June 25, 2015

New horizons on the dissection of deviance: latent transgenderism and female bisexuality

A couple years ago I solved the puzzle of what male homosexuality boils down to — arrested social-emotional development during childhood, while still undergoing bodily hormonal changes during adolescence. The end result is someone who's sex-crazed but still thinks, feels, and acts like a little boy, who of course finds girls yucky and directs his newly emerging libido toward the non-yucky sex (other boys). All other facets of the male homosexual syndrome stem from this psychological stunting mixed with hormonal maturation.

To review the evidence, search the older posts for terms like gay Peter Pan-ism, gay pedomorphy, gay neoteny, etc.

But gays are so 2013. This year it's time to dissect other sacred victim groups in order to see what they're really like, too.

Several upcoming posts will look into female bisexuality, where the upshot seems to be that it is the same kind of syndrome as male homosexuality, only lesser in severity and duration, perhaps owing to female biology being more robust against environmental insults. In other words, the same agent that causes male homosexuality causes female bisexuality, although females show a better prognosis just as they do when males and females both get infected with the flu virus.

This inverts the common but whacko conclusion that female sexuality is more easily disturbed or warped — more "fluid" — because it supports a continuum of hetero, bi, and homosexuality, whereas the supposedly more stable male sexuality is either gay, straight, or lying ("bi").

In fact, bisexuality in girls shows how much more relatively stable their nature is to perturbations from pathogens, toxins, or whatever else. They don't become full-blown gay, don't show the same level of deviance as male homosexuals, and largely recover back to heterosexuality during their 30s.

The dismissive way of describing this is that their bisexuality is just a personality phase they go through during their hormone-crazed youth. But why don't the majority of girls go through that personality phase? Clearly it's not just any old phase but a stage of a profound disturbance. It is more accurate and more humanizing to view it as an illness that they thankfully recover from fairly early.

The next area of deviance to be dissected will be what I term "latent" transgenderism, for lack of a better term. J Michael Bailey has already written extensively on the homo and non-homo forms of transgenderism that typically accompany transvestism (cross-dressing), where the person feels as though they have a distinct "gender identity" (which they may feel compelled to "come out" about to others). I'd probably have to dig down further in all of his writings to see if there's anything for me to add.

However, there seems to be a rising level of latent transgenderism, where someone has erotic fantasies about being a member of the opposite sex, with a partner of the opposite sex. That is, a guy's fantasy involving two or more girls — and not a single man — or a girl's fantasy involving two or more guys — and not a single woman.

These are the types of guys who masturbate to girl-on-girl pornography, and the types of girls who get off on reading slash fiction — two related genres that were virtually absent even within pornography and erotica just a few decades ago, when it was all male-female (or male-male for a gay audience, though not for a female audience).

Unlike overt transgender cases, the latent cases don't feel as though they have a distinct gender identity or sexual orientation, and therefore have nothing to hide from others, feel shame about, or have to confess / reveal / come out about. They aren't going to call together a family meeting and say:

"Mom, Dad, there's something I think you need to know about who I am inside... I've been struggling about how to formulate this, both to myself and to the rest of you. But there's no point in denying it any longer — I fantasize about being a hot nubile babe who gets to make out with other hot nubile babes. No, you bigots, I have no plans to dress up as a girl or try to pass myself off as one. That's a cross-dresser, or transvestite, you clueless old farts. I simply get off on the thought of being the girl in a girl-on-girl affair."

Whether it is the male or female case, the latent transgender seems to be primarily driven by a paralyzing fear of approaching, interacting with, and consummating a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, as a member of their own sex. That is to say, the prospect of a male-female courtship, mating dance, etc., scares them to death. However, they are still attracted to the opposite sex and have urges to be physically intimate with the opposite sex. The only solution, to their temperament, is to approach a girl as a girl, or a guy as a guy.

It is as though these guys think that girls will let their guard down around other girls, and (at least some of them) will be open to making out with their fellow girls, particularly if both are attractive, hormone-crazed, and novelty-seeking youngsters.

The emotional release comes not from the thought of penetrating and climaxing inside of the other girl — impossible when you imagine yourself as or identify with the first girl. Rather, it comes from the relief of not having to go through all the normal pas-de-deux moves, not having to overcome even the slightest set of obstacles. Granted, you only get to imagine yourself fondling, making out with, going down on, or circle-jercking the other girl, but this lower reward is more than made up for by the thought of not having to put any effort into the seduction.

It is thus a symptom of profound risk-aversion, crippling social awkwardness, and self-centeredness (not having to adapt, improve, or contribute anything of one's own in order to couple with another).

While normal male fantasies involve being a more attractive, charismatic, and aggressive version of yourself, latent transgenderism is a change of kind and not only an exaggeration of degree. If they were only driven by a desire for minimal obstacles in the way of getting laid, then they would fantasize about being the pretty boy lead singer of a famous rock band, who throngs of eager groupies would be throwing themselves to every night.

Instead, they are so sensitive to rejection that they fixate on not even being perceived as male in the first place — that way, the girl's behavioral shield will not go up, and her warning system will not alert her to yet another random guy trying to get into her pants.

For the latent transgender male, it is not enough for the girl to register that there's a guy wanting to get into her pants, yet wanting him to do so, as in the fantasy about groupies, or something more normal like one where that cute girl from math class reveals that she's always had a crush on you and wants you to make your move as the guy. His paranoia toward girls means that he must fly completely under the radar, requiring him to assume female form in his fantasy.

The same analysis can be applied to the female reader of slash fiction. She is too awkward, paranoid, and unattractive to fantasize about a normal boy-girl affair, perhaps one in which she's more pretty and confident than in real life. She fixates on the hot guy not even perceiving her as a girl, which might set off his warning system about some random girl trying to make a pass at him. If she were a hot guy herself, then she could slip right past his detection grid.

Naturally, not all guys will be open to experimenting, but that goes for the male fantasy about girl-girl hook-ups as well. They just need to fantasize about that one unusual girl who would make out with a girl, or that one guy who would make out with a guy.

This latent form of transgenderism is important not only because it is far more common than the overt form, but because latent fantasies may influence overt identity. Jerking off to girl-on-girl porno scenes is fundamentally a dream about achieving perfect sexual mimicry in order to deceive the target girl and reach climax without her suspecting that you had any sexual intentions on her all along.

Yet the more you fantasize about becoming a perfect sexual mimic, the more you are likely to incorporate distinctly opposite-sex traits into your own gender identity. Maybe that will lead only to a vaguely androgynous personality and set of behaviors, or maybe it will lead to a deeper dysphoria and anxiety that will disrupt their own life and the stability of those around them.

Such fantasies are seemingly banal because they don't involve transvestism, exhibitionism, or narcissism in the way that overt cases do. It would not even make sense to call these latent cases "trannies" since they don't make a point out of looking or acting like the opposite sex.

But the easily credible potential for latent transgender fantasies to gradually erode a normal and healthy gender identity and sexual orientation means that we ought to give them a more serious clinical look, again even more so when you consider how common they have become among young developing minds in the past generation.

69 comments:

  1. interesting

    it seems Autogynephilia may be an extreme form of transvestitism.

    Autogynephilia , "love of oneself as a woman", a term coined in 1989 by Ray Blanchard, to refer to "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman

    since Bruce Jenner would be mocked if he came-out as a transvestite, he chose to come out as a transgendered male. He gets to dress up like a girl and still keep his genitals and continue to ball females. He seems to fit the typical pattern seen with Autogynephilia. He is not attracted to me, but aroused by dressing up like a female and fantasizing about being a lesbian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "These are the types of guys who masturbate to girl-on-girl pornography, and the types of girls who get off on reading slash fiction — two related genres that were virtually absent even within pornography and erotica just a few decades ago, when it was all male-female (or male-male for a gay audience, though not for a female audience)."


    Hasn't girl-on-girl always been part of hetero porn? Just a cursory glance at porn made in the '70s shows that practically every hetero porn film would have at least one girl-girl scene.

    And, going further back, there's girl-girl stuff in Fanny Hill, which was published in the 18th century

    ReplyDelete
  3. Orson Welles edited a girl-girl scene shot by Gary Graver in order to hurry him up to finish The Other Side of the Wind (which remains unfinished). Slash fic apparently dominated Star Trek fanfiction not too long after the form sprang up.

    Speaking personally, I do not imagine myself in the place of Naomi Watts, Laura Harring, Jennifer Tilly or Gina Gershon when I watch their scenes. That would be bizarre. Any mental involvement of myself would require the addition rather than quais-replacement of person. I see two attractive women, and that's like seeing one attractive woman (which is good enough for me) except there's another without any waste of on-camera space. Mere presence of an additional attractive person isn't everything (see Watts' performance of the same scene with Harring and then with Chad Everett), but it is something.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Any mental involvement of myself would require the addition rather than quais-replacement of person."

    That's why I stated the trend as girl + girl + no man, or guy + guy + no woman. Not a threesome with two girls and a guy. Someone jerking off to two or however many girls getting it on, with no guy to identify with, is imagining himself as one of the girls.

    Watching two chicks faux making out in a bar / club as though it were a trainwreck, or ribbing your friend like "hey, look over there," is one thing. Those reactions are not erotic and therefore don't put you into the scene. But someone jerking off is clearly trying to resonate with the erotic scene he's watching, and who can he be resonating with other than one of the girls?

    "Hasn't girl-on-girl always been part of hetero porn?"

