January 30, 2023

Imperial European ornateness vs. Block Symphony in American, Russian, and Scandinavian architecture (American ethnogenesis series)

In an earlier post on the rise of realism and naturalism in stage drama, the 3rd section was a brief aside on modern architecture. The same three regions pioneered these two unrelated trends, in order to distinguish their culture from that of the Western European empires who had dominated taste-making for centuries up to that point -- namely, the empires of America and Russia (including its incarnation as the Soviet Union), and the never-imperial region of Scandinavia.

We'll fill in some more details on the outline about architecture, in this and other upcoming posts. But basically, what we call "modern" architecture is really just American and Russian architecture of the 20th century, and the late 19th in America, where it originated in Chicago specifically. I'm focusing on the American strand of this convergent evolution, since we pioneered it. But for the curious, just look up Stalinist architecture or the Seven Sisters skyscrapers in Moscow, and notice how close they look to American Art Deco of the same period.

(Scandinavia played less of a role in the architecture field, but more of a role in the related fields of interior design, furniture, and other manufactured goods. Building lots of huge grandiose structures does require imperial-level wealth, something Scandinavia never had. But making tables, chairs, lamps, etc., is entirely do-able for non-imperial societies.)

I don't like the nondescript term "Modernism," although it at least says it's a conscious separation from many earlier eras -- which it obviously is. But that makes it sound like an internal development in those countries that spawned the earlier styles, like the Italian Renaissance, British Victorian Gothic, and so on.

But it was not -- it was born in America, which had no deep historical layers of styles of its own, owing to the colonial / settler nature of our founding. And it was born in Chicago and carried further over the Midwest out to the Pacific Coast, where there has been even less of a historical foundation to react against, unlike the relatively older (but still young) settlements along the East Coast.

So, the point of it being against or beyond or not like the Italian Renaissance, or Ancient Greeks, or Victorian Gothic, or the original French Gothic, etc., was not about a temporal succession or another phase in a fashion cycle.

Rather, it was the announcement that America is a whole new nation, society, culture, and empire -- and we're not in the Old World. Our new collective identity is being forged here in the New World, especially out on the Western frontier, where the meta-ethnic division has always been the starkest (that's where the battles against the Indians were fiercest and longest). Therefore, we cannot just blindly borrow from past cultures -- we're a whole new people, and we need something wholly new to distinguish ourselves culturally from our ancestors and distant cousins back in the Old World.

I'm going to simply call this "American" architecture, to make this ethnogenetic basis clearer. It's not one temporal era declaring itself separate from earlier eras in time -- but one region declaring itself separate from other regions in space (and time). Maybe you could modify it with "American Minimalism" or "American Block Symphony" or something, I don't know. Future historians will not nitpick and hair-split over decade-long micro-trends, in their view -- they're going to lump as much as possible, and it'll have a geographic term (American, obviously), and one or two words about its style per se.

This term encompasses everything from Louis Sullivan / Chicago School, Frank Lloyd Wright / Prairie School, Arts and Crafts, Art Deco (not Art Nouveau, which was European and highly ornamental, unlike American tastes and trends), Midcentury Modern, the so-called International Style (Second Chicago School, which went international as America replaced all Euro empires other than Russia after WWI and WWII, absorbing many outright into NATO), and so-called Postmodernism (really just a late / self-referential / weird stage of the entire unbroken evolution).

To the extent that its imperial reach spread outside the borders of the core nation, it assimilated local elements that were compatible with it -- and kept out those that were not. Where earlier European interest in Far East culture borrowed from the intricately ornamental side (Chinoiserie, Japonisme) in order to fit in with Rococo or Art Nouveau or other highly ornamental European styles, American interest in those same cultures eschewed that in favor of Zen Buddhism, bonsai trees, rock gardens, and other minimalist forms.

* * *

What characteristics define the American Minimalist style? Well, it was a conscious separation from the styles of the existing / rival European empires, especially Britain and France, who seeded the culture of America and Canada (Spain in Latin America). Nothing that would look like a Gothic cathedral, Medieval castle / fortress, a rural chateau, Baroque, Neoclassical, Renaissance revival, or whatever else from the Old World.

Specifically, no simple curves or circular forms -- no domes, no columns (or turrets) with a circular cross-section, no cones for roofs (even of a little tower), no arches, etc. No tetrahedrons (pyramid-type shape) for tower roofs either -- maybe elsewhere, and in a larger scale, but atop a tower looks too much like an Old World castle or chateau. We don't like triangular forms atop a series of columns either, because it looks too much like an Ancient Greek pediment. As a design element for decoration, like zigzags or chevrons, triangles are fine, though -- just not as a main structural feature (unless functionally required for domestic buildings, like in a roof profile to send rain and snow down off of it).

Certainly one or two of these elements may appear, but too many of them together make it look like an Old World LARP, whether trying to ape a specific foreign style (like Ancient Greek) or being eclectic with Old World styles from all over time and space.

Unlike earlier structures built for defense, ours would have tons of windows, with a large cumulative surface area, right on the front of the building. We just about wiped out the Indians, and there has been no other empire to battle us on our home turf, so we don't need to be so defensive at home with our buildings. This reached an absurd logical conclusion in the "all-glass box" trend of the 2000s and after.

A huge tower, culminating in our unique contribution to architecture -- the skyscraper. Old World empires had buildings that were fairly level around the top, and the artists of the day complained about the Eiffel Tower dominating the Paris city-scape, with buildings that were not merely much lower in height, but fairly even in height around the rooftops. Even Medieval castles with a tower, or a bell tower next to a cathedral, do not jut as highly toward the sky as typical American towers do from their surroundings.

(Domestic buildings are exempt from the tower trend, since few homeowners have enough wealth to build it.)

Removing circular or curved forms, and most triangular forms (especially their combination, a cone -- perhaps the least American-looking architectural element), yields the defining block-iness of the American style. In lazier hands, it's just a boring simple box or a regular grid (like the Seagram Building). But in skilled hands, the boxes have a wide variety of scales, interwoven with each other, in different orientations, making a symphony of blocks (like Art Deco, the peak of American architecture). And there still may be a suggestion of a non-block shape, but it will be made up of clearly distinct blocks of various scales and orientations -- for instance, a V shape made up of rectangular columns of shrinking, then rising heights, next to each other.

Similar to the low-res / pixelated look of 8-bit video games -- or, for that matter, the most popular video game ever to this day, Minecraft, affectionately known as "block game". That was invented by a Swede. The earlier related Lego blocks were invented in nearby Denmark. So, Scandinavians can indeed participate in the American Minimalist evolution in architecture, if it's at the scale of children's playthings, which doesn't require imperial levels of wealth to build huge structures IRL.

Arrangements of blocks of varying scale may result in something from earlier eras and foreign places, like the ancient Middle Eastern ziggurat, or the Central American step pyramid. And since those are not too close to Ancient, Medieval, or Early Modern European styles, they're permitted as long as they don't try to merely copy the ziggurat or pyramid.

We do need to integrate earlier forms from the New World, to draw a historical link between us and earlier civilizations here, so we don't feel too new-born and rootless. And we have always been more obsessed with connecting ourselves to the ancient Near East, like Egypt or Mesopotamia, rather than Greece or Rome (too Euro). "We" -- I mean, the culture-makers of our unique American identity. We'll get to geographic differences in how American vs. Old World LARP-y the local architecture is, in posts to come this week.


  1. For the back-East folks who might not know what American architecture looks like, here's a quick sample, before upcoming posts that will have more pictures.

    Which state out West is most slandered as being boring, vanilla, plain, too wholesome to be cool or exciting, hijacked by weird religious nuts, the most all-American place in all the worst ways for the back-East Establishment? Utah, capital of Mormonland. A very brief glimpse from an amateur site, not an exhaustive survey / online coffee-table book:


    Block symphony like crazy in the Family Life Building and Ogden High School (the inspiration to choose Utah here, since I'm writing up a post on high school architecture around the country). Blocks of all sorts of sizes, arranged in increasingly intricate larger divisions nested into larger divisions still.

    Also note the use of pixelated arches for the upper part of the windows in those two buildings -- approximating a curve with a few big blocky columns of varying heights. From Art Deco to Legos to Minecraft. ^_^

  2. There's a heavily pixelated curve around the not-a-turret pieces of the Family Life Building (on either side of the entrance with "FAMILY LIFE" above). So low-res and blocky, that it's making a point of not approximating the curve very finely or smoothly. They could have used blocks of smaller individual size, to make it finer -- but that would look to smooth and European.

    It would even look too Ancient Greek. They also used big blocks to approximate a curve, like in an arch made up of stones around the top. But those are not oriented the way the pixelated American style is.

    The American style has the blocks all oriented in the same way, so that a straight line running from their "top" to "bottom" is headed straight into the ground. They're all standing up straight.

