Ask rightist women, ask leftist women, ask gay men, there are certain expectations
Now a leftist woman might say she values compassion and empathy and kindness and honesty and loyalty (as I do)... but that's only part of the equation
A man who sits around playing Fortnite and contributes nothing to the household isn't attractive, no matter how kind he is or how much he can quote Lenin or how good he is at eating pussy
There's a reason why the stubbled warrior who builds a log cabin is sexualized and the bloodless accountant isn't
Although what you say "sounds" correct, it is only because we were both raised in the same cultural/media environment. These are archetypes for the "expectations" of the masculine, and may not necessarily reflect reality.
To determine whether this is "correct" or not, we would have to survey every single woman on earth, since women as a group are not a monolithic hivemind who all share the same preferences. To assume so is to fall prey to part of incel thought. I know for a fact that some women value submissiveness within men. Furthermore, the traditional, conservative role of the male provider is changing due to shifting material conditions. The phenomenon of house husbands is an increasing trend.
Also, to assume women are arbiters of worth for masculinity via their sexual preferences is the second part of the trap.
we would have to survey every single woman on earth, since women as a group are not a monolithic hivemind who all share the same preferences.
True, but in the same way if I were to say "people enjoy sex," of course there will be outliers who don't
Then again, I think we're getting our messages mixed here, the hypothetical Antebellum petit bourgeois asshole has very narrow and strict idea of strength/toughness/etc.
And it's one of those weird things: a woman might value submissiveness in a man, but would she value it more or less if he was physically stronger than her? Does the idea of a strong and capable and muscled warrior submitting entice more than that of a lanky gamer bro submitting?
True, but in the same way if I were to say “people enjoy sex,” of course there will be outliers who don’t
False analogy. Seeking to enjoy sex is a hardcoded biological response within all humans who are not asexual. The specific preferences as to which "type" of individual is desirable, however, is born out of other factors related to sociocultural material conditions, and is probably unique to each person.
a woman might value submissiveness in a man, but would she value it more or less if he was physically stronger than her? Does the idea of a strong and capable and muscled warrior submitting entice more than that of a lanky gamer bro submitting?
Idk some people find the idea of dominating a "stronger" partner attractive, some people want to be the stronger partner who dominates a "weaker" partner. Some people find muscles attractive, some people don't. Its all up to the individual, with things like this, as they are subjective 'truths'.
the hypothetical Antebellum petit bourgeois asshole has very narrow and strict idea of strength/toughness/etc.
Yes that is why this person is a fascist/incel. The traditional conservative conception of masucline strength was never based on material reality or higher virtue related to social responsibility in the face of "god". Their conceptions of masculinity are all related to being the ideal male worker in a competitive market framework, which trickled down from the capitalist elite.
The specific preferences as to which “type” of individual is desirable, however, is born out of other factors related to sociocultural material conditions, and is probably unique to each person.
No doubt, but given what material conditions have been since humanity's appearance 300,000 years ago, a 'softcoded' preference for a strong provider of a partner made sense in retrospect; men can be violent and unpredictable and a reliable food surplus wasn't guaranteed, so having a loyal partner who is capable of violence and resource acquisition seems a decent idea; as time goes on and civilization refines, that need for a killer on your side goes away, but the cultural inertia from those prior conditions continues onward
I say 'softcoded' because maybe humanity did evolve into certain preferences, but these preferences could just as easily evolve away (eventually) as material conditions change. Example: the preference for tall men (seems like this is exaggerated in Europe/American compared to everywhere else for some reason). Makes sense 300,000 years ago, maybe, but now with heights increasing and food/nutrient availability, that preference is becoming a holdover, and given how heights over 6.5ft. lead to joint problems, back pain, increased cancer risk, heart issues, blood clots, banging head on doorframes, .etc it becomes counterintuitive
Some things are even softer than softcoding and are purely about material conditions; pale skin was valued because it was associated with not having to labor, now a nice even tan is valued because it means you have the time to hit the beach and aren't stuck in a cubicle. Further preferences are residue from settler-colonialism or just extrapolations of class relations (India's caste system, etc.)
Men being fascinated with curvy women and women's preferences briefly changing during ovulation makes sense evolutionary, sure, despite being unnecessary now, but how much of that 'softcoding' is over-reinforced by culture? I don't know
Their conceptions of masculinity are all related to being the ideal male worker in a competitive market framework, which trickled down from the capitalist elite.