    Meaning, been present in the background? Sure. But not as the main attraction, something that in itself would draw the audience.

    I was really woken up when I went looking into how popular various deviant scenarios are, and it turns out that an online streaming porn site (Pornhub) has compiled statistics showing that "lesbian" and related searches are among the most frequent, especially for the youngest age groups.

    There are now entire multi-hour releases that feature only girl-girl scenes. The earliest example I could find was from 1989, "Where the Boys Aren't" -- a series that went through volume 19 in 2008. Can't be an unpopular genre.

    Just the name of that series reveals something about the mindset of the latent transgender. When I first thought about this strange new phenomenon, it looked like part of the cuckold fetish -- getting off on the sight of a girl you want who's with someone that could not ever possibly be you (some other girl).

    But the more I googled around to see what the appeal was, from fans of the genre, it's more about there not being any guys present to ruin the female hotness, no dick to pollute the purity of female bodies, and so on.

    It's clear that they they have some kind of dysphoria about their own sexuality and sex organs, thinking that girls view all dicks as threatening or yucky, and all guys as rape-y. Solution: if only they could disguise their male form, they could not only slip past the defense grid, but also add to or amplify the total amount of female hotness in the scene.

    Getting intimate without being noticed or suspected, plus increasing female hotness, is the main goal -- not actually penetrating the girl and climaxing inside of her. These guys may not be wearing dresses and sporting kabuki make-up in public, but they hardly show normal gender identity and sexual orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "There are now entire multi-hour releases that feature only girl-girl scenes. The earliest example I could find was from 1989, "Where the Boys Aren't" -- a series that went through volume 19 in 2008. Can't be an unpopular genre."

    It's fitting that you ended up at '89, given that '89 is the first year where we started seeing the signs of cocooning (baggier clothes, droning rap, tired performances by actors and some musicians, b&W photography becoming hip, etc.)

    I'm starting to wonder if porn might be the 3rd most illuminating and highly visible element of pop culture (after clothes and music, of course). Obviously, porn performers are not representative of common people (neither are pop stars) but you can still learn alot about the mindset of a given era by looking at the tone of porn and pop music. Porn and music are generally made with a very short lead up to production and the production and release happen quite fast.

    A lot of the 80's porn I've seen shows at least a little bit of attention to sets, music, costumes (not just the sort of S&M get ups you see in modern porn) and at least some story. There was more effort put into setting up a scenario, a (non S&M) fantasy, to tap into more elements of the psyche besides the "I wanna see screwing" part. This fits into 80's people being more adventurous and creative. And more humane and dignified. The dissociated, highly aware of your sorroundings thing is evident in 80's porn, too. You don't for the most part see people who are inward focused or snarky. People seem ready or "up" for anything to happen, rather than coming off as timid or smugly naive. Voices, of course, were higher and more engaging rather than the "back off" growling of cocooners.

    It started getting more dull in the 90's and by the 2000's the majority of porn had absolutely know effort put into anything by the people behind the camera. Which can be said for just about all pop culture. It's gotten worse and worse since '89.

    Good insight about lesbo porn. It never really occured to me that it ramped up when guys started becoming insecure about their prowess and women also grew more frigid. And frigid is about the last word I would associate with 80's culture, porn included. The 80's were red, orange, and yellow. But it's been monochrome since the mid 90's. Though people did lighten up a bit in the mid 2000's.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry to be off topic but did you see the White House lit up in rainbow colors following the Supreme Court ruling. I follow politics and this shocked me. I know Obama would support the ruling but the visual surprised me with its in your face attitude. Particularly, since Obama wasn't even pro game marriage eight years ago. I guess this is leading from behind. Very few anti gay marriage arguments actually being made on TV although some people don't like the ruling but seem indifferent to the result. Another words, we should have gay marriage just don't have the courts make it so. Agnostic, the nation turns its lonely eyes to you. What you say?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I might try to put together a full post on the topic, but one thing I noticed was how quiet my Facebook feed was about the news. Kind of like Obama's second election.

    All my Millennial friends were dizzy and ready to faint in the lead-up and immediate news of his first election. Posting things like they're literally crying for joy now that America has a black President, etc.

    Four years later? Nothing much.

    The buttsex marriage cause was real active a few years ago. You noticed all these people, usually friends of friends, who had changed their middle name to "Equality" as a mass statement. The red-and-pink equals sign sprung up everywhere.

    Today only one Millennial friend posted / liked a bunch of gay-related stuff (she's engaged -- to a dude). Another posted a single brief "yay" kind of post. And a borderline X-er / Millennial liked some lengthy pro-homo post. That was it, though.

    The atmosphere on both sides is so quiet because we've hit saturation level, and the idea / battle is not so up-in-the-air anymore, and the speed of changing minds has slowed down from the frenetic pace of a few years ago.

    (By "saturation," I mean a level we'll be stuck at / near for awhile, not in the sense of "peak oil" where a downturn is imminent.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. "It's fitting that you ended up at '89, given that '89 is the first year where we started seeing the signs of cocooning"

    From what I can tell, the climate needs to be both cocooning and striving / entitlement / self-focus, which is why there wasn't a similar surge in girl-girl stuff back in the Midcentury (though those comic books in Seduction of the Innocent are chock full of bondage, S&M, butt-kicking babes, torture porn, and the like).

    Cocooning, because the guys are so terrified and awkward about approaching girls that their greatest relief would be to not even be perceived as a male and thereby sound her alarm.

    Striving, because there's a strong bratty and egocentric focus that you shouldn't have to change or adapt or improve yourself to get a girlfriend / wife, or even go through the standard mating dance. These guys are looking for a cheat code to warp right to the final boss with invincibility and infinite ammo.

    TV Tropes has an entry on girl-girl in pop culture:

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GirlOnGirlIsHot

    In TV and movies, girl-girl only began in the '90s. It's hard to believe, but back in the '80s, guys actually fantasized about plowing the girl -- not getting blue-balled while watching two chicks make out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ""Hasn't girl-on-girl always been part of hetero porn?"

    Meaning, been present in the background? Sure. But not as the main attraction, something that in itself would draw the audience."

    Good point.Looking back to the '70s and early '80s, girl-girl seems to have been usually offered as just one of the forms of sexplay in porn.Fro example, the typical porn film would give you something like: one girl-girl scene, one three-way, one boy-girl (conventional coitus), one fellatio scene, one anal scene, etc.It doesn't seem to have been offered very often as the main course in a film, just as a side-dish.

    Be interesting to compare '70s-'80s hardcore to softcore from the same period in terms of girl-girl.Could be wrong, but I get the impression that girl-girl was more prevalent in stuff like the Gemser and Kristel Emmanuelle films than it was in hardcore porn.Of course, that might have had something to do with the very nature of softcore films, full female nudity being more acceptable than male nudity, etc

    ReplyDelete
  10. No clue about softcore, but for mainstream movies IMDb.com lets you search by keyword tags. Nearly 1000 movies are tagged with "lesbian kiss," though most are obscure.

    There are a handful of popular examples from the '80s, but they weren't lurid / intended for titillation or fantasizing about being one of the girls (e.g., The Color Purple). Others were risque foreign(-ish) films (The Unbearable Lightness of Being), or low-budget horror movies.

    The first hit movies to prominently feature a lesbian kiss in a lurid way were Bram Stoker's Dracula and Basic Instinct, from the early '90s. In Basic Instinct, it was clear that the kiss was not a teasing invitation for the male character or male viewer to join them in a threesome, since the second girl was a jealous man-hating lesbo.

    Then by the late '90s, it ramped up even more with Wild Things and Cruel Intentions.

    By the 2000s, IMDb.com lists dozens of mainstream movies featuring a lesbian kiss, and that have a high vote count (some measure of how visible they were).

    As commonplace as they may seem today, back in the '80s girl-on-girl scenes did not occur even in an art-pretending film that treated the themes of voyeurism and pornography, like Body Double, where the fantasy was still a male-female affair.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "There are a handful of popular examples from the '80s, but they weren't lurid / intended for titillation or fantasizing about being one of the girls (e.g., The Color Purple). Others were risque foreign(-ish) films (The Unbearable Lightness of Being), or low-budget horror movies."

    The earliest mainstream film (albeit mainstream horror) with lurid girl-girl stuff that I can remember was "The Hunger" (1983).And that didn't earn much at the box office.Box Office Mojo gives its domestic gross as $5,979,292

    ReplyDelete
  12. Agnostic,

    Do you not agree with some of the theories being offered up by Evolutionary Psychologists that homosexuality is in part biological. As early as 1993, Matt Ridley argued that homosexuality was in part genetic in 'The Red Queen'. There are theories that link homosexuality to parasites and bacteria; in essence its part of the arms war between males and females. It sounds like your theory puts homosexuality as purely a phenomena that is the outgrowth of childhood experiences; if I'm understanding you right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't identify with the people on-screen, hence my agreement (to an extent) with George Carlin (cuckoldry fetishists, who I don't understand at all, would have the opposite response). Most men can enjoy a centerfold which just contains a woman without imagining themselves as that woman.

    madmax, the Red Queen theory is precisely why we should expect homosexuality to be the result of a pathogen and NOT genetics (except insofar as those genes are at that time vulnerable to the current form of the pathogen). agnostic cited the "gay germ" as presumptive fact in the Sandra Bullock thread, and though I still think his overall post was probably the most ridiculous thing I've read from him, I agree that the hypothesis is the only one with any credible basis.