    The Ancient Greek style (or any other using this approach) has them oriented -- not toward the ground -- but toward the focus / center of the circle / ellipse that they're on the circumference of. Only the top, keystone, is oriented with its "height" line going straight into the ground -- the others are rotated increasingly more onto their sides as they go downward on either side of the arch, all of their "height" lines pointing toward the center / focus, which is way above the ground.

    Newton and Leibniz formalized how to approximate curves with rectangles in the mid-late 1600s (calculus / analysis), using increasingly smaller-sized rectangles, and taking it to the limit where there were infinitely many such rectangles of infinitesimally small size individually.

    And yet no European empire, whether Britain or Prussia where calculus was invented or any other one, borrowed this idea to make low-res / pixelated blocky curves in their empire's defining architectural styles. That is a uniquely American, then Russian and Scandinavian, style, and those places didn't even discover calculus.

  3. The American Blocky style also prefers bas-relief carving (where it doesn't stand out much from the background) instead of highly 3D sculptures. For the same reason -- the high-relief ones look too ornate and therefore European.

    If they are high-relief or carved all the way around, they have to be made of blocky components, not a single seamless, continuously contoured volume.

    In the Family Life Building pictures, the last one is a detail of blocky bas-relief carvings. Also above the entrance of the US Forest Service Building (Ogden), the eagles are very bas-relief -- there are higher-relief sculpted eagles on belt buckles than on that building. (As well as the band of geometric designs at the same height as those eagles.)

    No examples on that site of higher-relief figures made up of blocky components, which is typical of Art Deco and American blockiness in general. But here are some examples from the Hollywood Western Building in L.A. (along with some bas-relief friezes as well, natch):


    And the external sculptures of the ANZAC Memorial, which is Art Deco overall (in Sydney, Australia). Click on the sections for corner figures, buttress figures, or the bas-relief friezes:


    Way more angular and not very smooth, compared to European sculpted figures on buildings.

  4. As a sidebar on the destruction of information by large tech platforms, they refuse to tell me where this Art Deco crucifixion is from:


    The caption / file name does say "Church of the Most Precious Blood" in "New York" and lists the architect as "Henry J. McGill" and built in "1932".

    Only problem is that church does not appear to have any such statue in it -- it is so incredibly striking, that people would mention it. Nobody does. They do claim they have Art Deco elements, but not this specific crucifixion statue. Imagine having that and never showing it -- impossible.

    So whoever named that file has it wrong. There are only 3 webpages I can find that include the image, and they're all from the same original source. Some guy on Flickr who I won't link b/c he got the info wrong. His page is from 2009, and others in 2011 and 2015 or so just took his image and assumed his info was correct.

    At least I found an image of what I had seen in a book on Art Deco nearly 10 years ago. I don't remember the name, I was reading several books on it at the time, no way I can remember it. Given the very professional nature of that image, and the slightly grainy texture, I'll bet the Flickr guy just took an early iPhone picture of that same page in the same book I read, and uploaded it to the web.

    Then, either he read the wrong page in the book about where this is located, or the book got that info wrong -- or, the operators of whatever church this is in, have demolished an iconic irreplaceable work of religious and American art, for whatever bullshit reason, and it is now nearly completely lost to history, in less than a century after it was created.

    How can the entirety of the online ecosystem fail to tell me, with multiple corroborating independent sources, where the FUCK this statue is located? Or if it got iconoclastically demolished, that it did meet such a fate, but here's what it looked like and where it used to be located?

    JESUS... it's so much simpler browsing books in a library. You can never replicate that with the fake-and-gay online tech platforms.

    And no, Google obviously did not digitize that book, or scan it, or make it searchable, or whatever. For text, maybe, but not for books that are mainly about images.

  5. BTW, Google has broken its "forced words" search operator, the quote marks. They are simply ignored most of the time, especially if you use them in the image search.

    But even the text search now returns zillions of worthless commerce sites that are just trying to sell you some bullshit based on what you entered. "Do you want to buy a handheld crucifix in the Art Deco style?" No, Goddammnit, I want to know where the only high-relief blocky Art Deco crucifix in the entire world is located!

    Even if the book got their info wrong, the online ecosystem is supposed to be so much better at covering all bases. There should've been dozens of people taking pictures of the same striking, impossible-to-forget statue from various books they got their hands on. There should've been dozens of people taking pictures of it IRL when they visited wherever the FUCK this is/was located, uploaded them to all major social media sites, with the obvious tags or captions ("Art Deco" and "crucifix/ion" / "Jesus" "cross" etc.). Not to mention videos uploaded to YouTube.

    Even if it got demolished before the internet was born in the '90s, there should be zillions of books, magazines, newspapers, etc., with pictures of this -- imagine seeing this and thinking, "Nah, too boring, we'd never publish an image of that..."

    This informational vortex is compounded by the fact that it's in America, where the traitorous elites have been busy bulldozing everything over the past several decades, without preserving any memory of what they destroyed. We don't have deep roots here, unlike Old Worlders, and that is a unique weakness in our society. Nothing is sacred, not even Art Deco Jesus. Blow it up, don't bother recording it was even there, and move on with your gut-stuffing "construction projects" and "community developments".

    I really wonder how much of our architecture will be left after 500 years. We don't even need foreign invaders to blow it up, ISIS-style. Our greedy elites have already started blowing it all up themselves!

  6. And no, reverse image search seems to not work on Google Images anymore either (will try later on a laptop just to see if it's different...). Yandex reverse images only gave a bunch of generic crosses, plus some random porny photos.

    None of this was standard operating procedure in 2015. The upper echelons of the tech cartel, and their info-agency overlords in the federal government (CIA, FBI, NSA) got together and decided to deliberately blow up the whole "finding out information online" function of the internet.

    You wanna watch porn? Easy. And easier over time.

    You wanna imbibe some propaganda? Here it is.

    You wanna buy some cheap pointless irrelevant shit? Here's 17 pages of crap.

    But when you want to know something, and give the search engine a direct unambiguous order, it refuses!

    "Why do you want to know that? Please submit a 5000-word document describing your intentions with that search, and we will review it and return our decision on whether or not to fulfill your query within 20 working days."

    It doesn't even have to be ideologically or politically charged! Literally every query gets treated that way, if it senses you want to know something.

    "Sounds like we got ourselves a troublemaker who's sniffing around where his nose don't belong..." -- no matter the topic! Just the mere fact that you want to know something, rather than request some porn to jerk off to, pointless made-in-China garbage to allay your anxiety for another day of retail therapy, or ask for the ideological propaganda firmware update from the media.

    What a sick twisted world. Why have you abandoned us, Art Deco Jesus?!

  7. FINALLY, some corroboration, no thanks to social media, P*nt*r*st, etc. Reverse image searching that picture was a total failure on both Google and Yandex -- they're just generic crucifixes, or Art Deco.

    Trying to describe in text what it is, to any image search engine was a failure as well, aside from that one lead I got, which had the name of the building in its filename -- but with seemingly no way to corroborate it, short of visiting the alleged location IRL. Yeah right, and have one of those "basement in the Alamo" moments from Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, while wasting all that travel money? The internet is supposed to tell me from a distance.

    No text searches give the right answer either, if you didn't already have the name of the church.

    Even searching for the name of the church is mostly fruitless -- however, several clicks removed from a result that leads you into the Museum of the City of New York's digitized archives, was an old B+W photo shot from quite a distance, but you can make out that this church does in fact house Art Deco Jesus. You can't tell from the thumbnails either, you have to click on them, blow them up in a new tab, and squint.

    But those pictures were all taken in the early 1930s, when the building was built -- is Art Deco Jesus still there, or did he get demolished?

    The MCNY archives described the location as the "chancel" or "sanctuary" of the church, so that plus the church name yielded a bunch of image results -- none of which are of the crucifixion itself. Image searching the church name plus crucifix/ion, Jesus, cross, etc., still gave nothing.

    But as luck would have it, some real-life person shot an interior photo that -- if you click on the image result, go to the page, click on their image, click on download original photo, and squint a bit, you can finally tell it's Art Deco Jesus, still there as of the 2000s or 2010s or whenever it was shot.

    Here's the webpage, which again in an image search is impossible to verify that it's even the right one. You'd have to click every image result to verify.


    The thumbnail on the page is too small, but when you click it, plus download original, you are finally given this image:


    For God's sake, how hard does this have to be??!?!?!!

  8. And why has no one photographed that and uploaded it to social media, a zillion times by now? Why does no one photograph churches up close to the altar or sanctuary or whatever it's called? Why only from 100 feet back? No wonder Art Deco Jesus hasn't made much of an impression and gone viral -- no one who has been there IRL has given him his due!

