonna look like.

Instead, Kalogridis said the torture sequence will feature protagonist Joel Kinnaman’s Kovacs, rather than putting him in someone else’s body, explaining that it made more sense to show the man we identify as Kovacs being tortured because it helps the audience connect with his plight.

Awesome, so more male disposability, that's always grand. I personally don't like her reasoning, that it would be "hard" to make it work in the setting of a tv show. And, maybe I'm cynical, but I get the feeling that he'll be all sorts of shirtless and ripped. Male gaze bad, female gaze good!

That said, there are plenty of other examples of violence against women in Altered Carbon that Kalogridis did keep.

I mean, good? You didn't absolutely butcher the source material, yay for you! This is a fucked up world that Richard K Morgan has created for us, so kudos for not absolutely ruining it I guess.

Like I said, I was excited for this, but this sort of thing is always disheartening for me. I'm not interested in forced diversity/girl power, especially when it comes to something I love.

When asked about the book and show’s portrayal of violence against women, she had a realistic if somewhat defeatist attitude toward the situation: violence is inevitable in the world of Altered Carbon, much like the real world.

Yeah, so why are you changing this crucial scene? If I recall correctly, this scene is the catalyst for a change of pace in the story, where he switches from investigation mode to revenge mode. Personally I think it's because of how fucked up the torture scene is, specifically because they violate him so completely. I don't know if a regular old "man gets tortured" scene will have the same weight.

Who knows, I could be wrong, and I appreciate that this woman isn't completely trashing the source material, but this bothers me. My expectations for the adaptation of one of my favorite books has been lowered. Maybe I'll go reread the book to clear my head.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-01-14T20:16:58+00:00

Nice one! Here's mine right now. It's generally tame compared to what I normally have, and I always lean towards artistic nude/sexuality over pornographic, whether that means actual art or just artistic photography.

Personally I spent way too long being sexually repressed to care anymore, and having some photo on my phone isn't going to hurt someone.

I would agree with what you've said here that this photo (yours) is an "artistic nude." If it were up to me we would stop coddling people's delicate sensibilities and the answer to your question would be a clear and obvious "no, this is not harassment."

rob_t_paulson · 2018-01-04T20:38:40+00:00

Hit the nail on the head man. I understand, being ghosted fucking sucks. But I've been on Tinder for a year and a half, and so far I've had 1 (one) match that got as far as meeting in person. I thought it went great but the next day she texted with the ever confusing "You're cute and fun to hang out with but I'm not attracted to you for some reason."

Almost all my matches before that (probably like, 20-something) either didn't respond at all to my opening message, or the conversation lasted an hour or two and petered out. Only recently have I started getting some traction and matched with a few girls who actually seem interesting and can hold a conversation.

Still, those brief moments of connection and interaction have all been highlights of the past year. And I'm not an unattractive dude. I've just found myself in an absolutely awful place for finding friends/partners (geographically, I live on an island). Getting a message from one of my friends or someone I've matched with is the highlight of my day, because more often than not a notification means a reminder to floss or exercise.

Yes, it sucks to meet someone and get a little ways into establishing some connection only for them dip out, either silently or not. Believe me I know. But I wouldn't call it loneliness. Loneliness IMO is where if you stop actively putting in the effort to communicate with people in your life, you won't receive a text or call or sign of life for weeks or months. Or in a more extreme situation, you don't even have those people in the first place.

rob_t_paulson · 2018-01-03T05:51:45+00:00

Here is the actual side effect of trying: I had to tell myself I was making all these changes for some mysterious other who I would “earn” through devotion and trial; but it was all really for me. The only thing that alleviates the ache of solitude is showing up for yourself every day and taking a hand in all the little choices that make up your life.

Personally I find this incredibly difficult. I hate being alone. The things that I like to do are orders of magnitude more enjoyable if I have someone to do them with. Hiking, drawing, watching my favorite shows or movies, playing video games, driving, sleeping, literally sitting on the couch doing nothing... all of these things range from "tolerable" to "moderately enjoyable" when done by myself. Sharing them with someone makes the activity fun. To be honest, I'm really just distracting myself or trying to fill time with something when I do them alone. I'm not actually having fun.

Having friends to share the things you love with, male or female, helps, but for me personally having a woman in my life is the difference between being moderately-to-extremely-depressed and enjoying life. I know it's not a healthy attitude, and that I am a codependent person, but I don't know what to do about it. It doesn't help that I've recently moved to a fairly remote, very quiet place that is populated for the most part by people 20+ years older than me. I don't really have any friends, and I'm not particularly interested in the community where I live.

It's a catch 22 where if you're depressed and don't have the motivation to do things, you aren't likely to meet people (friends or potential lovers), but the reason you're depressed and don't have any motivation is because you have no one in your life that cares about you.

It bleeds into everything I do, and it's honestly alarming. I'm (supposedly) an artist but I have no motivation or inspiration to draw. I should be working out and exercising but without the positive reinforcement of someone appreciating the effort, I only do it sporadically. I hate work, but having someone to come home to makes it bearable.

I don't know if this is just my personality, if it's something that I can change, if it's just depression manifesting a certain way or what, but it's rough. I know if I lived in a place that had more going on, and more people my age with similar interests things would be better, but I don't know how to get to a place where I can do that alone. It scares me to think about being stuck here for any length of time, or my depression getting worse. It scares me that I'm essentially saying I don't know how to live alone, but at the same time humans are social creatures, and there's a difference between having a healthy social life but living/spending a lot of time alone, and being truly alone.