    I should have mentioned The Hunger, I saw it just last week or so. I suppose it wasn't a movie worth remembering.

    In order to check whether women are more robust or more malleable, I'd recommend using the GSS to see which are more likely to have had homosexual intercourse (or does that word even apply?). Running NUMWOMEN & NUMMEN against sex I see that 6.1 percent of women report having had sex with women since 18, compared to 6.2 percent for men with men. So imagining it as some sort of bell curve with women being clustered more toward the center (as with IQ) doesn't seem to match, but it is interesting that the totals are so similar despite the stylized fact that women are more inclined to bisexuality than homosexuality relative to men. I was going to bring up Michael Bailey's theory that women don't really have a sexuality like men, which is why his equipment was detecting arousal for all sorts of things in women which had little correlation with their self-description. There could be a theory that since men pursue sex it's less necessary for women to have an equivalent faculty aside from acting to exclude certain men, and even in a situation of rape doing something like producing enough lubrication to prevent tearing. But that just brought to mind the other discussion here and why arousal in a woman is arousing for men. Something functional is going on there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Hunger, Dracula, etc., are interesting for showing that back then a girl-on-girl scene felt more fitting in a horror movie than in anything halfway ordinary setting (e.g., guys go out to a bar, see two chicks making out). Lesbian make-outs were a sign of demonic or Satanic influence, not something of the "whatever floats your boat" variety.

    By the late '90s, they were still associated with devious female characters (Wild Things, Cruel Intentions), but nothing supernaturally evil or weird.

    "Most men can enjoy a centerfold which just contains a woman without imagining themselves as that woman."

    Don't be obtuse. There's no action going on for the viewer to resonate with.

    When there's a guy-girl scene, the viewer is not jerking off as a voyeur contemplating the scene from afar, but as a vicarious participant as the guy in the act.

    Likewise, when there's a lengthy series of explicit sex acts between two girls toward orgasm, while the viewer is making himself reach orgasm, he's resonating with the scene he's observing -- not as a voyeur but as a vicarious participant, making him identify with one or both of the girls.

    This fact becomes more obvious when we notice how the girl-girl scenes may feature one of them using a strap-on with the other. That is even more revealing of the viewer's scarcely concealed identification with the hot chick who gets to bone another hot chick.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Running NUMWOMEN & NUMMEN against sex I see that 6.1 percent of women report having had sex with women since 18, compared to 6.2 percent for men with men."

    That doesn't pick up on the two differences I mentioned -- lower severity and shorter duration. I'll get to those in the future posts (with GSS data). You're only looking at a binary "ever been with the same sex?" variable, rather than a quantitative measure of non-hetero behavior.

    Gay men are more deviant for being with an even larger number of partners, whereas bisexual women don't slut it up that much with other women. Plus gayness is lifelong in duration, whereas bisexuality in women decays with a half-life of roughly 10 years, so that it's minimal during their 30s and virtually gone by age 40.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "It sounds like your theory puts homosexuality as purely a phenomena that is the outgrowth of childhood experiences"

    I think Greg Cochran's "gay germ" theory is right, and that it strikes sometime in early childhood, arresting or severely slowing down social-emotional development at that stage.

    Genetics only play a role as risk factors for infection, degree of severity once infected, etc.

    When I say I've boiled down male homo deviance to the most basic thing, I'm talking about what it is like as a syndrome, not what caused them to develop that syndrome. That was the most lacking thing in the study of homosexuality -- not even understanding what the full syndrome is, ignoring all of the Peter Pan / stunting facets of it (like gay-face), and focusing exclusively on the fact that they find girls' sex organs yucky.

    There doesn't seem to be much more work to be done as to the causes -- the gay germ guess has the most going for it, but even then what specific pathogen is it? Impossible to know now, and impossible to fund a study for in the future.

    Understanding the full syndrome of male homosexuality is a far more pressing matter. Most people who are even not sympathetic to gay rights still think that gays are just feminine men (who have zero interest in nurturing babies), or as hyper-masculine men (who have beanpole bodies and wish to get fucked up the butt).

    It's shocking to see how stupid everybody has been who's ever given a Big Serious Think or Two to characterizing male homo nature. Correcting that is way more important than trying to figure out which pathogen it is, or which genes are involved in weakening / strengthening the body to infection by it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just to fill out the argument that everything can be reduced to social-emotional stunting plus hormonal surges during puberty, what about all the addictive tendencies of gays?

    I used to treat that as a second factor in addition to the Peter Pan factor, but slowly came to see that the addiction springs from Peter Pan-ism. Give a 5 year-old boy the lack of parental supervision, the disposable income, and the hedonistic options that adults have to choose from, and you get a homosexual.

    These addictive tendencies are kept in check for actual 5 year-old boys because of parents, teachers, communities, no money, no access to drug dealers or seedy night clubs, etc. But give meth to that 5 year-old, and see what happens. Homos also have a sex drive as a result of hormonal changes -- just imagine if a 5 year-old kid had a sex drive. You know how much they whine about getting candy, and sneaking around to get it, buying it, stealing it, etc. They'd be that way about sex too.

    Zero future time orientation, devil-may-care attitude about getting hurt in a risky activity, impulsive, lack of interpersonal boundaries, not knowing what is TMI in public, etc. -- that's all just like a 5 year-old, only the kid's environment doesn't allow those facets of his personality to lead him into a downward spiral of addiction and hedonism. It's all there, though; it just needs urban freedom to set off the addictive treadmill.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The Hunger, Dracula, etc., are interesting for showing that back then a girl-on-girl scene felt more fitting in a horror movie than in anything halfway ordinary setting (e.g., guys go out to a bar, see two chicks making out). Lesbian make-outs were a sign of demonic or Satanic influence, not something of the "whatever floats your boat" variety"

    Along those lines, it's interesting to note that the girl-girl pictorials in PENTHOUSE were, in the '70s and early '80s, the most widely disseminated Lesbian porn in the USA.And PENTHOUSE had a strikingly different market-profile as compared to its chief competitors.PLAYBOY focused on the "girl next door." HUSTLER was porn for the trailer park set, raw and vulgar.PENTHOUSE was jet-set decadence.You were supposed to think that the prototypical PENTHOUSE PET lifestyle consisted of Concorde flights between New York and London, cocaine, dog-collars, etc

    Hence, it seems somehow fitting that sex in PENTHOUSE seemed to focus on girl-girl.In the mind of Guccione (and his readers) decadent sophistication equaled girl on girl.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That reminds me of erotic illustrations from the Art Nouveau era, showing turn-of-the-century elite decadence. Girl-on-girl is far and away the most popular type of scene (NSFW):

    http://uncouthreflections.com/2013/11/21/virtual-art-gallery-du-jour-2/

    From my comments there:

    Let’s us elite members have a status contest to see who can indulge in the weirdest, biologically pointless sex acts. Who will out-kink who? I think conspicuous leisure and consumption tie in somehow too, like we’re trying to signal how above-it-all we are by not having sex to make babies and raise large families — so mundane and profane. So breeder-esque.

    Another uncanny parallel to contempo decadence — in 1904, Gerda married Einar Wegener, a man who later became the first post-op trans-sexual, Lili Elbe. Before and after pictures (all safe for work, thank God):

    http://www.translide.cz/lili-elbe

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's worth contrasting Art Nouveau with the Psychedelic movement circa 1970. It borrowed heavily from Art Nouveau stylistically, but thematically it was not very decadent. That period was still part of the Great Compression, before elite competition and decadence began to set in.

    The big topic was sex, free love, etc., yet their posters all show heterosexual couples, not girl-girl, and not orgies. The ideal was not advanced elite sophistication, but Noble Savage primitivism -- hence the recurring variations on the theme of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (the original procreators).

    Some examples:

    http://www.posterscene.com/html_index.cfm?page=item_page&itemoid=74395

    http://www.posterscene.com/html_index.cfm?page=item_page&itemoid=74381

    http://www.posterscene.com/html_index.cfm?page=item_page&itemoid=74384

    No date on that last one, but it looks authentic. If not, it still shows that later imitators of the Psychedelic movement held to the Adam and Eve imagery of the original.

    Frank Frazetta's pin-up illustrations from the '70s are like that too. One man, one woman, or one woman alone, in a Noble Savage state. No girl-on-girl, no orgies. His counterparts today are drawing threesomes among lesbian vampires.

    The Art Nouveau erotica shows satyrs, and people cosplaying as devils and butterflies. Today there's vampires, devils, furries, other weird non-human shit. In the Psychedelic era, it was strictly two normal homo sapiens, man and woman in their primitive ideal state.

    ReplyDelete
  21. RE: Frazetta,

    Of course, he was renowned for his Conan covers, and Robert E Howard (Conan's creator) saw deviant sex in general and Lesbianism in particular as being the hallmarks of a decaying civilization.Here's REH discussing the matter:


    "You see, girl, when a civilization begins to decay and die, the only thing men or women think about is the gratification of their body's desires. They become preoccupied with sex. It colors their laws, their religion – every aspect of their lives.

    [...]

    "Girl, I'm working on a yarn like that now – a Conan yarn. Listen to me. When you have a dying civilization, the normal, accepted life style ain't strong enough to satisfy the damned insatiable appetites of the courtesans and, finally, of all the people. They turn to Lesbianism and things like that to satisfy their desires...I am going to call it 'The Red Flame of Passion.'"
    —Novalyne Price Ellis, One Who Walked Alone"

    The story ended up being called "Red Nails." It's set in a completely enclosed city (i.e., a totally artificial environment), and it features lots of Lesbian tinged S and M (girls whipping girls, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  22. "The first hit movies to prominently feature a lesbian kiss in a lurid way were Bram Stoker's Dracula and Basic Instinct, from the early '90s."