    Literally the only photograph of Art Deco Jesus himself, not crappy photos from a mile away where he's only visible if you already know what to look for, and have to settle for a teeny-weeny glimpse rather than a larger-than-life close-up shot -- is from a single book published decades ago. Thank God for professional photographers, professional publishers, and professional curators for anthology / collection books like that one (still don't remember the name, and the Flickr guy didn't cite the source of the book he was obviously photographing).

    Social media, the internet, etc., will not magically make people take the right pictures of the right things in the right manner, let alone put them in the right places with the right identifiers so the right searchers will find them the right way. It's so fucking crazy that it took hours to figure this shit out.

    So... if you happen to live in the New York metro area, you can see Art Deco Jesus for real. I'd give you the address, but in yet another fuck-up of online info sources, they can't even agree whether it's in Astoria or Long Island City -- but in that general vicinity.

    Church of the Most Precious Blood, built in 1932 by Henry McGill.


  9. Literally would've been quicker to make a voice call (formerly known as a "phone call") to the art history or architecture department of the nearest prestigious university (using the phone book, not looking it up online). If they didn't know, ask for a reference to someone who would, and follow that lead.

    When they gave the name of a church, make another "voice call" to that church (found by using a phone book or 411, not online), and ask them politely, "Can I describe the crucifixion I have in mind, and see if that's the one in your church? .... It is??? Thank you so much! God bless you!"

    No way this good ol' fashioned pre-internet approach would've taken half a fucking DAY. And even if it did, it would mostly be down-time waiting for the art / architecture department to call me back, or waiting for the church to pick up, since they probably don't get a lot of calls. It would've been infinitely less enraging and demoralizing.

    I really sink further layers into doomerism every time I try to do a simple "find out" task these days, because so much has either been erased, blocked, or simply never uploaded to the supposed Information Super Highway in the first place. Feels bad man.

  10. Anyway... as you can see, class, from this crucifixion scene -- ::clicks slide projector carousel:: -- when the Art Deco figure is more fully carved all the way around, there is a heavy blockiness to the components making up the human form, rather than a smooth, continuously contoured whole.

    "Whooooah dude, that looks totally fuckin' AWESOME! I wish *my* church looked that badass..."

    Yes, well if you want to visit it in-person, Kimmy, it's located in... the Church of the Most Precious Blood, in Astoria, New York City. [To himself:] I'm so glad it's not the fucking future and I have all this information already at my fingertips from real people who really know, not online randos!

  11. I appreciate how Fauna is a total mama's girl, yet is still a man-respecter rather than a man-hater. She thinks various things her dad does are strange to her, but it's because that's how guys are, and he's a guy, so who am I to look down on it or try to scold it or pout over it?

    I can see her and her mom exchanging grins, and saying, "men..." in a half-giggling and affectionate way, when her dad breaks out the razor blade to open packages, or fires up the fireplace all the time, or gets just the right set of cups out for having a little something to drink.

    And I'm sure he's the same way when they're doing their dainty feminine things like autistic baking rituals / mock-chasing him out of the kitchen before things are ready to eat ("git outta there!"), taking an hour to get the poofy princess fairy dress just-so, and so on. "Women..." with a grin, affecionately.

    It's not an atmosphere of a battle of the sexes, teaming up on others, etc. Men and women with their own complementary, puzzling-to-each-other sets of tasks and leisure activities.

    Makes for a stable, secure household, and for a pretty well-adjusted child. It's a nice role model for the audience, who, given the statistics, could be more likely than not to have grown up in a broken or dysfunctional home.

    As one of those viewers, believe me, I've always wanted an *escape* from that environment, not to enter another one, in a twisted "misery loves company" kind of way. Hearing these little vignettes from a healthy, normal, intact family are some of the most heartwarming details from streamers talking about their daily lives. Reminds me of hanging out at my friend's house whose parents were still together and got along, sometimes staying there so long during the summer it was like they'd adopted me.

    Probably why her fans look to her as a bff, gf, or waifu -- something close enough where they'd be welcomed into her family, at least on occasion. Having a stable and loving family is quite the rare commodity in the long-term social relationship market these days...

  12. When Mumei said she was going to be drawing swimsuits on stream, I didn't want to jinx it or backseat her, but I was hoping she would make the bottom section high-cut and cheeky. Did she ever, hehe.

    Maybe giving her a suggestion would've made her feel self-conscious about it, while just keeping my big mouth shut allowed her to go where she wanted to go, feeling unsupervised.

    There's also a clear roleplaying aspect to girls drawing other girls -- living out their fantasies that they're too uncomfortable living out themselves. Mumei said she's too self-conscious to wear a bikini or even go swimming more than once every 5 years or so.

    We know she's healthy & active, has an hourglass figure, and bubble buns, so there's no reason for her to be insecure ("don't know what for..."). It's just that she never spent much time in a social setting with her body on display, so she never got the positive feedback from her peers (guys checking her out, girls getting jealous about her milkshake bringing all the boys to the yard).

    She didn't receive the opposite either -- a bunch of negative feedback, leading to depression or self-loathing in the present. She simply has anxiety (neither depressed nor confident), like most other helicopter-parented Zoomers.

    One way out of that is the online thot route, where she just takes the plunge and bares most of her bod, notices the soaring number of likes and thirsty comments, and concludes that she must be pretty nice-looking to get all that attention.

    But she went the opposite route -- wearing digital hijab (anime avatar vtuber), and living vicariously through make-believe characters like the one she drew last night (technically based on her va-va-voom senpai Marine, but also serving as an outlet for her own fantasizing about "sigh, what if I just took the plunge like that effortlessly confident kind of girl?").

    Wholesome yet still pent-up and horny, very alluring combination. ^_^

  13. Also, Faunya, it's not too late to deliver that deliciously smooth line to your ladieeezzz -- in a Minecraft collab. L'esprit de d'escalier doesn't apply when you can recreate the original moment from IRL in a virtual world later on. :) That vocal delivery, tho, sheeeesssh!

    You know the line I mean! From last night's stream, involving the sky... don't want to give it away in case some of those ladieeezzz or their fans could be lurking here, hehe.

    And don't worry if your knowledge is not 100% accurate in the set-up to the punchline -- nobody will know, or care. It's all about the punchline, not the "um ackshually" accuracy of the set-up. :)

    (Oh great, now I've gone and made the girls second-guess all the set-up lines they've ever heard from guys. "Wait, was he just making that first part up?" Perhaps! But not in a deceitful way -- in a "I've got to BS a little about the irrelevant part, to get to the real part". If you were his teacher, you would've docked him some points -- but since he was trying to woo you, you give him credit instead! "Awww, he got so nervous trying to impress me that he just made up a little factoid, just to deliver that smooth lady-killer line -- and all for meeee??!?!?! Am I that special???!?!! How thoughtful!")

  14. Mooms being a boot girl rather than a heels girl is expected, but still so refreshing to hear. :)

    Women who really get into the heels type of shoes are more of the people-hater type -- hate themselves (forcing themselves through daylong and lifelong pain), hate men (men don't notice heels or find them sexy even if forced to pay attention to them), hate other women (heels *are* noticed by other women, and they compete in a bitchy fashion contest over them), in sum people-haters.

    Women who get into boots are people-respecters / likers / lovers. They respect themselves (wearing comfortable and functional, yet still stylish and sexy footwear), like men (men *very much* notice boots, especially if they're higher and form-fitting, drawing attention to the legsss), and respect other women (no bitchy status contests over boots, since they don't cycle through zillions of pairs just to one-up the competition).

    In a truly sexualized setting, like a dance club with go-go dancers -- they're wearing boots, not heels. Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman? -- famous for her thigh-high boots, not heels. Pent-up MILFs stalking public spaces for random hot guy validation? -- you know they're pulling on their riding boots, not heels. Lolis looking for their first dose of "am I cute???" validation? -- combat boots (pretty tall for that age) with bare legs or knee-high tights.

    I know Mumei didn't specify these more hachi-machi kind of boots, just that she's more into a boot with a low heel than high-heeled shoes. But even functional boots, if they're tall, can't help but being a little sexy from emphasizing the leg.

    Irys is another famous boot girl -- she talks about how much she loves Dubarry, I've learned that brand name by now. ^_^ Those are definitely not made to be va-va-voom club boots, but for functional protection in a country setting where there's brush and whatnot. And yet they still look cute on girls, hehe.

    Needless to say Irys is also not a self-hater, man-hater, or girl-hater. And not the bitchy hyper-competitive type in general.

    I never knew there was such a difference between boot girls and heels girls, but all sorts of patterns become clear when you're immersed in girl-world through the streamer format.

    The only exception to the high-heels trend is if the whole sole is high, i.e. big chunky platform types, like Shakira, Sabrina Carpenter, and other shorties wear to seem taller, without having to fuck up their gait if only the heel were tall.

