Permanently Deleted
You're not going to get rid of the concept of physical beauty. It's ok to be attracted to certain body types or whatever, as long as you recognise these aren't objective things, and that socialisation has warped your "natural" inclinations to some degree.
As a woman (and speaking only for myself), I don't want to be seen as just an object. I also don't want to be seen as a bodyless mind, floating in a cognitive, sexless void.
My body and how I present it is part of me, a sexual object is a facet of who I am and sometimes, in specific circumstances, what I want to be seen as. But it's never what I only want to be seen as.
Basically, don't be a shithead, be clear about your own preferences, and remember there's a person behind the attractive presentation you're casting a sidelong glance at, a person who has chosen that presentation for reasons that most of the time have nothing to do with you.
tl:dr, Boobies are hot, remember there's a person attached.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
That you're generally only seen by others as an industrial object in physical reality and want to be seen as both a person and an object of attraction (which is probably not true even in US hellworld, people anthropomorphise or sexualise other people accidentally all the time, crossing the street, at the counter, etc. Only through the constant watchfulness of the Volcel Police does society remain from falling into an abyss of consensual humanistic horniness!)
Or that your conception of yourself is as a mental entity with no attachment to the physical (in which case super cool, you do what makes you happy! Not everyone has as visceral an attachment to physicality as I do.)
Or that you wish others saw you as a pure creature of mind (Which, if you do, they should. They're probably not going to because of the above chronic horniness, but they should try.)
An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".[1] It is generally considered to be a bad argument because the implicit (unstated) primary premise "What is natural is good" is typically irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact. In some philosophical frameworks where natural and good are clearly defined within a specific context, the appeal to nature might be valid and cogent.
Appeal to nature is a well trod logical fallacy. You would have to answer the question "Why would attraction being more natural make it better?"
For that matter, how are you even measuring better or worse?
And those are more useful lines of inquiry that can lead you to an interrogation of phenomenon like hyper-sexualization and the commodification of sex and aesthetics under capitalism. But those things aren't bad because of where they exist on a scale from natural-unnatural, those things are bad because of the harm that they manifest for the people that experience those things.
it is 12:51AM CDT and by God I am linking the Xenofeminist Manifesto
Not OP, dont think there's a way to completely uncondition yourself and become 100% "natural". We're at our core cultural and therefore socialized. To unravel that completely is to dehumanize yourself, if that makes sense.
I think the most we can hope for is to find the problematic preferences that are underpinned by sexism, racism, and different "body phobias" and try and move past them as best we can
Hence the quote brackets. Natural is of course itself an artificial category. Nothing unnatural exists.
What I'm saying is that we've been socialised, and some of that has fucked us up. But it's also part of who we are, and if it isn't causing us distress or hurting others materially, a few problematic kinks or social attitudes floating around your head are not that bad.
For instance, do I like pretty dresses because they're beautiful and I like them and their aesthetic inherently? Or because I grew up exposed to an endless barrage of Disney Princesses and other exhortations to femininity? Fucked if I know, but the latter probably had its effect.
I'm not sure what everyone else's motivations behind their advice are here, but every comment I've made on your threads HP has been made with the goal of helping you worry less about all this stuff, even though I know it's not as easy as just removing yourself from the matrix of gender, sexuality, power, and desire. There is probably not a Hugh Hefner hiding inside of you. As you are, I think your instincts about how to actually treat people with respect are better than you might think, and you pose a greater threat to yourself than to anyone else.
Yeah maybe you got a whole bunch of psychosexual hangups and fetishes from decades of pop media and porn and being hurt or helped by various adults in positions of authority, and maybe You Too Have A Libidinous Impulse, you poor bastard. You're not going to will or worry that stuff away. The only way these dialectics are gonna get resolved is through real world application. Beauty is in the sheets. Love not with fear, but with care.