    I know you pointed out that these movies at least associate deviancy with malevolence. I still find a lot of '89-'92 stuff to be rather repellant, though. That's when bombast in terms of overacting, turgid music, rapid fire editing, unnecessarily twisted plots, and so on seemed to get much more common. The '76-'88 period wasn't immune to these faults but they were a lot less common.

    I'm not sure it's just a cocooning thing, either. I tend to find the music of '88-'92 to be reasonably tasteful and warm. Maybe not as exciting as '76-'87 music but still enjoyable. Something really bit Hollywood hard in the late 80's; was it crass posturing by Silents and Boomers who had firmly left the egalitarian mood of the 70's/early 80's behind? Since movie producers and directors tend to be more aggressive strivers than musicians, maybe movies got infected earlier.

    I saw a YouTube review of Robin Hood from '91 (the Costner one) that mentioned the hammy acting and some parts of the movie being kinda gross and indulgent. Yet the Bryan Adams song from the movie that became a hit (Everything I do, I do for you) is very sincere and poignant. To me it wasn't until around '96 that pop music went totally sour.

    Worth noting that 1990 saw several movies hit new records for cursing in film, which is a good sign of how quickly taste was degenerating in the movies.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "That was the most lacking thing in the study of homosexuality -- not even understanding what the full syndrome is, ignoring all of the Peter Pan / stunting facets of it (like gay-face), and focusing exclusively on the fact that they find girls' sex organs yucky."

    We're not done favors here by generational factors; The G.I. Gen/Silents/Boomers are more or less indifferent to fags who are largely invisible in a high equality period. I do suspect that later Boomers are more wary as they remember the rampage of gay pedos and killers in the late 60's-80's. While most of Gen X and all of the Millennial gens have been lectured their whole lives about how we need to be more accepting of gays. Which happened to coincide with greater striving though people were too engaged with reality in the 80's for it to get as out of hand as it did in the 90's and later.

    Gays really are a very tiny minority of the population and furthermore, they cluster in areas full of glib transplants and nihilists. If every neighborhood had 2-4 gays on every block, I'm sure people would get a clue. When most normal people have little to no regular exposure to gays, you can just explain away the occasional gay weirdo you see as not being representative of gays. But how does Joe middle American judge what the average gay is like when 90% of them (and 99% of the most deviant ones) live in a handful of decadent/rootless areas?

    When crime peaks as it did in the 20's and 80's, people do seem to develop a real aversion to misfits. Obviously, not showing in a interest in procreating strikes people as being weird and you see a lot of hostility towards those who are too busy indulging (like gays) to have the backs of normal people. Most gays admit themselves that they are disinterested in stewardship of things. When we value resilience, unity, and loyalty, as we do in high crime periods, we have an innate disgust towards overgrown kiddie adults.

    ReplyDelete
  24. advancedatheist6/28/15, 3:20 PM

    >Zero future time orientation, devil-may-care attitude about getting hurt in a risky activity, impulsive, lack of interpersonal boundaries, not knowing what is TMI in public, etc. -- that's all just like a 5 year-old

    And we let these men who think like 5 year olds have a say in public policy in the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If gay men show such stunted cognitive development, what about all the emotionally immature young women these day? They complain about all the "boring" men around them. They travel pointlessly. PUA's say you need "clown game" to interest these women sexually. And women well into their 40's talk like, like, you know, Kardashians, half their age.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That's just females being females without discipline and supervision.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "And women well into their 40's talk like, like, you know, Kardashians, half their age."

    Steve Sailer posited that a reason for American male actors born since about 1970 getting shut out of movie roles (particularly dramatic lead roles) is because the Val speak thing."

    Maybe there's a generation gap going on (how old are you?). Boomers and early X-ers in Hollywood find post '70 Americans so grating sounding (and the accent unbecoming of adult men) that they turn to Brit and Aussie actors. I suppose this prejudice will die off when 70's births gain more power.

    Also, Venturist Church guy, you might as well try to get used to non Boomer speech patterns since people's accents/vocab. largely remain the same throughout life. I wonder if the generation being born right now (the Homeland gen.) will sound that different from the one born between about 1970-2005.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I would agree that decades ago it would have been regarded as more deviant. I think there was a time in the later 90s when network shows that wanted to seem edgy would include a lesbian kiss, and at that point the shock value is going to go down rather rapidly. I watched The Warriors some weeks back, a movie very much of its time, and I recall there was a female gang called the "Lizzies". The suggestive name itself was as far as that movie would go, and it was the sort of movie which got banned from playing in some theaters due to the response from gangs.

    To me it's all voyeurism, as I can plainly see none of the people are me and I don't have any vicarious identification. I suppose that's the mark of a limited imagination.

    I agree there are differences in duration related to the tendency of women toward bisexuality rather than homosexuality. I'm just surprised the results are so close so that we're not seeing something like the Bell Curve effect I mentioned. I don't think measuring severity by number of partners is that useful. Men report higher numbers of partners than women overall (even if the question is restricted to opposite-sex partners). Men are also known to seek sex more than women, with the experiment of asking random college students if they'd be willing to have sex being an amusing example and the overwhelming profile of customers paying for sex being an obvious one. Gays can and have been analogized then to males with a sex drive unconstrained by women. Gay women, in contrast, are associated with "lesbian bed death".

    I'm aware of the stereotype of the lesbian-until-graduation, but I'd also heard enough anecdotal stories from lesbians who married women who had previously been straight in their 30s or later that I wanted to check how youthful the phenomena is. Luckily, the GSS doesn't just have lifetime partners by gender, it also has the ROMANCE variable which includes the option of whether one has a partner of the same gender. I was surprised by the result. For men, 4% of those 19 or younger report that option, with 0.5% in their 20s and zero afterward. For women it was zero before their 20s, 0.3% in their 20s, 0.4% in their 30s and zero afterward. Small sample size for the question is likely a problem. I should note that I ran with with the 2014 GSS, some previous analyses were with the 2008.

    My problem with simplifying the constellation of gay syndromes with childishness is that observers are so often able to predict which children will grow up to be gay when everyone at that age is childish. And one of the big indicators is displaying traits atypical for their gender (and since girls mature before boys this wouldn't be a matter of the atypicality merely consisting of immaturity).

    The Bloomsbury group wrote about non-procreative sex in just the elitist sense you discuss, although they couched it as something high-minded that lesser people just wouldn't be able to appreciate.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "And women well into their 40's talk like, like, you know, Kardashians, half their age."

    Well who do you think invented Valspeak? -- women who are presently in their 40s. Language coheres during adolescence. Boomers talk like they did circa 1969, and early X-ers still talk like it's 1983.

    BTW, the Kardashians aren't half the age of 40-something women. Kim and Kourtney are both late X-ers in their mid-30s. That's why they sound like 40-something women.

    Talking like Millennials half their age would be like one of the two Jenner girls -- saying little, with no expression, and constant vocal fry.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "To me it's all voyeurism, as I can plainly see none of the people are me and I don't have any vicarious identification."

    To 100% of porno viewers, vicarious identification with someone in the scene is not only guaranteed, it's the whole point of watching.

    "I don't think measuring severity by number of partners is that useful."

    Compare bisexual women to hetero women, and gays to hetero men, and it's not a problem if men exaggerate or pursue more partners. This treats bi women and gay men as deviations from the normal people of their sex.

    If you want something more ongoing than the lifetime variable, look at SEXSEX and SEXSEX5 -- the sex of your sex partners in the past year / past 5 years. Decays with a half-life of 10 years for women, does not decay for men.

    Doing any analysis on homos with the ROMANCE variable is pointless since only 4 individuals said they had a same-sex partner, 2 men and 2 women.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "And women well into their 40's talk like, like, you know, Kardashians, half their age."

    "Well who do you think invented Valspeak? -- women who are presently in their 40s. Language coheres during adolescence. Boomers talk like they did circa 1969, and early X-ers still talk like it's 1983."

    As we all know, Boomers always think that they did everything best. I suppose we'll have to deal with Boomers lecturing younger generations about their speech being "inferior".

    Good article on evolution of speech: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/sep/21/referenceandlanguages.mattseaton

    "In 1991, Cynthia McLemore had been a postgraduate student in Austin at the University of Texas, working on a PhD thesis about intonation in the speech of a university sorority. Two years later she was a world authority on uptalk (albeit Gorman's coinage). What she noted, she says, was that her seminar class used a rising intonation "to signal identity and group affiliation""

    Bingo. Kids want to be distinct from older generations. There's no reason to change after you get older since you've formed a generational identity by your 20's.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Future time orientation and gays. The suspected gays I know have more future time orientation then this straight guy does. Extreme example, Tim Cook. I'm sure that there were hundreds of guys and gals who could have went for a promotion that may have eventually put them near the inner circle when Jobs left but for one reason or another didn't. I don't know Cook but the gays I know like being promoted. Straight guys sometimes see it at as being a sell out(somewhat accurately) but gays and some women seem to be more comfortable in the
    corporate system. You should compare the 30 year old gay man to the straight guys without dependents and compare the two. I like this blog but you continue to out the successful gays . However they succeed, they must have it together enough to succeed in the first place. A 5 year old isn't being hired to bring a 100 million dollar movie to completion. Again, like the blog but I thought you were too extreme with that comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Latent Transgenderism?" I think you're reaching here but go on I'll judge the idea later.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "the successful gays . However they succeed, they must have it together enough to succeed in the first place. A 5 year old isn't being hired to bring a 100 million dollar movie to completion."