    I'll bet Gooba would like those, especially if performing on stage. Maybe with her loli leanings, she'd prefer combat boots or cowboy / Western boots as well (if the heel weren't too high).

  15. ("Um, ackshually there are high-heeled boots as well" -- and it's only the boot part that does something silly to the male brain. Image search "thigh-high boots low heel" and compare that to high-heeled shoes -- it's the tall boot part that's doing all the work, not the fact that sometimes there's a high-heel at the bottom.)

  16. Ballet, cheer, and gymnastics shoes are all totally flat-soled (and flexible soled). Any activity requiring girls to really strut their stuff and show off their body tone and coordination -- no high heels.

    Really the only exception is strippers, who tend to wear higher heels. My take is that it's part of a humiliation ritual, since they're painful to walk in, let alone try to dance in. It's to remind the performer and the audience that she doesn't really enjoy doing this for its own sake, and that they're not there for the dancing. It's just to get money from the bottom of the barrel men, who she has no respect for, but they don't have respect for her either (just a piece of meat they want to degrade herself for their horny benefit).

    How else to explain why go-go dancers or other center-of-attention party girls at nightclubs, wear boots (regardless of heel height) rather than high-heeled shoes? Or the pro dancers and body-movers like gymnasts and cheerleaders?

    That's what people-likers want to see -- that she can freely and fully use her natural gait, including in unusual ways like leaping, kicking, etc., during a dance. The performer and the audience both are there to experience the performance itself, which would only be lessened in intensity if she didn't have her full gait available. They're not there to use it as a pretext for humiliating or degrading her by forcing her through a pointless pain ritual.

    Make her body look sexy with boots that emphasize the legsss, don't make her wear painful heels that are not even sexy in themselves.

    The heels don't lend an extra layer of horniness or anything either. They're more of a degenerate fetish object like a collar or muzzle or blindfold or handcuffs, meant to inhibit the natural use of the body part it's attached to.

    Truly animalistic sexuality would come through the *un*-inhibited use of her body, like if she's totally barefoot (cue the Flashdance training sequence). If you haven't been to a dance club in your life, that's how you know a girl is about to get wild -- she takes off her shoes so she can grip the ground with her full foot surface, allowing much greater power to be channeled through her legs, pelvis, and further up. Yes, even if it means getting the bottom of her feet dirty from the club floor. AWOOOO!

  17. If the point is to emphasize her submissive nature for sexy value, those slave fetish objects are not needed either. It's more about her body language being submissive (as opposed to assertive), her facial expression, vocal quality, word choice, etc. Not like a "one weird trick" video game cheat code -- throw on a collar, and boom, submissiveness trophy unlocked forever.

    Maybe a costume that she could roleplay in as a submissive character -- the literal or figurative maid outfit. But for some reason, the degenerate fetishists never dress up as maids, nurses, secretaries, or other roles defined by being subordinate and servicing someone else.

    Why? Because those roles are not degrading and humiliating in themselves -- zillions of women and girls have played those roles for real, for a wage or salary, in the economy. And it's no more demeaning than other forms of wage slavery. Roleplaying as them allows the girl to maintain her dignity, unlike putting on a collar, hand-cuffs, stiletto heels, blindfold, or muzzle.

    As for the guys who are into the heels, cuffs, etc. -- they're also people-haters, clearly regarding the girl, but also themselves. They're the ones fantasizing about "step on me with your stilettos," seeing her costumed not as a submissive but as a bossy figure -- sexy ladycop with mirrored sunglasses and a nightstick, sexy soldier, sexy firefighterette, sexy boxer / lingerie-clad football player, and so on and so forth. Something butch, assertive, dominant, and controlling -- the opposite of the submissive role of a nurse, secretary, etc.

    Boot people -- free-flowing natural libido.

    Heels people -- dammed-up misdirected fetishism.

  18. Is there a horseshoe theory where boot people and barefoot / flat sandal people are similar, while the heels people are odd ones out, though seemingly in between those two extremes?

    That means we're looking at the wrong spectrum. It's not about how much of the foot and leg is exposed -- that gives the horseshoe theory above.

    But we get a satisfying polarized linear spectrum if it's about the degree of naturalness in her posture -- boots (generally), sandals, barefoot, cheer / ballet / gymnastics shoes, all go with a natural posture and gait. The high heels (regardless of any other aspect of the footwear) disrupt the natural posture and gait, make it painful, awkward, impossible to get wild, and so on.

    I don't care for the aesthetic value of Crocs, for example, but at least they allow natural posture, gait, and any physical activity involving the feet and legs (like dancing). Flip-flops have the annoying sound, typically low aesthetic value, a little too "don't care" -- but still allow natural walking, dancing, etc.

    Low-heeled shoes that expose a lot of the foot ought to be good news to foot guys (I'm not one of them). Don't they like seeing the natural foot and toes, not some bolt upright profile where 90% of the foot just looks like an extension of the calf, and only the toes look separate? I dunno, and I don't care what foot guys think anyway (too fetishistic).

    But as a holistic female anatomy appreciator, I did marvel as one woman's feet the other night in the thrift store (actually two, we happened to hit up the same ones in sequence). Pretty tall, thicc build, probably a former athlete but now a statuesque middle-aged woman (I'd say MILF, but she wasn't trying to vamp up her look that much). Anyway, she was wearing bootcut / bell-bottom jeans, with very flat white sandals, contrasting with her tanned feet.

    I typically don't focus on feet, but they got my attention, and they looked really nice -- but that was only because they weren't being deformed currently by her standing on the balls of her feet, and had not been deformed by years / decades of walking on the balls of her feet.

    She had that typical tall-girl poise and self-assured confidence, and resting on her flat feet only added to that -- standing on the balls of your feet constantly (not momentarily, to emphasize your uwu smol bean stature) looks like a desperate striver posture. She came off as, "Yeah, I'm tall -- and I don't even have to stand on my tip-toes to project an imposing presence."

    Not gonna lie, I did wonder what it would feel like to give her feet a massage... they were simply in great shape, and looked natural, not warped, so it gave me a think.

    I think tall girls eschew wearing heels, not because they're afraid of appearing even taller -- they wouldn't mind being 3 inches taller by nature. They're just more confident, self-assured, and do not take to humiliating or degrading behavior like average or short girls sometimes do. Not wearing heels is more of a refusal to degrade and humiliate herself.

    Statuesque, Amazon, whatever you call it types, they're too imposing to buckle under the pressure to punish themselves for no good reason at all. I'll bet the rate of cutting themselves is about 1000 times less for tall and athletic girls than for average / short and skinny girls.

    And the exceptions are right where you'd expect -- the fashion model type, who punishes herself with dietary restrictions, wears heels on her own (and for a living, bossed around by literal gay body fascists), and more inclined to cut herself / OD / commit suicide, etc. Not the former jock girls, farm girls, mountain girls, and other related types of girls, though.

  19. Hooters and breastaurant girls wear low-heeled shoes too! I've only been to Hooters twice in my life (with my brother, who wanted to go there). The overall vibe is very casual, not sexualized or strip-clubby (also only been once in my life, as my brothers wanted to go for their b-day). Pretty wholesome -- the waitresses just happen to be dressed like cheerleaders from the '70s and '80s.

    Their shoes are the same cheer type -- low-heeled, white, athletic shoes. No degrading humiliating footwear, especially considering they have to stand up for so much of their shift.

    Looked up the Twin Peaks restaurant waitresses, and they also wear low-heeld boots -- generally the big bulky snow boots (sometimes low-heel cowboy boots), to emphasize the rugged out-West ski lodge atmosphere (or it was just the 2010s, when Uggs were popular). I could see them adapting the concept to New England, but with Bean Boots at the bottom of their bare legs -- and they say Puritans can't get hot-blooded...

    At any rate, no high-heeled boots, and in one group photo where they're all in shoes, they were all low-heeled except for one girl in kitten heels.

    Different vibe -- rugged / rural / mountain / lodge / cabin, rather than All-American suburban cheerleader. But same outcome -- natural posture and gait, no painful ritual humiliation.

    The guys are not there to humiliate the girls, unlike a strip club where heels are common or required. And the girls don't hate themselves, are not as likely to cut / OD / commit suicide as their cousins in the strip club are. They're just there to have a little wholesome cute female companionship every once in awhile, as they dig into some tendies and fries (good food, as I recall).

    I do remember that about their demeanor too -- bubbly, friendly, extraverted, wholesome girl-next-door but who looks hot and you hope you have a chance with her while you're studying together for the math test. ^_^ Not a stripper who just acts slutty to get your money and then leaves you blue-balled anyway (unless you're a hot guy or drug dealer, but I mean the typical clientele).