Whatever it is, yes it is. I'm not 100% sure to what extent you mean that, like, even if it's really really specific then that's just a fetish, and many people have those.
Situation matters, but people want to be sexualized sometimes (bar, club, etc.) and people who are visibly disabled or describe themselves as unattractive often talk about how they wish they were sexualized, AKA seen as people with sexual capacity
Bud here is a trick. Instead of trying to read social context, just explicitly ask. Asking "Hey, I think you're pretty/cute/other non-threatening compliment and I'd like to be a little flirty, does that appeal?" And then negotiating how they want to be flirted with-or the same format for every other sexual interaction-
Is a million times sexier than being able to pick up social cues, because it is demonstrating "this is how I would treat you in other contexts"(eyebrow waggle)
I find that a lot of "default" dating practices rely on assuming people can just read prospective partners minds. No one can do that, unless they're really close, so don't try. It is an unreasonable standard.
I might be biased though. I'm gay but a guy tried this on me and it was the first time I was flattered by a dude, and we became friends afterward.
My DMs are open if you ever want to expand your horizons again, just sayin
sigh also cant offend the volcel police amirite
(offer still stands under the table lol)
I get they’re separate. I care about them as separate issues.
It’s important in that we need to reject it. I’m not engaging with your horny shit
any response to this post which isn't, log off and go outside, is wrong.
For some reason people on the internet like very much to come up with lots and lots of complicated rules and half baked "theoretical" justifications for what is good and normal and what isn't, and it gets very weird. Another thing that people do is examine how some pretty fundamental aspect of social interactions came to be the way it is, find something in that process problematic, and decide that it's immoral to do it. Beauty standards is one of those things, yeah, maybe they are problematic and all, but if that's what someone finds attractive, that's normal and cool and it really doesn't matter so much, it is what it is. In 30 years hopefully society will be better. That you try to make it better is all that matters, not what you are attracted to.
It's not bad to be attracted to stuff. And you really shouldn't worry that the way you are attracted to people is "shallow" or "objectifying". It probably only makes everything worse. Now if every time you see a woman that's all you think, that may be a little bit of an issue but you're not gonna fix it just by worrying, neither are Internet weirdos gonna fix it for you. It may just be alienation, repression, lack of sexual contact, etc. But you really really shouldn't hate your attraction to women, that's not where the problem may lie, if there is a problem.
What is annoying to many people sometimes is when dudes are constantly outwardly horny. Like, you see a woman, right? And you think she looks pretty hot. Maybe keep it to yourself if you don't think it will be welcomed. Beyond that it's fiiiine. Don't worry about it. Unless it's so much that it seeps into all your relationships with people and makes you incapable of seeing women any other way. Then it's something you have to work out, but you're not gonna work it out by just blanket hating your attraction, which, again, is super normal and OK. In fact the problem may start and end with you just thinking and worrying about this too much.
For real you might be spending too much time in weird parts of the Internet. That or you had some kind of repressed upbringing if you've ended up hating your sexual attraction. If it's the first maybe you shouldn't pay so much attention to it any more because it is damaging you.
For real you might be spending too much time in weird parts of the Internet.
if by weird parts of the internet, you mean this site, where woke fatwahs are issued if you ironically mention AOC's feet, then yes.
-
Yes
-
They're right to shout at you for obsessively being outwardly horny about AOC or whomever else, yes.
i would never, but i stand with my horny brothers and sisters, even if they're only doing a bit.
-
Allow me to explain: it’s normal and healthy to be horny but do it somewhere else
Ah go spout neo-malthusianism and whine about the pain of being born
I’ve never gotten the accusation that anti Natalist is Malthusian. Malthus thought that the natural rate of population growth would lead to famine. Clearly that’s not true since improvements in agriculture have raised the max population level a lot over the past few centuries and also it seems birth rates drop with industrialization.
I don’t see how that’s related to thinking perpetuating humanity is a violation of human agency.