    Gays rising to the top aren't necessarily a sign of being better suited to the nuts-and-bolts of the job. They typically do not rise in meritocratic fields, but ones with a highly entrenched and favoritistic gay network -- entertainment, media, fashion, academia, etc.

    Even where there doesn't seem to be a huge gay cabal, gays are going to be more favored because they are easier to threaten for misbehavior -- we'll out you, and your career will be over.

    There was an item awhile back on Blind Gossip about the head of a major Wall Street financial group being in danger for sex with an underage boy -- every powerful gay has a skeleton that damning in his closet, and makes them easier to get them to do the bidding of the board / cabal / whoever. (My best guess for that gay pedophile banker was Lloyd Blankfein, who has one of the most ferocious gay-faces I've ever seen.)

    Also, I said they were socially and emotionally stunted, not cognitively. If the job requires smarts only, then they will be fine. In fact, they tend to have a slight edge over normal men in IQ (nothing to do with being gay, but probably coming from high-IQ families that pile into urban power centers, where the kids are exposed to higher levels of pathogens, including the gay germ).

    Notice that they don't rise to the top of fields where compassion, getting along, and the like are necessary. They do best where acting like a bratty little stinker is the way you get things done -- fashion, media, PR, academia, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Vermifuge6/29/15, 10:59 AM

    I’ve never understood the fascination with girl-on-girl (nor the appeal of anal, for that matter). This post, however, makes sense. It’s safe for one of these losers to make believe that he could sneak up on the girl of his dreams; if he could only let his guard down and say, I'm just another girl—while of course, watching her in the locker-room—she would see his true heart and accept it.

    The breakdown of regional identities, I think, makes it easier for such alienation to germinate. When you blow up real social networks to make actors your friends and politicians your spiritual guides, you lose sight of actual concerns to champion tranny mental illness and faggots LARPing their vows. Of course, when the energy is piled into a single monopoly-like gauge, you get moribund industries, like publishing, film, and music, without new ideas, without new stories, and with incestuous handshakes. In a way, it’s like the hardware store that’s been replaced by the hipster’s dog spa (with doggy cupcakes!) for the childless, barren womb. The area, no matter how well redeveloped, will never serve the same function, have a real stake in the future, nor know anything but strivers rather than community.

    Also, as an aside: Have you ever done a post on fans of televisions shows (like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead)? Or how they won’t let themselves be entertained? Or how they’ll lash out if their show is canceled (that’s my show, asshole!)? It’s a strange, autistic tick to invest in a fantasy world and forego social contact.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Also, as an aside: Have you ever done a post on fans of televisions shows (like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead)? Or how they won’t let themselves be entertained? Or how they’ll lash out if their show is canceled"

    I know the topic of serialized entertainment has frequently come up on this blog. This post doesn't mention that in particular but it still is relevant: http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2015/01/entertainment-as-mood-stabilizer-vs.html

    Doesn't really take a genius to figure out that sprawling serialized entertainment flourishes when people don't have lives. Cocooners don't seem to realize that they ought to be living out their own adventures instead of vicariously living through TV idols.

    Yeah, it is ridiculous how people get bent out of shape about TV stories and characters now. Sure, there was the Who shot J.R. thing, but generally speaking people in the 80's had a more no nonsense attitude about pop culture. If you didn't like a show or a band anymore, you moved right along. People had better things to do than whine (or listen to others whine) about something not being cool anymore. Besides, when people hung out together more often and had better hobbies in the 80's, there was less dorky investment in pop culture. especially dull TV and kiddie stuff like comic books.

    Video games were also less pretentious and more stimulating before the mid 90's. There was minimal story and less focus on complicated gameplay and joyless item collecting/stat building. Pre mid 90's games were generally intended to be visually creative (little emphasis on realism) and a test of reflexes. This also had the benefit of alienating adults who find bright colors less appealing and have slower reaction times than kids. Agnostic once did a post on how video games since the 80's have been intended for late Gen X-ers. Thus, the blood and crass humor of 90's games and the growing emphasis on realism (which often means desaturing the colors to absurd levels; grass isn't brown or gray). The high difficulty level and in your face onslaught of enemies and vivid colors also discouraged drawn out playing.

    This is similar to how 80's music had such high levels of energy that you only needed to listen to it a few times to get a rush out of it. 80's music videos also tended to have striking contrasts of colors and patterns (both in the photgraphy and costumes) which are inspiring to look at a couple of times a day but would grate on your eyes after extended viewing. 80's pop culture is potent and could get away with it because people were busy enough doing other things besides consuming videos, music, and video games. The late 70's and 80's are always satisfying to experience again because you are NOT left wanting more. A catchy hook, a quotable movie character, angular patterns, shades of red and blue, a striking object or well ornamented person set against a dark or foggy background etc. are memorable enough that they hit you and stay with you.

    A show like Game of Thrones has almost nothing of visual interest. Everything is drab. If it had striking photography in the form of bright and contrasty use of color, or illumination of objects against pitch darkness you would be stimulated to the point that you would not want to binge watch it. After you watch Micheal Meyers lurking in deep blue darkness amid glowing orange pumpkins in the 1st movie, who needs to watch the sequels?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "In fact, they tend to have a slight edge over normal men in IQ (nothing to do with being gay, but probably coming from high-IQ families that pile into urban power centers, where the kids are exposed to higher levels of pathogens, including the gay germ)"

    Does this account for how sickly pale, thin, and neurotic so many urban dwellers become? I suppose people who are like this to begin with are more likely to go to and stay in these areas. And yeah, a striver heavy lineage (which Jews are the greatest example of) presumably makes people ugly and weak from a physical and moral standpoint. I would think that heavily selecting for certain intellectual traits might also have a negative impact on physical, moral, and emotional integrity.

    Course, liberals, Jews, and dorks often are lack a deeply visceral sense of disgust so they just don't get why others find them repulsive.

    A recent topic on Alex Jones is how utterly repulsive our elites have become. How much of this arises from many of them being aging closeted queens, dour lesbians, or diseased hetero horn dogs? And many of them come from striver dynasties to boot. All these things multiply and we get a rampaging decadent elite class.

    If anyone reading this is considering going to a large, striver heavy area, beware. Think twice before you strive or shack up with a striver.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You see the same transgender trend in the midcentury. In "Some Like it Hot", Tony Curtis disguises himself as a woman to escape the mafia, but uses his disguise to get close to Marilyn Monroe. Dressed up like a woman, he learns all of her romantic fantasies, then acts them out as a man to seduce her. this is pretty close to what Agnostic is describing about transgenderism as a form of romantic immaturity.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Cocooners don't seem to realize that they ought to be living out their own adventures instead of vicariously living through TV idols."

    That is a little too strong a statement. How can they live out adventures when everyone is cocooning, and the people making decisions are off their rocker? The zeitgeist crushes everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'd be curious to know how big a part TV serials really play in modern culture. Ratings wise, even the big ones score quite poorly compared to pre-2000 TV entertainment. Some of that is due to the fragmentation of choice caused by the plenitude of channels on cable and broadcast, and home recording and online viewing slice away further on the Nielsen numbers, but it still seems significant that the series finale of a supposed modern zeitgeist show like "Mad Men" got blown away in the ratings by a re-run of a 1952 episode of "I Love Lucy".

    Modern TV serials are beloved, though, by the class of social elite (and aspirers to same) that possess the megaphone in the big time newspapers and webzines that are the professional cultural reporters, though these venues are not getting killer sales or hits themselves. It might be analogous to the postmodernist writings of James Joyce and Virginia Woolf and imitators, which were barely read by the public although devoured by professional critics and upscale art-lovers; despite that, the books the public actually liked in the 1910s, '20s and '30s were detective stories, adventure novels, and romances, which were generally ignored if not scorned by the opinion class. The so-called Golden Age of Hollywood, '30s and early '40s, reflects the public tastes.

    I checked Amazon and among the top six currently selling DVDs/Blu-Rays, we've got "Gone with the Wind" (a consumer revolt against the iconoclastic trashing of Confederate insignia), "Jurassic World" (which the SJWs hate because the female lead isn't a kick-ass ball crusher), "American Sniper" (which appears twice and is also hated by the SJWs for the usual reasons), plus a superhero movie and an animated film I know nothing about. You have to crawl all the way down to #22 to get a TV serial ("House of Cards"), and there are only three others in the top 50, and except for one, a women's prison show with socially conscious lesbians called "Orange Is the New Black," they're not among the most talked up in the modern TV "golden age". A "Game of Thrones" set is #60.

    I have the suspicion that the current TV serial craze is really the zeitgeist that never showed up.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The TV serial craze is real, you just won't see it in data on DVD sales because people don't buy DVDs of TV shows. They watch them on TV, Netflix, Hulu, file-sharing sites, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Perhaps, but where can one see the data? Hulu's list of their most popular content places "Seinfeld," a genuine '90s zeitgeist show, at #1, followed by combo kid/adult shows like "South Park" and "Family Guy". There are a bunch of reality shows, and some non-animated episodic TV cop shows that don't have much critical respect. Finally towards the tail end of the top 50 and 60 you get some critical kudo stuff like "Modern Family" and "Sons of Anarchy." This is consistent with Amazon hard-copy sales.