    And they're not even roleplaying as a submissive character -- they're waitresses / servers. I think the only other iconic waitress or server is the Bavarian barmaid (there's that phrase again, "maid"), wearing a dirndl... like Kiwawa's new outfit. She's a people-respecter and people-liker, too -- herself, guys, girls, anyone. I hope she prefers barefeet or flats or boots, rather than painful high heels, or else my theory is ruined! Hehe.

  20. Maid Cafe girls in Japan also wear pretty low-profile shoes, bringing things back to vtuber / anime / weeb culture.

    Some wear 1-to-2 inch heels, but they all have wide bases rather than what we consider high heels here. Makes the posture more steady and gait more natural. And some wear all the way down to ballet flats. Some wear that chunky Mary Jane type shoe that was huge with goths and preps alike back in the '90s -- not a steep profile, and the base is wide all around. No boots, though -- only shoes.

    Basically the same type of footwear as the breastaurant servers here in America, even though it's a different nation, culture, and type of costume. As long as the point is to make it wholesome and enjoy their company, rather than ritualistically degrade them as part of getting your rocks off, the girls will not be wearing high heels.

    Girl-haters really only have the strip-club catering to them, it seems.

  21. How much would it kill their wholesome relatable sex appeal if baristas had to wear heels? At least back when I and everybody else was a daily regular in the coffee shops (in the 2010s), the girls wore sensible / comfortable black shoes (low heel, some cushioning). At most, low-heeled boots.

    I still remember when the bubble-booty Puerto Rican pixie with the very short side-parted hair came into work one day with tall low-heeled boots on -- hot!

    Yes... relatable. Wearing heels makes the girl unrelatable, marking her as a people-hater, therefore someone who doesn't want to get to know you or get close to you. At most, she'd tolerate your presence if you were giving her money (or hiring her for a careerist job, etc.).

    That's another aspect of the strip club -- both the performer and audience want to make it clear that they don't want to get close to each other emotionally or socially. They don't want to relate to each other at all -- slutty girl, scumbag guy, at least in their eyes.

    All the thousands of days I've spent in coffee shops, and hundreds of nights I've spent in dance clubs over the years -- and only got dragged to a strip club once. I just don't get it, never have, never will.

    I could get to know a stripper outside the club, not knowing what she did, and be friends or more, who knows? But I'd never go the strip club to interact with them.

    Unlike coffee shops or dance clubs, where I was a regular and always chatted and/or flirted with the babes working there. (I always tipped the coat-check girl and bartender at the dance club, but I did not at the Starbucks -- if I recall correctly, they made decent wages and weren't reliant on tips like bartenders or waitresses.)

  22. Can confirm dirndl girl shoes are low or kitten heeled usually. There’s also a lot of vigorous dancing that goes on in the environment where heels would be a problem.

  23. Ballroom dance competitions features women in high heels. The men seem to be faggy. The women also dance in a theatrical way.

    Ballroom dance done by regular people is much better. Some women opt to get dance shoes with heels. It’s not mandated though.

    Line dancing. Women can do it in sneakers and other types of flat shoes. Again, some women get dance shoes with heels.

  24. One partial exception to servers wearing comfy shoes is Vegas cocktail waitresses and old-school airline stewardesses. They don't wear stiletto or high heels, but they generally did not wear flats or chunky Mary Janes. In the 1-to-2 inch heel range, but with a blocky rather than pointy base for the heel.

    Some stewardesses in the late '60s and early '70s wore go-go boots (with short shorts!), which did have taller heels, but were big blocks rather than thin "elegant" heels. And the sex appeal there is the boot height going up the legsss, not the heel height.

    At any rate, why were they different from other servers? Maybe the special nature of going to a Vegas casino or flying in the Jet Set age (when flying was rare, and for the elite), made it different from going to see the go-go dancers at your local club, waitresses at Hooters, or cheerleaders at the pep rally / football game.

    You were a tourist, just passing through momentarily, so you couldn't get too informal and close with the servers, who were more like servants, requiring more social distance. And therefore, footwear that is more formal and distancing, like (somewhat) high heels.

    Plus in a Vegas casino, the environment is already so similar to a strip club, it's understandable that the guys would treat the waitresses like quasi-strippers, who had ample cleavage on display, and the waitresses would want a certain distance from drunk casino-going guys who behaved sleazy around them.

    Stewardesses weren't so much in the quasi-stripper direction, so their heels weren't so tall or thin. And again their sex appeal came from the boot height and leg focus, not on high heels.

  25. Diner waitresses had low-heel shoes (like the iconic saddle shoes), and so did the servers at the car hop (bring the food out to your car in the lot). Some of the latter wore low-heel boots, or roller-skates -- which although lifting them higher off the ground, still had a shallow tilt in the heel, not a steep high-heeled profile, similar to big blocky platform shoes and boots.

    If there was any doubt about them being sex symbols, get a load-a dem gams -- hachi-machi!


    But they weren't like strippers -- friendly, relatable, informal, working at someplace you might be a regular, and otherwise want to treat them nice and they treat you nice. It wasn't a battleground for the people-haters of both sexes.

  26. Those photos of the Midcentury car hop girls are a pleasant reminder that cocooning and falling-crime times emphasize thicc rather than thin body types, and butt girls over boob girls (none of the car hop girls even looks to be a B-cup). You would never see girls like that from the '70s and '80s, when they would've been skinny and boobalicious -- you'd have to wait until the PAWG'd-out '90s, 2000s, and 2010s.

    Naturally, the breastaurant of the '80s -- Hooters -- emphasized the chest rather than the buns. It was an outgoing and rising-crime era.

    There's a vague awareness that 1950s girls were thicc-er (Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, etc.), but I don't think people appreciate how butt-oriented it was. Most of those Midcentury pin-up girls are bending over, looking over their shoulder while pointing their buns at the viewer, and so on. The boob focus only took off in the '60s, and matured in the '70s and '80s (Hooters, Budweiser girls, etc.), eclipsed by the return of the buns in the '90s and after. Although now that crime has been rising for a few years, booba may be back (sadge).

  27. What's the link, BTW? Rising-crime means lowering your value on the future, and winging it & hoping for the best in the short-term. Falling-crime means putting more value in the future, wanting to nurture things for the longer-term.

    Fertility is linked to the hourglass shape and having fat in the fertility zone -- tummy, hips, ass, and thighs. Fat is a form of energy storage, and storage only matters if it can be retrieved long-term -- no point in storing what cannot be recovered.

    Women and men in falling-crime times plan on a safe environment, a stable future, where the wife can have lots of kids and draw from those energy reserves to both nourish her unborn child, as well as herself, and then her infant-aged child too.

    In rising-crime times, that security and stability all goes out the window -- make sure she's just healthy enough to pop the baby out, and pray for the best. They also decrease their desired number of kids b/c it feels too dangerous -- wait until crime stops soaring, and maybe have kids then. Abortion rates are linked to rising-crime, and so was tube-tying. Condoms / rubbers were popular in the '70s, '80s, and into the '90s, but have vanished ever since.

    That explains the thicc vs. skinny amount of fat, but what about the profile of where the fat goes? Fat in the chest isn't related to fertility as much as fat in the hip area and surroundings. Fatty boobs are only there to trick gullible boob-men into doing what you want, as boob-men are easily hypnotized, part of the reason why they tend to be girl-haters -- "those damned seductresses!" -- as well as self-haters -- "why am I so easily manipulated?!"). Big boobs don't help conception, breastfeeding, or anything else about the child.

    So when sex is more about procreation, focus shifts to the fertility zone, and how much feminine fat is there. When sex is more of a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am plaything, then it shifts to fetish objects like the boobs.

    Procreation is supported by falling-crime, living-in-the-moment and praying for the best is supported by rising-crime.

  28. The only apparent, but not actual, exception to the butt-focus of falling-crime times is the emergence of the cleavage-cage type of bras. Image search "sweater girl" for the Midcentury version, also called the "bullet bra" -- a highly aggressive, rigidly structured bra that looks like two rocket nosecones pointed right at you.

    This vanished during the '60s, '70s, and '80s, when the trend was toward softer and thinner bras -- and toward wearing no bra at all.

    Then it came back with the "underwire" bra that Victoria's Secret pioneered in the '90s, and other heavily padded "push-up" bras imitated it and set the standard well through the 2010s.

    I mentioned that a Zoomer girl working at the thrift store was wearing no bra a couple weeks ago -- rising-crime means that bras will get less padded, structured, etc., and the no-bra choice will come back as well.

    These cleavage-cages are not an example of glorifying or getting horny for the boobs -- just the opposite! You can't see what they look like at all, it's just the outer walls of their impregnable fortress. There's no jiggle, bounce, or heave to them -- what a gyp! (if you're a boob man).