That seems... recent. I think it's more that culturally-approved traits trickle down from the ruling class in general--feudal lords to their knights (chivalry, etc.), Greek leaders to their hoplites, etc. in order to maintain control. What we see in the past 200 years is just the newest iteration
I'm not a biologist, so this is just me throwing petri dishes of DNA at a wall and seeing what happens
... I still feel like we're talking about slightly different things, tell me if I'm not responding well here
Careful, assuming this is a rhetorical question, this is incel ideology.
Everything else is solid gold lmao
Sorry, what
This isn't "incel ideology"
Ask rightist women, ask leftist women, ask gay men, there are certain expectations
Now a leftist woman might say she values compassion and empathy and kindness and honesty and loyalty (as I do)... but that's only part of the equation
A man who sits around playing Fortnite and contributes nothing to the household isn't attractive, no matter how kind he is or how much he can quote Lenin or how good he is at eating pussy
There's a reason why the stubbled warrior who builds a log cabin is sexualized and the bloodless accountant isn't
Although what you say "sounds" correct, it is only because we were both raised in the same cultural/media environment. These are archetypes for the "expectations" of the masculine, and may not necessarily reflect reality.
To determine whether this is "correct" or not, we would have to survey every single woman on earth, since women as a group are not a monolithic hivemind who all share the same preferences. To assume so is to fall prey to part of incel thought. I know for a fact that some women value submissiveness within men. Furthermore, the traditional, conservative role of the male provider is changing due to shifting material conditions. The phenomenon of house husbands is an increasing trend.
Also, to assume women are arbiters of worth for masculinity via their sexual preferences is the second part of the trap.
True, but in the same way if I were to say "people enjoy sex," of course there will be outliers who don't
Then again, I think we're getting our messages mixed here, the hypothetical Antebellum petit bourgeois asshole has very narrow and strict idea of strength/toughness/etc.
And it's one of those weird things: a woman might value submissiveness in a man, but would she value it more or less if he was physically stronger than her? Does the idea of a strong and capable and muscled warrior submitting entice more than that of a lanky gamer bro submitting?
I don't have a PhD in sexology so I don't know
False analogy. Seeking to enjoy sex is a hardcoded biological response within all humans who are not asexual. The specific preferences as to which "type" of individual is desirable, however, is born out of other factors related to sociocultural material conditions, and is probably unique to each person.
Idk some people find the idea of dominating a "stronger" partner attractive, some people want to be the stronger partner who dominates a "weaker" partner. Some people find muscles attractive, some people don't. Its all up to the individual, with things like this, as they are subjective 'truths'.
Yes that is why this person is a fascist/incel. The traditional conservative conception of masucline strength was never based on material reality or higher virtue related to social responsibility in the face of "god". Their conceptions of masculinity are all related to being the ideal male worker in a competitive market framework, which trickled down from the capitalist elite.
No doubt, but given what material conditions have been since humanity's appearance 300,000 years ago, a 'softcoded' preference for a strong provider of a partner made sense in retrospect; men can be violent and unpredictable and a reliable food surplus wasn't guaranteed, so having a loyal partner who is capable of violence and resource acquisition seems a decent idea; as time goes on and civilization refines, that need for a killer on your side goes away, but the cultural inertia from those prior conditions continues onward
I say 'softcoded' because maybe humanity did evolve into certain preferences, but these preferences could just as easily evolve away (eventually) as material conditions change. Example: the preference for tall men (seems like this is exaggerated in Europe/American compared to everywhere else for some reason). Makes sense 300,000 years ago, maybe, but now with heights increasing and food/nutrient availability, that preference is becoming a holdover, and given how heights over 6.5ft. lead to joint problems, back pain, increased cancer risk, heart issues, blood clots, banging head on doorframes, .etc it becomes counterintuitive
Some things are even softer than softcoding and are purely about material conditions; pale skin was valued because it was associated with not having to labor, now a nice even tan is valued because it means you have the time to hit the beach and aren't stuck in a cubicle. Further preferences are residue from settler-colonialism or just extrapolations of class relations (India's caste system, etc.)
Men being fascinated with curvy women and women's preferences briefly changing during ovulation makes sense evolutionary, sure, despite being unnecessary now, but how much of that 'softcoding' is over-reinforced by culture? I don't know
That seems... recent. I think it's more that culturally-approved traits trickle down from the ruling class in general--feudal lords to their knights (chivalry, etc.), Greek leaders to their hoplites, etc. in order to maintain control. What we see in the past 200 years is just the newest iteration
I'm not a biologist, so this is just me throwing petri dishes of DNA at a wall and seeing what happens
... I still feel like we're talking about slightly different things, tell me if I'm not responding well here