    Netflix's site is not as forthcoming as Hulu when it comes to their most popular material, by design it's reported. Adam Epstein at Quartz ("Finally, some data on which Netflix shows are most popular") reports on an attempt to calculate viewer data, and if accurate the situation at Netflix is the same as at Amazon and Hulu. "House of Cards," the best-selling show on Amazon, was watched by only 6.5% of Netflix subscribers, and other serials had similar numbers. "In fact," Epstein writes, "it seems as though only a small percentage of Netflix’s overall subscribers actually watch its original shows." He talks about how one of their shows, which has atrocious viewing numbers even by Netflix standards, ended up being renewed for a second season because it had been effusively praised by critics.

    So how can one know, objectively, that there's a zeitgeist represented by this material? As best I can determine so far, this stuff is only demonstrably popular to the social crowd that contributes writers to the New York Times and Slate.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "I'd be curious to know how big a part TV serials really play in modern culture."

    So how popular is non serial entertainment? Movies these days aren't very popular: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
    Tickets sold:
    1989 - 1262.8
    2014 - 1268.1
    How much bigger is America's population now vs. 1989?

    Music videos don't have the cultural impact now that they did in the 80's. A fair amount get a lot of Youtube hits and press based mainly on novelty (Gangam Style) or brand recognition (Taylor Swift) or both (Mylie Cyrus). But they aren't given the level of artistic respect that they had in the 80's. Why should they when modern pop music is such garbage and the visual style is so dull?

    Pop music doesn't have the same grasp on people that it did from the late 50's-early 90's. A lot of Millennials listen partially or mostly to 60's-90's music. Boomers always listened to newer songs in the 60's and 70's, and Gen X-ers mostly listened to newer songs in the 80's and 90's. Most post '96 stuff is not capable of grabbing people since it blows.

    Since most modern movies and songs are offensively bad many people turn to:

    - Video games. Which have been tailored for adult cocooners by slowing down gameplay, desaturating colors, and using adult voice actors and more realistic plots and environments.

    - The vast array of TV shows. The sheer number of channels and original programming exploded in the later 90's when cocooning strengthened

    - Comic books. Jew schlock which heavily features exploitative/titillating junk in cocooning eras, in outgoing periods like the 60's-early 90's it's tailored to be more wholesome stuff for kids/early teens e.g. bright colors, fanciful environments, simple plots, bondage and torture kept to a minimum etc. The neverending narratives bore people who have lives.

    - Talk radio, since modern pop is worthless.

    - Fantasy sports, to justify devoting more time to sports since you don't have anything better to do.

    Back to the good ole days: Double Dragon intro - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaj7ZdVBOAw

    ReplyDelete
  44. The hallmark of a creation that taps into the zeitgeist is that it resonates with a wide variety of people, expressing a particular style or mode of thought that is widely shared in that moment. But what is the current state, in terms that will be remembered fifty years from now?

    When I was growing up in the '80s I had a firm sense that the '80s had its own identity, with a unique style, sound, look, and mode of thinking. You didn't need to even look for it. Simply comparing the music, the clothing fashions, the films, to what came previously in the '70s, '60s, '50s, etc., it was obvious even to an 8 year old. And the earlier periods had their own style and sense to them too. You could almost always tell when a photo was taken or movie made within a half-dozen years because culture was that distinctive and that commonly expressed. It represented how people from different walks of life were engaging with other and share common interests. The '90s, often maligned on here, have that sense too.

    But since 2000 --- really September 11, 2001 --- there seems to be no real character to the times, that you can put your finger on and visualize. A lot of it, especially the clothes, is just the 1990s, rotted and decomposing. The only big fashion trend I've noticed is the rise of tattoos and unorthodox piercing, a self-disfigurement that speaks its own commentary. Prior to 2000 it would have seemed silly to get tattooed or have your ear gaged, because why on earth would you imagine you'd like it after more than a few years? Common clothing and hairstyles used to be laughingstocks within a few years of a decade ending. People were embarrassed by the stuff they wore in their 20s, and you expected to someday be embarrassed too by what you were wearing in high school and college. But that all stopped when the '90s weren't displaced by the '00s, and nothing greatly changed. If you tattoo and tear open your ear you expect nothing to change very much in your tastes or society's tastes either.

    The cocooning in the present period is often compared to the cocooning of the '50s and earlier, but it seems like there's something different about the present day. People still had enough common interests and attitudes for the '50s to have its own distinctive place on the map of cultural memory, in clothing, hair styles, car design, film, television, music. But as Feryl's list of modern diversions show, fragmentation seems to be the common feature of the present age. People don't go to movies as much, people don't listen to contemporary music as much, people don't watch television shows as much, people don't do anything as a group as much. It's all scattered like a shattered window pane.

    It bedevils me to think of how the '00s and '10s are going to be remembered in ensuing decades, by people who never lived in them. I've been through them the whole way through as a conscious adult, and they have no distinctive picture in my mind. It's perhaps indicative of the lack of true zeitgeist potential in this era that one of its allegedly defining shows is a soapy drama set in the 1960s.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "It bedevils me to think of how the '00s and '10s are going to be remembered in ensuing decades, by people who never lived in them. I've been through them the whole way through as a conscious adult, and they have no distinctive picture in my mind. It's perhaps indicative of the lack of true zeitgeist potential in this era that one of its allegedly defining shows is a soapy drama set in the 1960s."

    Period pieces and historical characters were also frequently used in the 40's and 50's. Seems like cocooning eras spur people to pine for the past and cling to pre-existing ideas. If you look at toys, the 60's saw a profusion of new ideas like G.I. Joe, Matt Mason, and newer superheroes as opposed to just recycling figures like Robin Hood and Davy Crockett. This peaked in the 1980's with the introduction of legions of all new ideas like He-Man, Transformers, Thundercats, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and so on. Now that we're in a neurotic cocooning period, we're too timid and dull to create memorable new characters. So we go to the backstop of 80's franchises. Around '92, Target and WalMart began demanding that toy companies produce certain popular characters (like Batman, Luke Skywalker, or G.I. Joe's Snake Eyes) non stop.

    The popular belief is that the "System" insists on exploiting certain brands indefinitely. Yet in the 80's, Star Wars toys weren't even produced at all from '86-'89. And sales quickly declined around '84 because kids wanted new ideas.

    "It bedevils me to think of how the '00s and '10s are going to be remembered in ensuing decades, by people who never lived in them. I've been through them the whole way through as a conscious adult, and they have no distinctive picture in my mind."

    Maybe cuz I'm younger I guess, I do have a pretty strong (and negative) impression of post '92 Western culture. Including the last 15 years. I experienced the very late 80's-present first hand. In terms of the period before then, I've developed a good impression of the late 50's-80's since that period is the most aesthetically interesting to me. It's also fun to learn about since it traces the beginning and end of an outgoing period.

    As we get older, our brains start to freeze over and it becomes harder to keep up with the times. We're most impressionable before we hit our mid 20's. Trust me, as an early '85 birth who experienced the late 90's-00's as a dopey teen, we are all different than we were in the 90's. And Millennials born in the mid 90's have different tastes and values than the 90's teens who are now in or nearing middle age these days.. Regardless of cultural shifts, we'll always be guided by our generation values and traits.

    I do agree though that, particularly if you grew up in the mid 50's-mid 90's, cultural changes did seem to happen faster back then. I would put that down to people being more creative in outgoing periods. It is kinda fun how you can date something quickly by seeing a certain type of fashion. Like how you know you're watching something from the early 80's when you see a rising sun shirt. But from about '95 and later, things have just slowed down. I can see why the 00's and 10's seem so dang boring and forgettable; they are just that. Thus, we go back to funner periods to try and escape the limbo we've been stuck in. I heard a designer say that the later 80's were the best period to make clothes in since retailers were way more open minded and less cautious.

    ReplyDelete
  46. " People still had enough common interests and attitudes for the '50s to have its own distinctive place on the map of cultural memory, in clothing, hair styles, car design, film, television, music."

    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2011/10/car-shapes-during-rising-vs-falling.html

    There are numerous posts on this blog detaling how most fashion/pop culture is shaped by how outgoing people are. In terms of cars, aesthetics align almost perfectly with crime rates.

    Early 60's-early 90's as well as early 1900's- early 30's. High crime rates. Angularity, large windows, smaller interiors. A more intimdating, mature, "on a mission" aesthetic.

    Mid 30's- late 50's as well as mid 90's - present. Low crime. Curves, small windows, big interiors. An uninspired, aloof, rather child like aesthetic. Amusingly, this design is often passed off as being "sensibly" aerodynamic. Yeah, right. Cocooning dorks always turn to science to make themselves feel better.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Maybe I was more in touch with youth culture, for better or worse, from being a tutor during the 2000s, but there was plenty that was distinct as well as brand-new, in ways that were obvious to children.

    Cell phones, smartphones, laptops, WiFi, etc. Not just what they made possible, but the physical items themselves and their styling, which was unrelentingly minimalist, white / silver / black.

    Skinny jeans. Slim-fitting jeans from before the droopy drawers era of the '90s were not as tight-fighting as skinny jeans throughout the whole hip-to-ankle length.

    Hoodies.

    Track-suits, which gave way to sweatpants with words across the butt.