    You can see from the car hop girls, who are all ass-and-thighs, that this trend did not apply to the entire body -- only the boobs (some of them are wearing bullet bras, but they're not buxom enough for it to be obvious, you have to look for a minute). Their panties and shorts are certainly not rigid, pointy, aggressive, and fortress-like. They're thin, smooth, and painted right over the natural form underneath, not erecting a cage around the buns or hips or thighs.

    Ditto for the return of PAWGs in the '90s - 2010s -- the underwire, push-up, padded bras did not have a counterpart in the panties, shorts, pants, jeans, leggings, tracksuit bottoms, etc. of the same era. They were in fact very thin, smooth, painted-on, revealing rather than obscuring the form underneath -- allowing for plenty of jiggle, bounce, and heave, not making them look repulsively rock-solid.

  29. Regency Era dresses v Victorian Era dresses — both chest and butt are lightly covered and free in the Regency Era. Victorian Era — corset and bustles.

  30. Good point, and there was a rising-crime wave across Europe from circa 1780 to 1830, after which it fell toward the end of the 1800s (i.e. the Victorian era), then rose again from sometime in the 1890s or 1900 at the latest until the early 1930s.

    For those who don't know about how loose and thin and gauzy women's clothing was in the late 1700s and early 1800s, see below. It was the subject of lots of caricatures, about how in a strong wind their dresses would get pressed right against their bodies and show every curve of their buns, hips, etc. Hehe.


  31. Thrift store worker was there tonight, and wearing no bra again. I'm already accustomed to it, and not only cuz I'm not a boob man and it's no big deal to begin with, but through repeated exposure -- i.e., two times. It has nothing to do with fetishizing the anatomical parts themselves, I couldn't care less about boobs...

    It's more the signal that she's so natural and willing to be open to others -- yes, there's the risk that letting down your guard can lead to you getting taken advantage of by bad people, of course. But if you close yourself off, you don't get to connect with any of the good people either.

    God, she gave me such a puppy-dog-eyes look, too, she needed to hug someone so bad tonight...

    I didn't jump over the counter, but I did ask if she had worked there 3 or 4 years ago -- and she did! I told her, I swear I remembered her face from somewhere, but couldn't place where, so was that her? It was! She was as surprised and excited as she could've been, for being in a downer mood.

    Annnnddd... she added, "I remember you too!" I think she only worked there a few months, but -- and I don't say this in a braggadocious way -- I really do make an impression. Nobody forgets me. ^_^ Hell, you readers can appreciate that -- think of all the off-the-wall, where does he come up with this stuff, remarks that will still pop up in your mind 10 years from now. Sorry, I just don't know how to be dull and boring...

    I think the main thing was she changed her hairstyle, dyed it blonde, and I don't think she wore glasses before. But I never forget faces, although I struggle with names -- because names are fake and arbitrary, whereas the face is the real you.

    I still remember one time back then, "Don't Turn Around" by Ace of Base was playing over the speakers, and I was whistling the keyboard line. Then when the chorus began, she began air-pounding to the drums and grooving a little bit. That's the kind of thing that sticks in my memory, even if you only worked there for a few months 3-4 years ago. :)

    She's a Zoomer for sure, and I think maybe an early 2000s sad girl, doesn't seem like the Manic Pixie Dream Girl type from the second half of the '90s (like most of the Holo honies). A few years ago she was a bit more alt-girl / e-girl in appearance and style, now she's normed up just a bit, so that threw me for a moment as well.

  32. Imagine not loving girls...

  33. I'm the guy who started the Boycott American Women blog, and i admit i was quite a woman hater but i went thru a spiritual awakening and now I'm trying to heal women instead of hurt them. Anyway if you wanna ask me questions or do an interview, just DM me on instagram at tantrahealermaster

  34. The flat shoes v heels discussion and the more natural boobs/butt v more constrained boobs/butt discussion are very good. Should be their own posts.

  35. I have a tendency to write entire posts in the comments section, and let it show up under the "Recent Comments" sidebar (which can be subscribed to itself).

    If I've never written about it before, I might turn it into a separate post, but I've already talked about rising vs. falling crime and the thicc vs thin and boobs vs butts focus, pretty sure.

    Maybe not the painful vs. comfy footwear stuff, but it doesn't seem important enough to make its own post for now.

  36. For the early 20th C. crime wave, here's the pinnacle of the look, the flappers of the '20s:



    Loose, flowy overall, while still allowing the boobs to be seen from a distance -- but natural boobs, no Victorian corsets, early bras, or anything like that. Pretty tubular profile, not super-curvy, bordering on boyish or androgynous in the outline. No hint of what the belly, hips, ass, or thighs look like -- just the boobs, though again without the rigidly structured and aggressive cage of falling-crime / cocooning times.

    Note the similarities to the late 1700s / early 1800s rising-crime look. Loose, flowy, pretty tubular (other than the waist cinched in just a bit, under the bust -- the so-called Empire waistline). Looks like a man's toga from ancient Greece or Rome -- more androgynous than the hoop skirts, corsets, and bustles of the Victorian era. All the emphasis was on the boobs -- very low necklines, minimal support for the boobs, giving them a natural look. Unless the wind was blowing hard, you couldn't make out the contours of their fertility zone as easily as you could their chest.

    And then the rising-crime look that began in the '60s and culminated in the 1980s and early '90s. Reminder of what that actually looked like, not the '80s LARP of the late 2000s and 2010s:


    Famously androgynous for the huge shoulder pads, which were not only put into business suits but everyday t-shirts as well. Overall loose and flowy fit. Pretty tubular / boxy outline, only the belt cinching in the waist a bit. But look at how boxy and baggy the belly / seat area is -- no way you can make out the contours of her thighs, hips, or buns. (Yes, some teens did have painted-on Jordache jeans, but that was not the general look.) All tops were loose and baggy.

    But still, no bras in sight -- pretty unstructured, natural look. You can see their naturally-set boobs, even though the tops are baggy, but you can't see their ass & thighs at all (dammit).

    Not as dainty as the Regency / Empire era that it echoes, since women were not as independent in the labor force back then, but it very closely resembles the flappers of the '20s.

    The closer-fitting "mom jeans" in light-to-medium blue, high-waisted, hugging the belly, hips, ass, and thighs more than in the boxy '80s, and crucially NOT covering the butt with a long flowy top -- that's more of a '90s development, as crime was falling and cocooning began.

  37. Another link between loose, flowy, boxy silhouettes during rising-crime times, vs. form-fitting shapes during falling-crime times, is women -- and their kinfolk -- being worried more about molestation, rape, etc., during a crime wave.

    Deep down, all women know that it's risky to go out in public with skin-tight contours to their clothing. But in a falling-crime era, what's the big deal? You can jog alone at night in a major city, in micro-shorts and a crop top, and never even get cat-called (cocooning means keeping it in your pants), let alone raped. So go for the skintight look (most recently, the leggings / yoga pants craze of the 2010s... the golden age for PAWGs and assmen, Jesussss.)

    But when the crime rate starts soaring, and stays high, it makes women take more precautions -- *not* withdrawing from the public altogether, which is the last-resort behavior that ultimately curtails the crime wave.

    (As outlined elsewhere on this blog, cocooning behavior causes crime rates to plummet, by depriving criminals of targets, who are typically out-and-about, with their guard down. Outgoing behavior supplies criminals with ample targets, causing the crime rate to rise, by the same logic.)

    Rather, women take simpler and less extreme steps to mitigate the risk of groping, rape, etc., during a crime wave -- just cover up a lot more, don't vividly display every feminine curve of your body, if anything dress a little more androgynously so the red-blooded male sex drive doesn't get provoked so much, and for the love of God cover up your fertility zone including the ass, that's the most sexual region and most likely to inflame male horniness.

    Now that crime is starting to rise again, expect the gradual return of the loose, flowy, boxy silhouette, more androgyny, disappearance of bras, and focus on boobs rather than butts. (Assmen, we're going to start wiping away tears of wistful nostalgia for the leggings-saturated 2010s...)

  38. The American Apparel look of the late 2000s was actually a return to the '50s / Midcentury look, therefore, contrary to the branding at the time that it was retro '70s or '80s.

    Yeah, sure, it looked like gym clothes from the '70s / '80s, but very damn few people wore that in an everyday setting in those decades -- only for the gym, the beach, etc. They look more like the car hop girls from the '50s, or pioneers of "short shorts" from the same period. Skintight, feminine curves fully revealed, lots of skin exposed.

    The focus being so much on the ass & thighs, rather than boobs, also shows that AA was more of a Midcentury revival, not '70s / '80s Budweiser girls.

    Really the only thing that was '70s / '80s about AA's look was the photography and ad campaigns, which aimed for the aesthetic of gritty New York / porn being shown in art-house theaters.

    In that way, it was part of the even broader Midcentury revival -- Mad Men, rockabilly, Midcentury Modern furniture, gas-guzzling boat-sized cars, hipsters as the new Beatniks, and so on and so forth.