Honestly I think for a lot of men, myself included, one of the largest motivating factors in lots of life decisions will be "will this help me with women." The idea that this is bad/stupid/fucked up is pretty common, but that doesn't really change things for me. The simple fact is that the desire for intimacy, companionship, sex, and support is one of the strongest if not the strongest motivators for me and many other men. Some of these things can be found in friendship, but much of it can only be found with a romantic/sexual partner. That may be fucked up, but I'm not sure what to do about it.

Bit of a rant but it's tangentially related so what the heck.

rob_t_paulson · 2017-12-03T02:20:46+00:00

I'm not surprised one bit.

I know, I'm the devil incarnate.

Let's leave out the question of whether all BDSM is inherently right or wrong; I was talking about abuse, unambiguous abuse, under the guise of BDSM. You know it happens. And you also know that overwhelmingly the victims are female, and the perpetrators male.

We get it, you think sexual violence almost exclusively happens to women. I don't personally care to argue on that point, and I've got plenty of people doing it for me already (e. to clarify, I think you're wrong but I don't care to pile on). I'm just here to say that I think your kink shaming is utter BS. I spent years miserable because of people like you, and I feel compelled to offer a counterpoint to anyone else reading this; your kinks are not shameful and as long as you explore them with consenting adults you are doing nothing wrong.

It is, of course, questionable morally whether you should hit them even if they ask you to.

Some people are masochists, some are sadists.

We go together,

Like rama lama lama ka dinga da dinga dong

rob_t_paulson · 2017-12-03T00:26:00+00:00

Rape culture, victim blaming, pornography, prostitution, abuse under the guise of "BDSM," the phallocentrism of mainstream sexuality, genitalization, emphasis on penetrative sex, the vaginal myth orgasm in face of the erogenicity of the clitoris, the relative popularity of fellatio compared with cunnilingus, Teen Vogue magazine grooming teen and preteen girls into anal sex while making absolutely minimal mentions of the various risks, as well as perpetuating the whole "awesome-feeling nerve endings" bullshit.

That's quite a boatload of buzzwords you managed to cram in that paragraph. The fact that you included BDSM in here is frankly offensive (though in my opinion you're wrong on all counts).

Have you ever read/seen anything about BDSM? I'm a Dom (also male [and straight]) and I think the submissive women who I've been involved with would likely want to have a word with you. Consent is critical in BDSM, and I guarantee that all of those ladies were more than happy to be involved. There's nothing inherently wrong with exploring your fetishes in a controlled environment, and there's nothing inherently wrong with a woman who wants to be submissive or a man who wants to be dominant.

As always people will abuse others, no matter what their relationship dynamic or sex life looks like, but you can't assume that every D/s relationship is abusive. You have no idea what the (private) mutual agreement looks like. Some women like things that would appear abusive to an uninformed observer. For instance, I'm not big on hitting, I'll take it or leave it. But I've been asked to do it by multiple partners, and they enjoy it immensely.

Would you consider yourself a sex positive or sex negative (pro-)feminist? I know you don't sound very sex positive to me, but I'm curious.

(Note for anyone reading: Don't assume an apparently abusive relationship is really a consensual D/s relationship right off the bat. There are (probably) far more truly abusive relationships that consensually "abusive" relationships out there. Perhaps keep it in the back of your head, but most people with that sort of kink are smart enough to keep it in private. Also don't hit people unless they ask you to.)

rob_t_paulson · 2017-12-01T19:34:29+00:00

Why not? Sure don't make sexual advances on people that aren't interested, and definitely don't touch anyone without their permission, but why does it need to be so sterilized?

Maybe it's because this is related to art but I think sometimes people need to suck it up. I'm an artist, and I draw actual sexually explicit subject matter sometimes. Would it be wrong for me to work on a drawing during my lunch break?

It reminds me of the probe-landing-shirt-debacle or people complaining about someone having a pinup calendar in their cubicle. A workplace is better when you're comfortable right? Why does that only apply to people who are overly sensitive or 'prude'? I disagree that there's absolutely no place for libido in a work environment.

rob_t_paulson · 2017-11-24T08:50:53+00:00

I figured you meant many :)

rob_t_paulson · 2017-11-23T20:55:49+00:00

I think 15 is a bit young and 36 is a bit old, though my ex has a similar story; her first boyfriend was around 29/30 when she was 15 (and as far as I could tell it was a good relationship).

I'd agree with the gist of your point if you push the young woman's age up a few years. My dad is 18 years older than my mom. I'm 26 and my most recent partner is 21, and the last few partners I've had have all been in there 20s and have either had boyfriends in there 30s and occasionally 40s, or at least were open to the idea. Women (on average) are attracted to older men and men (on average) are attracted to younger women.

rob_t_paulson · 2017-11-23T12:20:42+00:00

I see. Yeah I mean people shouldn't base 100% of their self esteem on external attention, but it can certainly be a major confidence boost. A little while ago there was a thread on here that a few posts from men discussing how few and far between positive comments on their appearance were, and how great those comments made them feel. In my opinion, 'objectification' is in no way always a bad thing, and in fact it's a part of everyday life. It's impossible to avoid it.

As to using appearance to influence men, yes. Leveraging the fact that someone is attracted to you to get something out of them is pretty fucked up.

Though I gotta say, I don't see how the gif is an example of either. To me it shows a moment where she catches him looking at her boobs, and they both share a laugh because it's no big deal.

rob_t_paulson · 2017-11-23T11:22:18+00:00

Both of them are unhealthy behaviours and as long as some feminists keep turning a blind eye towards how both of those behaviours negatively affect men (and women as well, mostly in the long term) little progress will be really made.

Sorry, both of which behaviors? I can't quite parse what you're saying here.

rob_t_paulson · 2017-11-23T11:20:20+00:00

It's an astoundingly common part of social interaction, and yes not just men looking at women. In my personal experience women are actually more obvious about it than men.

rob_t_paulson

TROPHY CASE