It's the fact that they keep proposing the same things like for example mass sterilisation
Also people who don't exist can't have or not have agency. Existence is a prerequisite to being consulted about things
Also people who don’t exist can’t have or not have agency. Existence is a prerequisite to being consulted about things
Let’s say you had the ability to see into the future, and let’s say you meet a couple planning on having a child, and you saw that no matter what these parents did that child would be doomed to a life of misery, and I mean like pretty close to the worst existence you could imagine for a human. You tell the parents this and they go “well this child can NOT consent to being born so fuck it we’re going to have it anyway”. Would you think that was shitty of these parents? If yes then clearly you think persons-not-yet-existing have some rights in terms of what to expect out of life.
Truth is even the best parents ever living under FALGSC can’t eliminate any chance they’re child will live a life of pain and suffering to any child birthing is subjecting a being to a gamble they didn’t consent to.
But you do not have the ability to see the future with certainty. And you would also be depriving that hypothetical child of every moment of joy or glimpse at beauty they will ever experience you are unreasonably focusing on only a subsection of the human experience in order to condemn the whole.
Also until the birth(/conception/however you slice it) that child exists only as a hypothetical a thought experiment. Saying they can't exist is no less of a violation of their hypothetical consent as saying they must.
And you would also be depriving that hypothetical child of every moment of joy or glimpse at beauty they will ever experience you are unreasonably focusing on only a subsection of the human experience in order to condemn the whole.
If this is true why do most leftists support family planning and birth control? If the “wonders of life” are so damn great why isn’t there a moral imperative to pump out as many kids as possible? Isn’t every time someone doesn’t get pregnant when they could them depriving a life of the amazing experience of being?
It's not what I believe as I do not believe that the non-existent have the right to consent however supposing for the sake of argument they do then it is no more respectful of their consent to decide for them that they have no right to exist than it is to decide they must exist. Just as suffering is not more true or important than joy.
The reason many leftists support birth control and family planning has to do with the rights of women rather than the rights of thought experiments.
Another thing that people do is examine how some pretty fundamental aspect of social interactions came to be the way it is, find something in that process problematic, and decide that it’s immoral to do it.
This is like one of the foundations of fucking leftism. Find the sick aspects of human society and calling them out.
Not really, this specific brand of hyper-focused, individualized, shouting at the void moralizing weirdness mostly came out of progressive liberal spaces around the 1980s and it got popular because of the Internet.
Edit: oh I just noticed the username, good bit.
No I disagree. In the past leftism was filled with a lot of utopian bs like how the “seas would turn to lemonade” and hedonistic crap like that. After the shit show that was the counter culture of the 60s and 70s a lot of leftists (mostly women and queer people) realized that was just a cover for a bunch of libertarian behavior focused on using others for self gratification. Really leftism is about creating spaces of safety where people can escape the chaos and pain of mainstream society’s sick orgy.
This is the most idiotic summary of the history of leftism I have ever read lol
Wanna break it down for me? From where I sit that looks to be where the left is at rn
The left before the 60s was definitely not what you portray it to be, you took a quote from an early 19th century utopian socialist that no one cared about any more by the 20th century if not earlier and used it to characterize things completely unrelated, the 60s and 70s were famously horny, there was never really a movement like what you seem to have in mind by the people you have in mind, and this whole "the left is just about creating a safe space to retreat from bad society" thing doesn't have much to do with the left at all, it is 21st century American progressive liberal retreat from meaningful politics.
Objectification is reducing someone to just an object. It's an issue of respect not attraction to women
I'm not saying people aren't objects I'm saying that they are more than just objects and to show due respect is to treat them as more than an object
No my chair is literally an object to me. In that I do not consider it beyond it's purpose and potential to serve my needs or those of someone I consider a person.