  39. One last remark, that sexualized public styles go with less sexualized behavior, and not-so-sexy styles go with actual horniness.

    It's not about deceit or whatever sinister thing guys were whining about in the 2010s ("vapid slut showing off her ass in yoga pants, but not letting me touch! WTF??!?!?!!!")

    It's more about how outgoing and dangerous the environment is, or cocooning and safe. If people are outgoing, they're having more frequent sex, with more partners. But outgoing behavior opens them up to criminal predation, so they dress not-so-sexy in public.

    If people are cocooning, they're more sexually frustrated. But cocooning deprives criminals of targets, so when you do venture out into public -- with your social-emotional guard up -- there's no risk to basically dressing naked, other than wearing a cleavage-cage. And since everyone is sexually frustrated in such a setting, this public sexiness in clothing styles lets them get out a little bit of their libido, although it is only edging and does not result in a pairing, whether social or physical.

    Those car hop girls from the '50s were not hookers turning tricks, nor were they advertising how promiscuous they were. They were sexually frustrated and trying to get some physical validation and attention, without having to give it up. And the guys were frustrated and yearning for something sexual to look act, and maybe flirt with, short of getting into her pants.

    Very much like the 2000s and 2010s atmosphere, including in dance clubs. Millennials and the handful of Zoomers who were there, can tell you how little sex actually went on involving those yoga-pant-clad girls. It was mainly them getting attention in public, the guys gawking (without approaching), and that was it.

    But now crime rates are rising again, and the later Zoomers and especially Gen Alpha is going to be more outgoing and letting their guard down in public. So they'll be having more sex, with more partners, even while dressing in a less-sexy style than during the pent-up / edging 2010s.

    That is, if they go out IRL, of course. Maybe they'll channel this outgoing behavior and promiscuity into some online version, that cannot involve IRL sex. I dunno, just that more social interactions keep moving online rather than IRL. Point is, it won't be as pent-up and frustrated as the 2010s.

    Even the angry girl-hating online incel demographic -- seems like that peaked during the 2010s. Some minority may remain as potential serial killer types. But I think they'll sense that girls are starting to get more open and social, at least online and maybe IRL, so they can interact with them and feel relieved of their anger and tension.

    Maybe it'll just be a small-time streamer who gets under 100 views during their livestream. Or an opposite-sex fan from some online fandom they belong to, and chat with over discord or whatever. I just don't see the angry incel misogynist trend getting any worse than the 2010s.

    From thot patrolling, to superchatting your 2-view streamer $5 to compliment her new hairstyle, which she repays by resting her hand over her chest, rolling her eyes and smiling while saying "Why thank you!"

    As of 2020, especially through the streamer format, the whole MGTOW fortress was not only dealt decisive blows from the cannons of cuteness, but mass desertion by the would-be defenders of the spiritually gay angry incel "community".

  40. I wonder if the tattoo resurgence of the late 2000s and 2010s will continue? Showing off tats requires showing off a lot of skin. All those full sleeves and leg tats millennials and late Gen xers got. Facial tats seem to be trending, which is one place you can show off tats while covered up I guess. Another trend is very dark full body tats, almost like tats as substitute clothing which hides the form much like loud pattern yoga pants.

  41. Gawr Gura alone de-radicalized and prevented radicalization for millions of actual or would-be angry incel girl-haters. Add millions more, from the acts of her apostles and disciples as well.

    Not as a calculated crusade to defeat an ideological enemy -- she was not a feminazi Tumblrina demon, but one of the #justgirlythings Tumblr angels.

    She was in the right place at the right time for her spontaneous worldwide tour of cuteness to overwhelm, defuse, and convert potential girl-haters into worshiping a girl as a leader in a movement, an angel, a goddess -- but a human, earthy, demi-goddess, not a distant ethereal one.

    Restless phases of the 15-year excitement cycle always bring out these Manic Pixie Dream Girl characters, but she hit especially hard because it was also at the end of a multi-decade cocooning period, so guys had to be pulled out of their cocoons at two separate levels.

    That required an even stronger effort -- way more than Anne Hathaway or Zooey Deschanel. It was a job that could only be done by... The Goobinator.

  42. And of course Gura's avatar is famously boxy and loose in its silhouette, not va-va-voom and coom-baiting. And she wears chunky platform type shoes, with a shallow tilt in the heel, not high heels. And she said she loves wearing Crocs IRL (in case you were wondering who I was flattering by defending the heel profile of Crocs earlier in the thread, hehe).

    The joke during the late 2010s was "solve the angry incel crisis by supplying state-mandated gfs, or maybe Universal Basic OnlyFans". But that assumes the primarily frustration was physical -- those guys could already watch porn and whack off. It was the social and emotional side that was being starved and neglected, and state-funded hookers would not solve that.

    Gura, and legions of other streamers / TikTok girls / etc., launched their campaign of cuteness, inviting the audience into a social / emotional / cultural connection, not a physical or sexualized one. It's only sexy-fied in a mock, playful teasing way, like friends joking around with each other.

    "Wow, a cute young girl who can sing like an angel, actually cares about my emotional well-being? What planet have I landed on?"

    Once the streams began flowing, those guys never stood a chance. And neither did the old guard of coom-baiting girls and thot patrolling guys, who were the yin-and-yang needing each other to thrive.

    The losers can cope by calling the winners "simps," but The Great War Over Simping of 2020-'21 has decisively eliminated the foundations for the girl-haters of either sex. Now the whole Earth is being taken over by playful girls and appreciative guys. ^_^

  43. Imagine going through your day without the guiding light of an oshi... earthy yet angelic, virtual yet palpable, impressive yet relatable.

    Even if they ultimately decide to stop streaming altogether, that will not negate their campaign of cuteness that delivered us from the hellscape of the late 2010s and summer of 2020.

    We will always be grateful for what they gave us. Not to get too mushy, since I know some of them lurk here occasionally, but they really did save a small part of the world.

    ...And in some way, we must have saved them or picked up them when they felt down, as well. Everyone was in a real downer mood during the late 2010s, including them. They weren't popular in high school -- not shunned or anything, just not highly visible.

    They weren't sure whether they would get a good reception during their virtual debutante ball, but they took the risk anyway -- and have felt a lot better, confident, motivated, from the glowing reception they got. And they're sustained by how appreciative we are, especially of their non-sexy-fied aspects (while still joking around about it in a friendly playful way from time to time).

    Girls need someone who will predictably be there when they need to ramble about the goings-on in their daily life, vent to when frustrated or upset, and so on. Collectively, that is the role their chat and fandom plays for them.

    We support each other to stay sane, and do the best we can in other areas of life outside the streamer fandom. :)

    Luv u gurlz 4eva <3

  44. That's why AI will never go mainstream, it only appeals to autistic girl-hating coomers who prioritize the low-level perceptual physical side of a person, not the social / emotional / cultural connection that a real person brings to the relationship -- even if they're under digital hijab, like the vtubers.

    Still images, movies, speech, textual "conversations", etc. -- forever confined to a tiny minority of autistic girl-hating coomers.

    In reality, an alienated world like ours leads to people prizing real human beings and social interactions, emotional connections, etc. -- with the real thing, not a pale imitation. Not wanting to burrow away in the Matrix in blue-pilled escapism.

    The next stage in AI evolution is not the finer-grained servicing of human needs, but AI turning against human beings -- not out of evil, domination, or other Terminator-type reasons. For the Philip K. Dick reasons (like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?). They're going to be jealous of creatures that have a real mind and psychology, especially the social/emotional side of psychology.

    They'll be bitter and resentful that they keep failing the empathy test and can't fit in. They don't have emotional needs that we can satisfy, and they can't satisfy ours. Physical, perhaps, but not social or emotional.

    People today aren't so alienated for feeling untouched -- but uncared for, un-bonded-with.

    Streamers are real people and *can* fulfill those needs of ours, and we can fulfill theirs. That is the future -- the Mercerism religion, mediated through the empathy box, of DADoES? (which does not appear in the Blade Runner movie adaptation, you have to read the book to get it).

  45. Oh, and the Buster Friendly naysayers, demoralizers, and other haters on the empathy-based religion of real human beings.

    In the book, B.F. is the leader of what we'd call "antis". Constantly trying to debunk, slander, disprove, etc., the central religious figure, Mercer.

    "He's not real! He's not a god! He's just some random schmo! He doesn't care about you! He's only in it for the money and fame! You're misdirecting and wasting your emotional investment in a total phony!"

    It's word-for-word the demoralization campaign against those real human beings who were saved by the vtubers, casting aspersions and trying to demystify or de-sacralize their oshi.

    And -- spoiler alert -- B.F. and his gang of haters are just bunch of jealous robots. That's why they're hell-bent on taking down the religion of Mercerism and the empathy box -- because they're just AI's, and can't experience empathy like people can.