    Yoga pants, something distinct from leggings, which have been around since Medieval times. Today's yoga pants suggest exercise, fitness, sweating, etc., rather than casual low-effort leggings of the '80s.

    Shaky cam.

    The "poo palette" in video games (everything is shades of gray, brown, and green).

    Home interiors being entirely white / cream (not even beige, which has yellow in it), from the walls to moldings to trim to even the hardware being painted over (door handles, air grates, light switches...).

    Really dark minimalist furniture.

    I could keep going, but the point is made. We all sense how bland, weird, and off-putting today's world looks and feels, which means it has a "signature" style, just one that's alienating and boring.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Haha, and of course "scene" hair from the 2000s. The whole Hot Topic look in general.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The 90s seemed to have a lot of style - remember wiggers, skaters, goths? The early 2000s had a somewhat better culture, when the crime began to rise again, but it wasn't allowed to develop as long.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I guess you saw a kind of geek chic in the early 2000s, but more pro-social. That was when internet use skyrocketed, but at the same time people were more outgoing and spending more time in public spaces. Hoodies, sweatpants with logos, minimalist laptops were all less pretentious.

    Facebook was also introduced in that period, and in its original incarnation was much more simple and focused on networking with people you went to college with. That shows how use of the Internet, but also being outgoing, could increase at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Skinny jeans. Slim-fitting jeans from before the droopy drawers era of the '90s were not as tight-fighting as skinny jeans throughout the whole hip-to-ankle length".

    Gotta quibble a bit with this one. I started buying more clothes about 5 years ago (during the tight pants era) and the fits are all over the place. The waist height varies a lot and so does the tightness in the thigh, the knee, the ankle. Even with ostensibly slim or skinny pants.

    Also, you could get pants as tight as you wanted in the 80's. Though it might've been a bit harder back then on account of there being fewer manufacturers since the world's population was much smaller 30 years ago. It's possible that mens jeans were higher waisted back then on average, but I've certainly seen images of some guys wearing presumably low rise jeans 4 inches below there belly button back then.

    Fabric matters, too. Most 80's and 90's jeans were cotton, which is why they appear looser (even if they're cut tight) than poly 70's pants or spandex post mid 2000's pants.

    BTW, waist sizing has really been screwed up since about 2000. Most pants are at least 1 inch wider in the waist than they should be. Blame sky high obesity levels. I dunno who started this idiotic aesthetic of pants falling off you're ass because of loose waists and really low rises. In the 80's, it was the other way around to the point that some people didn't even use a belt.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Skinny jeans that look distinctly 21st-century fit pretty close from the waist down to the tapered ankle. Slim-fitting jeans from the '70s and '80s have similar outlines but today's are shrunken to fit very close to the leg all the way down. And bell-bottoms fit pretty close until the huge flaring ankle.

    So I think skinny jeans will hold up as one of those iconic things people associate with the early 21st century, other than buttsex marriage ("These two historical trends were completely unrelated, experts assure us.")

    The '80s look was definitely high-waisted, intended to make women look leggier and men appear taller, at the expense of warping the proportions of the backside and creating the "longbutt" look. Back then it was more about "She's got legs, She knows how to use 'em" than "I like big butts and I cannot lie".

    ReplyDelete
  53. I prefer the 80s physique, I thought everybody did, heh. It wasn't just fashion though, models just looked different also. I vaguely recall this blog mentioning that fashion changes every ten years, alternating between low key and discreet vs. stylize and bombastic.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "alternating between low key and discreet vs. stylize and bombastic."

    I think it's more pro-social (outgoing periods) vs. anti-social (cocooning periods) and vulgar (high inequality) vs. refined (low inequality).

    1950's: Cocooning and low inequality. Somewhat baggy but still dignified clothes. Dull womans hairstyles, crew cuts for guys. No facial hair, tattoos, or non ear piercings.

    1960's: Outgoing and low inequality. Clothes become more fitted and revealing (more tank tops etc.). Woman grow their hair out first and start styling it away from their faces. Some guys (mostly teens and near teens) grow their hair out a bit but most still won't take the plunge so they stick to a "manly" crew cut. Some know it all bratty young men in status conscious areas grow beards but facial hair is still regarded as unprofessional in most circles. Tattoos and piercings are for rough hewn men, not housewives or office workers.

    1970's: Outgoingness strengthens, slight rise in inequality/striving. Clothes become extremely revealing, patterns more common. Both men and woman now less self conscious about very grown out hair; crew cuts are passe. Sideburns and mustaches become acceptable in some circles but most of the face is still expected to be neatly shaven. A handful of status conscious occupations (like Hollywood directors and college professors) can get away with full beards. Tattos and piercings still the domain of sailors and criminals.

    1980's: Peak outgoingness, a surge in competition. A wide variety of clothes and hairstyles worn, though the growing emphasis on me 1st individuality leads to some people taking things a bit too far. Clothes are still revealing rather than anti social though (sleeveless tops at their peak). Heavier facial hair becoming more visible and accepted in many occupations, though the the desire to be welcoming and engaging leads most men to get rid of sideburns and mustaches. Some guys get ear piercings but most don't mind since ear piercings are the most aesthetically pleasing type of piercing. Tattoos still forbidden to most, but status striver dominated urban areas began to see more young men getting unusual piercings and tattoos.

    1990's: Cocooning returns, inequality solidifies. Fitted clothing seen as embarrassingly outdated, women began styling their hair to be in their faces. Bangs and feathering seen as cheesy redneck fashion by most, males started wearing their hair flatter while longer styles become sloppier so as to hide the face. Sideburns and even goatees become hip, though mustaches and heavy beards are regarded as passe Boomer fashion. Tattoos and piercings move to middle America. Putting down someone for "alternative" fashion becomes taboo as we began to lose interest in teamwork and collective identity.

    2000's: Cocooning and inequality surges. Anything goes. Some people wear extremely baggy clothes (the post '92 look is much more clownish than the slightly baggy 40's/50's look) while some go for "fitted" clothing that somehow isn't quite as dignified as it was before the 90's. The crew cut becomes standard while woman's hair is short and straight. NOT having a tattoo or non ear piercing becomes unusual and almost suspicious. Full beards come back with a vengeance as tooth and nail competition surges.

    ReplyDelete
  55. thanks Feryl. that is a nice breakdown. as far as the low-key vs. bombastic thing, "Face to Face" wrote awhile back that the culture oscillated between the two styles every ten years. Agnostic wrote it in a comment, and it was a one-off, but I brought up to try to explain the 80s strange, over-the-top fashions. it could just be, as you pointed out, that the 80s combined outgoingness with inequality.

    off-topic to this discussion, but on-topic to the thread: an article at UNZ argues that desperate men are becoming transgender to tap into the lesbian market, in an article about the increase in single men

    "Then there’s gender reassignment, which means either entering the other side of the mate market or tapping into the lesbian market. It’s a viable strategy, all the more so because many white boys can be turned into hot trans women. I’m not saying that some young men actually think along those lines, but gender reassignment is functioning that way."

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/young-male-and-single/

    ReplyDelete
  56. Becoming a tranny is a retarded strategy to tap into any market other than fags.

    Straight women are turned off by the freakishness and narcissism of the autogynephiliac type -- Bruce Jenner had some female admirers before, and has zero admirers now (ones who would want him).

    And lesbians are turned off by the thoroughly male-typical behavior of trannies. Clueless "intellectuals" who argue that trannies are feminine have trouble explaining why lesbians of all stripes can't stand them. It's just a campy man in drag, that's why -- not a feminine or feminized man.

    That leaves the flaming homo type of tranny, but they're obviously not trying to enteri the mating market "from the other side", or in other words, if you can't beat the rare choosey sex, join 'em. These sissiest of homos are just infantile, not feminine, not maternal, and definitely NOT choosey. They are so indiscriminate that they have sex for pay, have the highest rates of STDs, depression, etc., even compared to generic fags.

    In any matter relating to sex, the clever-silly parade marches proudly on.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "but I brought up to try to explain the 80s strange, over-the-top fashions. it could just be, as you pointed out, that the 80s combined outgoingness with inequality".

    In spite of rising striving, the urge to be agreeable was so strong in the 80's that fashion was in some ways less wacky than 70's fashion. The super long sideburns and porn staches of the 70's were pretty gnarly.

    Also, the very late 80's and early 90's in some ways taint people's memories of the 80's. Even music videos (which are a pretty darn good gauge of "bold" fashion) from '80-'87 rarely have people in neon haz mat clothes. Pastels, cherry red, royal blue, golden yellow, kelly green, deep purple, sure. But not neon. And hey, sometimes people wore black, white, grey, or beige.

    Some of the real crazy patterns didn't start to show up until about '88. I was looking at a '94 Penney's catalog. Some of the patterns and eye searing color combos are outrageous and far more stereotypically 80's than anything in the '84 catalog. Anyone else remember the plague of purple and teal that hit us like a mofo in the 90's?

    For anyone still paying attention, here's my conception of cultural periods:

    1963-1972: The Sixties (upheaval)
    1973-1978: The Seventies (the Me Gen sells out to careerism and self-interest)
    1979-1984: The New Wave era (we didn't quite know what lay ahead, but the music and movies were totally bitchin')
    1985-1991: The Eighties (don't worry, be happy)
    1992-2001: The Nineties (post modern snark)
    2002- 2008: Pre crash new millenium (9/11 paradoxically makes people lighten up)
    2009-?: The long emergency (rising cynicism that makes the watergate era look like a picnic)

    ReplyDelete
  58. thanks. i didn't agree with the author, just putting it out there to see what your opinion was.