This is not an appropriate way of thinking about a human being
Look guy I'm just trying to give advice on what's a healthy way to handle being attracted to people. Why are you expecting me to justify it in terms of the philosophy of communication
Oh I was just making a philosophy joke about Sartre, idk about that other guy
fair enough then but if I've learned anything it's that you bow out of any discussion the moment someone expects you to understand Hegel
the only difference between me and your chair is if you kick me out of frustration I can kick back.
Doesn't that imply that the only source of human rights is the physical ability to defend what you consider yours. Not sure that's where we want to land on morality and consent
this is the is/ought distinction. Just because this is how the world is doesnt mean we should let cruelties take place or commit them ourselves.
I'm a socialist because I see too many injustices in the world and I believe they can be fixed.
I do agree with that. But I would point out that in order to understand how things ought to be we must appreciate that a person is different from a chair even if practically they can be treated as such
Sex, even gay sex, is counter-revolution. Please keep your vital essences to yourself
i mean a lot of it has to do with consent. my bf is a smart guy and he rams his dick into my (clothed) butt all the time and grunts like a cave man. i think its funny. he also grabs at me a lot while we're one on one. obviously if you do that to anyone else thats creepy. i think youre probably fine because youre so worried about this, tbh a lot of men do not introspect at all about this and it makes them do awful things.
to me, objectification has a lot to do with how people treat you. people can be attracted to you and be polite, or maybe nervous around you, and thats fine! but when they dont think about 'oh hey maybe shes not into being called sugar tits by a random guy' thats when it becomes a problem. a lot of this has to do with personal boundaries, and i know that probably wont help someone who is super anxious about it, because there simply isnt one standard. if youre interested in someone you need to learn their standard.
i used to be in your boat a lot tbh. but i became way more loose about it and whenever i was on a date with someone or interested with someone id just ask them if theyd be down to cuddle and talk about shit more personally. sometimes that worked, sometimes it didnt, but it seems to have worked well! though i am a woman so maybe most people like that from a woman, idk
You’re trying to make me objectify another human (aka being horny)?
Okay thanks for trying to tempt me into using another person for physical gratification you pervert
I am an anti-natalist myself, and I tell you this wholeheartedly
Log off and have sex copelord, anti-natalism has no substantive base when unmoored from leftist politics so you stand on nothing when you shit your pants on this site.
I had sex a couple months ago. Felt nice but realized it was essentially me using someone else as a masturbation aid, which is really fucked up.
Also unless you can ensure that both parties enjoyed a sexually encounter equally it’s an unequal exchange which is unethical under Marxism, and most sexually encounters are very much not equally pleasant for no the parties, especially hetero ones.
I don't like if this is a bit because it feels like it's mocking ace people which isn't cool and if it's not a bit I feel bad because I'm mocking an ace person which isn't cool
I don’t consider myself ace. I enjoy sex I just think it’s morally wrong. Asexuality has nothing to do with it.
folks, is it exploitation to have a little more fun during a group activity than the other person?
It is when you’re utilizing that persons body to get your rocks off
Plus, this seems like only the way YOU look at sex. Lots of people experience it differently and some can’t even get off without comprehending that the other person is, well, a person.
Are we doing moral relativity here?
it’s an unequal exchange which is unethical under Marxism
When u try to materialism so hard you commodify sex. Good job 👍
It looks like they have a premise where qualia & fundamental biological desires both have use, labor, and exchange values. Rather than just, you know, being things one can experience with your limited time on Earth and enjoy them for their intrinsic worth as a mode of Qualia.
Nah, much better to voluntary debride yourself of parts of your own ego, find it impossible and be haunted forevermore. This is amazingly alienated and doompilled shit.
Nah, I'm high right now.
This is massively internalized self hate, or a bit that is indistinguishable from it.
Edit:
Only way it wouldn’t be is if they’re going around having sex with people who are reluctant
It makes sense under their fucked up logic if they as a sexual being hold no worth. Under that framework any sex they might have is done under some form of systemic coercion or done from a point of unequally informed sex exchangers.