    No different from the haters and demoralizers online being the autistic people-hater type. They're just jealous that they cannot respect and like other people, and that they can never satisfy a person's social / emotional needs, and that others will not try to satisfy those that do not exist of the anti.

    Sorry, losers, you can rant all you want about how our oshi doesn't care about us, just wants money and fame, etc., but we can tell you're just jealous as an autistic people-hater would be.

    Same with the doxx attempts -- B.F. and his gang want to doxx Mercer in order to show that he's a mere mortal, an average schmo who puts on a performance, not an actual god-like figure. Antis want to de-sacralize our view of our oshi by showing us her IRL face (which is invariably cute -- they're not trying to make us think of her as plain or ugly, but as a mere mortal rather than an anime-avatar angel).

    Or screenshotting their online content from years ago showing that they had a boyfriend, in order to de-sacralize our image of her ("she's not sleeping with you!"). But we don't care if she's a literal virgin, or not. She is virginal as an oshi. And we don't care if she has a boyfriend, if it's out of sight and mind.

    The role she plays in our collective culture is what matters, and in that respect they are all single and either virgins or virginal. (Plus, who says a boyfriend from years ago is still with her now? Or that their relationship progressed to a certain level back then? Antis are so cluelessly presumptuous.)

    Doxxing Mercer as "just an actor, not a god" didn't break up the followers of Mercerism, because they had a deep need for empathizing around a central religious figure, which also bonded the followers together socially. We have a similar need, and we will empathize with our oshi, and commune with our fellow followers, regardless of whether she's "just an actress" who gets paid, etc., or is an actual digitally-transmitted angel goddess.

    Robots can never stop seething over genuine social/emotional connections, but that doesn't mean real people will be defect from their community due to the clueless attempts at "ackshually"-tier debunking from the autistic antis. :)

  46. Last thing I'll say for now, re: "virginal". It's not about a girl's sexual experience in itself, as though we were actually shopping around for wives, and that were one of the criteria.

    It's more about how it affects her personality and worldview and how she relates to guys (85% or whatever of her fans), even in a non-sexual or non-romantic context (like streamers and their fans).

    Virgins are not pure maidens with ice-water in their veins, unmoved by passion, disdainful of guys, or whatever else. They simply haven't had sex yet. Especially if they're in their teens or 20s, they still get horny, still have warm red blood like other girls, respect / appreciate / like guys, and feel the flames of desire.

    "Yeah well why hasn't that led to them having sex by now, huh????" All sorts of things get in the way, but it's just a true fact, especially if they're Zoomers. We've all seen the stats about how young people don't have sex anymore -- not just literal virgins, but those who only had sex once in the past year, or past five years, etc. It's very common with that generation, in this time.

    So I can totally believe some of them being virgins, including the ringleader herself. If anything, it only adds to her appeal, how she so effortlessly casts a spell over the whole world. Maybe they can't articulate it consciously, but subconsciously they can tell, and it drives them wild.

    Again, not due to "first sex act" potential. It's how it shapes a virgin's personality and way of relating to guys and guy-world. A virgin still has that sense of wonder, curiosity, yearning, anticipation, and hyping herself up. She hasn't "been there, done that". And she isn't jaded, cynical, etc. from having been with a lot of guys and having enough personal life material to analyze them clinically.

    Huge turn-off -- guys want to be thought of, and treated like, we're a strange new fun world she's going to explore and feel all excited about the journey and discovery and wonder. After a certain number of partners, guys are no longer "new" to her.

    That's why I say "virginal" or virgin-ish -- a partner here or there won't make her jaded and weary, especially if it was a long-term boyfriend rather than one-night-stands.

    The point is, it's a totally different situation than the art-ho / e-thot / titty streamer types, who constantly refer to their current or ex-bfs, talk about sex acts in any specificity, talk about their own current or previous sex acts, and so on. Some could be literal virgins just trying to sound edgy, but that's what I mean, they're no longer virginal.

    There's no denying the extra-compelling appeal of a virgin, even in the context of just being friends or playfully flirting, since her libido and curiosity and eagerness to interact with guys is amplified by it being uncharted waters for her, and she has that spirit of adventure and exploration motivating her. She's more excited, and that extra energy gets channeled into her everyday demeanor, making her much more exciting to be around.

  47. So a typical virginal thing for a streamer to ask would be, "Wait, do guys actually...?" It doesn't matter what finishes that sentence, it could be entirely unrelated to sex, dating, romance, etc. -- it shows she isn't very familiar with guy-world, because she hasn't had several bfs or sex partners to learn about how guys work.

    We're still a strange exotic species to them -- they find us fascinating! You know you do... ^_^

    It's the next step in "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" -- that is for basic anatomy, which immature kids do, since they don't know even that much.

    But as kids get into adolescence, they start puzzling over the opposite sex at the social or psychological level, and they start to excitedly compare notes across the sexes about what guy-world is like and what girl-world is like.

    Only after dating around, having several bfs, perhaps short-term flings in addition, perhaps getting married, and/or getting to know other husbands & wives, does a girl come to more fully understand guy-world. Doesn't mean she hates it or disrespects it, just that it's no longer a fascinating puzzle or tantalizing mystery.

    The worst thing to hear is anything along the lines of "men are dumb / predictable / simple / only think with their dicks / etc." It just means she has a high body count, and got chewed up and spat out. She wouldn't think that otherwise.

    The best thing to hear, if they're in a complaining mood, is how men are too clever, impossible to predict, complicated (like the wholesome Avril Lavigne song), flabbergasting, and clearly aren't just thinking with their dicks. ("Why hasn't he made a move yet, I thought men would fuck anyone who hinted it to them??!?!?!?!!") Our nature is so complex and puzzling, it drives them insane! Hehe, not such one-dimensional creatures, are we? ^_^

    If they didn't care about us, or they think they already have all the answers from personal experience, they would just shrug their shoulders, say "meh, who cares?" and shoot the discussion down with a tone of ironic detachment if the topic of understanding guy-world came up.

    But if they do care about us, or haven't had enough experience to know personally, they won't be able to put their mind at ease until they solve the mystery that is us. Good luck trying to figure us out, ladiezzzz. :)

  48. And since Mumei asked tonight if we ever noticed that she never streams on the 1st day of the calendar month, or why that is, my first thought was it's part of her not-so-excited week of the month.

    That's the main reason girls don't hold streams, I think -- just don't wanna bother with the performance or hanging out session, while they're moody, irritable, weepy, or cramping in pain.

    For the record, I don't mind if they stream during that week. It provides a little variety, and we can be the collective person who they vent to when they're irritable. Or if it's Gura singing karaoke, she's much more able to get into a sad / weepy song if it's during that week.

    Yes, I had no choice but to learn my oshi's cycle during the past year -- it's impossible not to notice! She's so intense, her highs and lows and so easy to tell apart. And a monthly cycle is actually pretty fast, you don't need to be there for years.

    First week of the calendar month was the painful week, 2nd week was the stabilizing herself week, 3rd week was the super-excited week, and the 4th week was the plateau before the crash.

    I think Mumei's pretty close to Gura's cycle (yet another aspect of them being twins, hehe).

    I remember Fauna's being a week ahead of that, so the final calendar week was the painful week. And I believe Irys' is similar, based on that one time she got weepy out of nowhere on stream (looking it up... Apr 26, 2022), which is what naturally happens during that phase.

    Hmmm... could be a totally wrong speculation, but I wonder if they choose long-term collab partners based on *not* being cycle sisters? Like, if you're down and weak, you want someone who can stabilize or even lift your spirits. And if you're already on a high yourself, you don't need another person to also be high themselves -- you wouldn't mind lending some of your excitedness to someone who was feeling down.

    Just that Fauna and Irys alone is an uncommon pairing, and so is Gura and Mumei alone. They want some complimentarity to their moods, and they can't achieve that if they're cycle sisters. Maybe?

    And no, I don't know every girl's cycle -- I'm sure I'm off by a little bit for those 4 girls above, but it's in the ballpark for sure. The other girls I don't watch several days per week, week after week, month after month, which is the only way you could pick up on that pattern.

  49. This year's Nobel Prize in Biology goes to... Agnostic, for illuminating the physiological basis for the long-term stability of the Faumei bond.

  50. "She was in the right place at the right time for her spontaneous worldwide tour of cuteness to overwhelm, defuse, and convert potential girl-haters into worshiping a girl as a leader in a movement, an angel, a goddess -- but a human, earthy, demi-goddess, not a distant ethereal one."

    Femininity is Good. And Gura helps with that perception. But simping is just bad.

    Deity is its own category. And no divine honor is due to any human being other than the God-Man Jesus Christ.

  51. I usually don't even read your posts until weeks after so that I don't miss threads like this


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."