    "1963-1972: The Sixties (upheaval)
    1973-1978: The Seventies (the Me Gen sells out to careerism and self-interest)
    1979-1984: The New Wave era (we didn't quite know what lay ahead, but the music and movies were totally bitchin')
    1985-1991: The Eighties (don't worry, be happy)
    1992-2001: The Nineties (post modern snark)
    2002- 2008: Pre crash new millenium (9/11 paradoxically makes people lighten up)
    2009-?: The long emergency (rising cynicism that makes the watergate era look like a picnic)"

    Very interesting. I agree with everything except classing 2002-2008 together. i think that 2001-2004/05 was its own cultural period. granted, I may have nostalgia, since that is when I started college.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Here's the comment I was looking for:

    "
    There appears to be a pop culture cycle between low-key and dialed-up, with peaks repeating roughly every 20 years. It's not a general atmosphere, since the '70s were definitely not a low-key time and place. Specifically pop culture -- energy level in pop songs, temperature contrast in color schemes, prominence of make-up on women.

    Dialed-up periods: '20s, '40s, '60s, '80s, 2000s.

    Low-key periods: '30s, '50s, '70s, '90s, 2010s.

    These are more like "relative to the longer-term trend in the outgoing vs. cocooning cycle," not so much low-key or dialed-up on an absolute scale. The pop culture of the '70s was not low-key as it was in the '50s, nor as it would get in the '90s. But compared to the Swingin' Sixties and the Go-Go Eighties, it was definitely a more mellow time.

    Pop songs were not packed with an intense energy nor try to elicit a raving response from the audience. Colors were away from the extremes of hot and cold (reds and blues), and more toward the middle -- green, orange, and yellow. High-contrast black-and-white was replaced with brown and beige / tan. The popular look for women was a natural face and hairstyle, unlike the high visibility of make-up and hairstyles from the '60s or '80s.

    The mellow '70s style returned in the '90s, although it may have been affected by the shift to a cocooning rather than outgoing background.

    And we seem to be returning to it again, although with an even crappier background. We're only part way through the decade, though, so we'll have to see where it goes."

    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2015/03/70s-snapshot-booze-and-drugs-at-middle.html

    ReplyDelete
  60. I do agree that there's a bit of pattern to high energy/saturation trends. Still, I think we sometimes go through phases within and between decades that don't neatly stop or start in alignment with a decade ending or starting.

    For example, here's 3 '79 pop songs which are firmly a part of the new wave culture that wanted desperately to leave the "mellow" (in fact, culturally and politically very volatile but the 70's seem relatively stable by virtue of how out of control the 60's were) 70's behind:

    - Pop Muzik, M: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avvh5H-EPWU
    - Cars, Gary Numan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw
    - My Sharona, The Knack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR2JtsVumFA

    I've heard a lot people say that this sort of nervous energy was gone by '85. The uncertainty that reigned in the late 60's and 70's didn't really die until the later 80's. I'm not suprised that trust peaked in '87 since many Westerners believed that we had finally gotten the "radical" weirdness out of our system. Too bad the weirdness would return big time in the mid 90's.

    I also still think that most trends don't quickly alternate as much they slowly fade out or build up. Womans hairstyles reached their peak bigness from the late 70's-early 90's and have gotten flatter and flatter since the mid 90's. Men became more and more comfortable with longer hair in the 70's and 80's but have rejected it since the late 90's. Facial hair has been getting more and more acceptable since the 70's after being unheard of from the 20's-mid 60's.

    Cars too were as bold and colorful in the 70's as they were in the 80's. Nobody ever says 70's cars were known for modesty or reserve.

    ReplyDelete
  61. agnostic wrote: "When I first thought about this strange new phenomenon, it looked like part of the cuckold fetish -- getting off on the sight of a girl you want who's with someone that could not ever possibly be you"

    Speaking of cuckolds. Here's an interview with a guy that directs/stars in cuckold movies. He says the audience is guys with homosexual attraction, who are too scared to act: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/advice/a5907/shane-diesel-dildo-model/

    A disturbing trend in recent porn is "straight" videos were the camera lingers on the guy, and the guy/director/girl(s) will talk about the guy's dick.

    I went from a guy that never watched girl-girl videos to watching more gg stuff because of this trend. I have no idea what theses porn producers are thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  62. advancedatheist7/5/15, 10:31 PM

    So how did we get into this situation where the gay men have become edgy and cool, while the adult male virgins with normal desires have become the freaks and weirdos?

    Consider that Charles Darwin married his cousin Emma Wedgwood about a month before his 30th birthday. I haven't come across anything to indicate that Darwin had any premarital sexual experience before then, and he certainly had opportunities with prostitutes in the South American ports the Beagle visited during his adventures as a naturalist. If Darwin just abstained from sex because he internalized the standards of his time about how an Englishman of his station should conduct himself before marriage, by today's standards people would call him a loser in his 20's.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "So how did we get into this situation where the gay men have become edgy and cool, while the adult male virgins with normal desires have become the freaks and weirdos? "

    good point. "Face to Face" made a post about how "senstive" men like Darwin must have been get lambasted during periods of cocooning. one reason is that the culture becomes extremely conformist when crime falls, so introverts get labeled psychotics or potential rapists.

    another reason is because of the inequality. nerdier young guys can get dumped on by all the other groups trying to secure their ambitions or just keep their job. there seems to especially a be an "us or them" mentality between younger men and older women in the workforce.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Consider that Charles Darwin married his cousin Emma Wedgwood about a month before his 30th birthday."

    "another reason is because of the inequality. nerdier young guys can get dumped on by all the other groups trying to secure their ambitions or just keep their job."

    Making men wait for decades for sex, let alone a strong/extended relationship, smacks of a highly elitist culture. In the 40's-early 70's, when we were in the prime of equality, men often married their high school sweetheart at a very young age. Nowadays men have to clear a very high bar to get a woman who isn't fat, mouthy, and lazy. Most men need a high intellect and need to stay well above ignorance, poverty, and incarceration for decades to have any hope of piling up enough money to attract a keeper. Keep in mind also that in the more wholesome and amiable period of the 30's-70's, even the "losers" were well mannered and conscientious. So not getting a grade A spouse wasn't as crushing back then as it is now.

    The remoteness of attaining great success for the less cunning masses leads to lots of vulgar acting out (welfare, dressing like crap, tattoos, not taking care of one's body or possessions, etc.). We end up with a snobs vs slobs atmosphere. We shouldn't let the "smart" people off the hook, either. They ultimately get corrupted by privilege and a lack of sincerity/empathy. Their arrogance towards the masses provokes a sense of alienation in the common man.

    The lack of unity and camaraderie really does explain why so many people feel so hollow and joyless. The masses know that the slightest misstep will drag them back down while the lucky few (via high IQ, cunning social agility, or inherited privilege) become seduced by materialism and vanity. There is no quarter given to people who lack the tenacity, brains, and luck to succeed. It's a big competition, don't be a sore loser.

    I don't think nerds get disproportionate abuse. I think there's a lack of empathy for virtually everyone else. Which can be put down to very high levels of distrust and cynicism. Everyone assumes bad faith in an everyman for himself type of era.

    ReplyDelete
  65. and now it seems Caitlyn Jenner is dating a woman. So I guess Bruce/Caitlyn fits under this new theory of transgenderism, whereby a man becomes a woman to make it easier for himself to date another woman.

    "Caitlyn Jenner has a new person in her life, and that’s Candis Cayne – who gives her butterflies, according to a new report.

    The I Am Cait star, who announced her transition from Bruce Jenner earlier this year, is back on the singles market after divorcing from wife Kris.

    Caitlyn has now found something special with the blonde actress."

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/caitlyn-jenner-head-over-heels-6043473

    ReplyDelete
  66. Candis Cayne is also a tranny, though. If they are dating, it'd be two men.

    ReplyDelete
  67. yeah, my mistake. chalk this one up to Jenner just trying to get attention.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Yet the more you fantasize about becoming a perfect sexual mimic, the more you are likely to incorporate distinctly opposite-sex traits into your own gender identity. Maybe that will lead only to a vaguely androgynous personality and set of behaviors, or maybe it will lead to a deeper dysphoria and anxiety that will disrupt their own life and the stability of those around them."

    Very fascinating thesis, agnostic. This would go hand in hand with the recent trend of beta males obsessed with oral sex - cunnilingus or analingus on their female partner - often without expectation or desire for reciprocation.

    For instance there is an entire blog, Thirstiest Men of Instagram, filled with comments of beta males commenting on famous model's social media profiles to the effect of "GURL U SO FINE I WANNA EAT DAT ASS LIKE ITZ DA ANECDOTE."

    http://thirstiestmenofinstagram.tumblr.com/

    ReplyDelete
  69. Or, even more sickly and vividly, the whole obsession over girls "squirting" when they (fake) orgasm. The guys fantasizing about that have so internalized the female role that they expect their partner to gush ovary juice just like a dude cumming. They fantasize about swallowing what the girl "ejaculates" too.

    The rise of weird shit like that shows that it's not just beta males assuming a vaguely more passive role, while the butt-kicking take-charge girl makes all the moves. It's so specifically about the girl doing distinctly anatomically male things, because the viewer has so internalized the feminine role.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."