I’m not jealous. I’ve had plenty of sex in my life but stopped because I realized how exploitative it was even when 100% consensual. Really you should do some self crit and ask yourself why you value physical gratification over not objectifying humans.
Yes. All sex is objectification. Sure people can consent to it but humans have fucked up psychological reasons why they consent to things that are bad for them all time that still leave them felling miserable and used. Just because something is consensual doesn’t mean it’s healthy or ethical.
The fact that you took the time to type all of this bullshit out really proves that whether you are being serious or ironic you should really log the fuck off and touch grass.
humans have fucked up psychological reasons why they consent to things that are bad for them all time that still leave them felling miserable and used
I would hope as a leftist you’d agree that there’s some truth to this statement even if you don’t agree with how I’m deploying it in this argument.
You and your bf live within that system and are affected by it in way you don’t even realize
Sup mods I'm confused? Did I break any of the rules by flaming this guy?
Shit my apologies, sorry for the trouble and having to go through the rules for my idiotic, lazy ass.
Thank you for your service 07
I’ve had sex. I just came to the realization it was wrong.
I mean I enjoyed it an my partner at the time reported enjoying it too. I just came to the philosophical conclusion it was wrong.
Idgaf bro leave us tf alone and get your shit together in Afghanistan or sthing.
Did you just tell me to move to Afghanistan?
Edit: also I went and touched some grass and it was nice I guess
You can be attracted to people who aren’t conventionally “beautiful”
Thanks for coming to my lesbianism ted talk
All sexual interaction is objectification. People can consent to it but sex is utilizing a persons body for physical gratification. Leftists should really learn to practice abstinence.
Honestly, the most important thing is to not be a creep. It's okay to find people attractive and casually check someone out, and it's okay to fantasize about people but at the end of the day, they are human beings and they don't exist solely to satisfy another person's sexual desires. You don't need to get hung up on the exact definitions.
Bit Idea: We finally create c/horny, but only HornyPosadist can post there until they discover the true meaning of bustin.
Edit: Non-Shitpostly - You'll be fine HP. You've made enough introspection threads & felt out the edge of your psyche enough I don't think you're likely going around treating people like things.
I’m attracted to specific presentations and stuff and it feels really shallow and objectifying, I kinda hate my own attraction to women tbh
Just wanted to say I've was in this exact spot for years and ended up very withdrawn from the idea of relationships out of fear that I would hurt people. It took a good amount of therapy and a lot of personal introspection to unpack why I felt so negative about myself. But one of the best things my therapist said to me was; "Everything you've described to me sounds like normal feelings of attraction. I don't think you're a creep, you actually seem pretty considerate."
So I'll repeat that here. I can't help but think you're being extremely considerate about how other people might view your feelings of attraction to them. And as long as that comes through in a positive way (e.g. ask if you can put your arm around a girl when you're on a first date with her) then I can't imagine why someone would genuinely feel offended at that. They might have notions of toxic masculinity ("ew why would they ask and not just be more subtle about it"), but ultimately that's not something I want in a relationship anyways.
Attraction: I find something in you that I like enough to be able to subconsciously ignore all the things that I hate about you.
Sexualization: The above but horny.
Objectification: This is the subject/object dicothomy and you only push it into this question because you are a horny criminal. We relate to peers, figures of authority and even historical events in the subject/object pattern. This includes sexual partners. We must objectify everything we know in order to conceive and think.
Diatribe: The nature of objectification being in this question is a historical contingency. The sexual objectification of a woman, which is a matter that is highly relevant in bourgious feminist thought(and subsequently relevant in all of capitalist society), can only be possible in the gaze of a subject. Such a thing can only be a social conflict in a world where two groups have an asymmetric power dynamic.
Be your horny self(respect boundaries tho), objectify all people all you want(be respectful of their right to dignity), but stop posting horny on main :volcel-judge:
