April 12, 2025

Programming note: series on coziness in architecture, from the room scale to the city plan scale, with cross-cultural and cross-temporal studies

It's back to architecture for a little while, and the next series of posts will all be on the same overarching theme -- coziness. It will start from the small scale and work up progressively toward an entire city plan.

We'll be visited yet again by some of our favorite recurring characters here -- America and Japan exhibiting the cultural traits of the Dark Ages in Eurasia, re-examining the Dark Ages in Eurasia itself with a mind toward how they cycle with Humanist / Enlightenment cultures over the course of a 2000-year cycle, the place of architecture in American ethnogenesis (and how we invented so-called Modernism), specifically Frank Lloyd Wright pioneering just about every family of building style that makes us us (and most of it coming from ground zero of American ethnogenesis -- Chicago), the utter cluelessness of most architectural and other critics when they try to figure out American culture, and so on and so forth.

Along the way we'll explore an aspect of architecture that has received shockingly little critical attention, including in books that are devoted to formal spatial / geometric analysis. E.g., The Dynamics of Architectural Form by Rudolf Arnheim (1977), a formal critical book that I happen to have a handy copy of -- but I figure there's little discussion elsewhere, or else he would've included it in his citations and footnotes.

And that aspect is... CONCAVITY, as opposed to the far more common convexity. There is a very tiny amount about this aspect regarding interior spaces or individual elements like a column or vault, but we'll be taking a far larger view of the entire building and its grounds, and of entire neighborhood and city plans.

Everyone just assumes that when you talk about "shapes" of buildings, they have to have a convex perimeter -- where every vertex of an angle joining two walls, is pushed outward from inside the building. For example, a rectangle or pentagon or hexagon or octagon or in the limit a circle / ellipse.

We're going to see just how concave you can make a building's exterior -- where some of those corners between two walls have been pulled inward toward the center of the building. For example, a U shape, a "spokes stemming from a hub" shape, etc.

But we can't cover that topic until we start with a smaller scale, and examine how cozy Americans prefer their buildings to be, how Dark Age and defensive and fortress-like we like them, how we assume the central state is weak and nomads / bandits / feuding factions are unchecked, etc. Only then will it make sense why America pioneered concave building shapes, and how early we invented them.

And then the usual corollary -- that the Euros were at least a generation behind us (sometimes longer), copying us, and just slapping a different Bauhaus-y branding on top of our popular styles that almost always trace back to Frank Lloyd Wright.

It cannot be otherwise -- he was born in 1867 and was churning out pioneering works in the 1890s. Walter Gropius, the earliest Euro modernist, was born in 1883, and was not churning out his distinctive works until the 1920s -- a full generation delayed from the grandfather of American -- and therefore Modern -- architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright himself.

But we will give the Euros their due -- their Dark Age due, that is. And the Saharo-Arabians of the Dark Ages as well. I haven't looked too far into East Asian examples, other than to confirm that Japan is on a different timeline and is currently Dark Age like we are.

If you're sick and tired of cathedrals and chateaus, and want to see CASTLES for a change...

If you'll just puke seeing another grid layout for a city's streets, and want to see eccentric arterial meanderings and cul-de-sacs everywhere...

If you'd rather not set foot in the city to begin with, but retreat to pastoral hamlets...

We're going to see just how fucking awesome Eurasia used to be -- during the Dark Ages.

Mainly, though, the focus will be on American ethnogenesis, and the model is one of convergent evolution -- similar environments selecting for similar adaptations, not like we consciously revived the Dark Age castle complex in America. They just turned out similarly due to America having a weak central state, just like Eurasian societies did back then.

I'll put together the first post as soon as I can, but in the meantime, let this programming note cleanse your brain of whatever dIsCouRsE-sludge has been flung against it lately, and get it re-acquainted with some of the major recurring themes here, before we take off on the journey. ^_^

124 comments:

  1. Why don't I share the list of books I'm consulting, aside from rummaging through online sources. I scored all of them VERY cheap in thrift stores or used bookstores, they're by no means rare or expensive, and any one would be a great start if you're curious about architecture.

    Just for the picture quality alone! Or the line drawing quality. Nothing on the internet is as good as the professionally shot and printed photographs from the good ol' days.

    You're lucky if one of their descendants took a nice picture and uploaded it to Flickr in 2008. Otherwise you'll get the same exact image, repeated a zillion times, from an image search. And they won't have multiple views, good lighting, composition, or anything like that. The only good images on the internet are digitally preserved scans / copies of a photograph that someone shot and printed several decades ago.

    * * *

    The Dynamics of Architectural Form, by Rudolf Arnheim

    Dimensions: Space, Shape & Scale in Architecture, by Charles Moore and Gerald Allen

    Encyclopedia of American Architecture, by William Dudley Hunt (1980 edition, chock full of Midcentury Modern and Brutalist examples to illustrate everything)

    American Architecture since 1780: A Guide to the Styles, by Marcus Whiffen

    Buildings for Commerce and Industry, by Charles King Hoyt

    Frank Lloyd Wright: The Masterworks, by Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer

    Romanza: The California Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, by David Gebhard

    Landmarks of Los Angeles, by Patrick McGrew

    Columbus, Indiana: A Look at Architecture, by Columbus Area Visitors Center (1984 edition)

    Castles, by Charles W.C. Oman

    Romanesque Art in Italy, by Hans Decker

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is worth noting that the kind of medieval castle that we contemporaries are familiar with in terms of image first became widespread with the disintegration of the Carolingian Empire:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle

    ReplyDelete
  3. Convexity vs. concavity comes up also in the grid vs. arterial layout! Grids being convex (exposed, isolating), arterials being concave (cozy, bonding).

    And "transit" layouts also apply on the smallest scale, within a room like a classroom!

    This is why I procrastinate on some of these topics, cuz they keep turning up more and more connections and insights... but at a certain point, they'll have to be addenda that go in the comment thread, and the foundation has to be laid in a standalone post.

    The first facet I'll look at doesn't involve convexity vs. concavity very much, more like the scale of spaces, but it'll touch on geometric complexity as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's not so much about the collapse of the Frankish Empire, but the rise of nomadic empires that were getting a foothold in Europe, or nomadic raiders who fell short of an empire but were still a harassing presence. That coincided more or less with the stagnant and collapsing stage of the Frankish Empire.

    Namely the Vikings (empire), Moors (empire), and Magyars (regular raiders). They were not Christian, they were nomadic, and two of them (Moors and Magyars) were foreigners who didn't speak an Indo-Euro language. So they were meta-ethnic nemeses within Europe.

    The castle-building empires were spawned in reaction to these (seemingly) permanent nomadic mega-armies / empires. The Franks didn't build castles cuz they arose in reaction to the Roman Empire, a sedentary civilization.

    Why didn't the Byzantine Empire build castles, since they were spawned by the frontier with various nomadic groups like the Alans, Huns, early Goths, etc.? Perhaps due to these groups being here today, gone tomorrow kind of nomads -- coming in waves every several generations, but not being a regular raiding group, or setting up their own nomadic empire nearby.

    There needed to be imperial-level asabiya to build castles cuz they're very expensive and long-term oriented, meaning the nobles / elites must be willing to sacrifice a decent amount of their wealth in order to build something that will last for centuries, redounding to the benefit of the community / society at large, not just their own narrow bloodlines, not just for the next couple generations.

    At first they were made of earth and timber -- not so expensive, not very long-lasting. But better than nothing. Soon they were made from stone, more expensive and long-lasting.

    I reject the view that they arose *primarily* due to internal feuding among noble factions -- they had plenty of that in the Frankish Empire, like their integrative civil war involving rival factions led by queens Brunhild and Fredegund. Or jockeying for position between the various components of the empire, like Austrasia vs. Neustria.

    Yet the Franks were not extensive castle-builders (either the earth-and-timber type or the stone type). They had tons of wealth, they were highly cohesive -- but they didn't arise in response to nomadic nemeses.

    If anything, they were more nomadic than their nemesis -- starting out as part of the Germanic volkerwanderung, reacting against the sedentary civilized Roman Empire. Likewise, the Vikings were not castle-builders -- they were nomads themselves, arising in response to the (by that time) sedentary civilized Frankish Empire.

    It remained for the French, British, and Spanish empires to become castle-builders (at home and abroad, e.g. in Italy and Sicily).

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Byzantine Empire was also spawned by pressure from the Persian meta-ethnic nemesis (the Sasanians, at that point), from the eastern direction. And the Sasanians were another sedentary civilized Persian empire, not nomadic raiders from Central Asia or Arabia, as would show up only beginning in the 7th C, centuries after the Byzantine Empire was born.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Goob is returning to her fantastical sea-home, having cheered up the spirits of the land-lubbers when they needed it most. Another Manic Pixie Dream Girl from the 2020-'24 restless phase concluding that her crazy carnival tour has done its job, and now it's time to focus more on her own needs and duties.

    Off the PC...
    Wish I could be...
    In the real world...

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's from a longer fragment I wrote a couple years ago, but didn't DARE post it, for fear of jinxing her graduation. But now that she's given notice, I should finish it up as a final tribute song. ^_^ A hopeful send-off, capturing how restless she must feel as an online superstar who wants to break out of the palace and be free.

    Cuz like Moom, I don't think she's reincarnating, not as a streamer anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have a bad track record jinxing graduations -- everyone I wrote a tribute song for has graduated, albeit with quite a delay. Fauna, Mumei, and Gura, all graduating this year. Others graduated without me writing a song for them (Sana and Ame), so they still might've left even if I hadn't, but still -- not a good record of what effects my fan-songs have had.

    That's why, as much as I've written a fragment here or there in my drafts file, I'd NEVER post a song for Irys. She's the last one who I regularly watched that's still streaming in Hololive, and the day I post something for her like that, it'll start the countdown to the final Manic Pixie Dream Girl of Holo EN taking flight for good.

    Obviously I don't blame myself for this bad correlation, it's more like my tribute songs were representative of a broader fan outpouring and desire for connection with the talent. And for a little while, the talents felt the same way toward us, collectively.

    But over time, that got to overwhelming for them, leading them to want to unplug the online spotlight and lead "normal" lives -- still terminally online, given them being Millennials and Zoomers, but without being in a global spotlight, as much of a rush as that was at first.

    I, and I assume the other fans, don't have any regrets about our outpouring of fan-art, fan-songs, etc., toward the talents. And I assume the talents have no regrets about reciprocating for as long as they did. But that mutually parasocial connection has run its course, and if anything the talents probably feel like they've plunged into a hangover after a rush-filled high, and need to de-tox and recover for awhile.

    The streamers who never got that intimately parasocial with their fandom, will not be plunging into a hangover -- cuz they never took off on the rush-filled bonding high to begin with. They've been more even-steven the whole time, not on a rollercoaster.

    So, as sad-girl as she may be, Kronii has outlasted 3 of her 4 gen-mates. She didn't chase the high, so she won't get plunged into the hangover and feel like quitting cold turkey and checking into a detox resort.

    I don't have an addictive personality or anything, but I'd still say the hangover was worth the high in the case of the (non-Japanese) vtuber fandom.

    The Japanese streamers aren't quite so parasocial, or their fans aren't so parasocial, it's more of a traditional "performer and spectator" relationship, only in a new medium. They do interact back-and-forth, but it's not as intense and intimate as it was for streamers and their audiences outside of Japan, during the early 2020s.

    Anyway, no regrets. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also we're soon moving from the MPDG era to the manic era of the 15 year cycles so they would be moving on anyways.

      Delete
  9. On an upbeat note, Bae + Irys are going to play a retro-tastic arcade game from the '90s (slightly remade for the Switch), Snow Bros. 2!

    It looks a lot like Bubble Bobble, so I assumed it was by Taito, but it's actually by Toaplan. Imitation is the best form of flattery. ^_^

    I already wrote before about co-op games being dominant from the late '70s through the mid-'90s, during the harmonious phase of the 50-year civil discord cycle. And sure enough, this game is from 1994.

    After that year, it was mainly player-vs.-player or team-vs.-team -- whereas the classic co-op games were purely players-vs.-computer. People wanted to get along and cooperate with each other, not turn everything into a competition. If a video game needed a competitor, it had to be the computer itself, not another person.

    Maybe Bae has settled into Glorious Nippon for long enough that the desire to honor the classics has started to take her over, as is natural for the Japanese streamers -- many of whom are still playing old school Pokemon games, or Chrono Trigger like Koyori, or Dino Crisis like the Koronator, or Ocarina of Time like Sora.

    I hear that the Japanese government requires a certain quota of hours playing retro JP video games, before they will give kaigai-niki a permanent resident card or citizenship. But it's not a chore -- it's fun! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pekora was playing Kirby's Adventure for the NES last week, too! A game that's over 30 years old is better than the new ones today.

    Also, I finally found a clue about whether she is a boob-girl or a butt-girl -- I think she's a butt-girl!

    In the Mario Party collab today with Marine, Shion, and Korone, both Pekora and Marine excelled at the rhythm mini-game.

    I checked old clips to confirm that this was not a fluke -- she has very good rhythm skills.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPSZlgYsyos

    Rhythm goes with dancing, and dancing is corporeal, not cerebral. Butt people are corporeal, boob people are cerebral.

    Marine is famous for her buns and her dancing skills, and it only makes sense that she's good at rhythm games.

    So, Pekora being equally good at rhythm games means she probably has the same nature as Marine -- being a butt-girl rather than a boob-girl.

    I don't know if she's mentioned anything more direct and specific about her body type, but if she's so skilled at rhythm games, she just *has to* be a butt-girl!

    Much like the Goobinator, on the EN side. Shark energy is stored in the tail. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sidebar on how broken Google's search engine is: the clip linked above, titled "Pekora is the rhythm master", does not appear when you enter that title into Google's main engine, or its video search engine. You can put it all in quote marks, you can instruct it to look specifically within youtube.com -- nothing.

    However, YouTube's in-site search engine turns up the correct video when you enter the title into the search bar, without quote marks even.

    This is further confirmation that Google's search engine is fundamentally broken -- and likely, irrevocably broken at this point. It's been butchered too much by the QE era of giving all the strivers "projects" to work on, to rationalize their fake free infinite dollar-funded salaries.

    These fake-work / make-work projects are not merely innocuous. Innocuous would be telling the Central Bank to direct deposit the six-figure salary into the striver's bank account, without having them do anything whatsoever. They voted Democrat, they're from the preferred tribe or caste within India for whom the hiring manager is a corrupt bag-man in America, etc. So, give them the money.

    But that isn't enough -- they want to feel like they've earned it, so they need these projects to produce a tangible outcome.

    Whether the outcome deserves a six-figure salary or not, isn't the question -- of course they do not deserve that much money, they're BREAKING the entire goddamn architecture that they're working on!

    But they don't want to hear that -- they want to hear how, not only are they getting tons of money, they *deserve* that money due to their merits, not due to corrupt ethnic patronage networks.

    Nobody, Indian or American, wants to look in the mirror every day and think, "I'm making six figures only cuz I have social connections to the hiring manager, and what I actually produce is not only mediocre, it actively harms and destroys and degrades the sector of society that I'm supposed to be contributing to. But I secured the bag, I'm on that grindset, so sucks to the rest of you!"

    No, they want to be told how meritorious their work is, over and over. They're not just a one-hit wonder -- every single quarter of the fiscal year, they're doing quality work that deserves six-figure compensation. Wow, I really am something special -- and that (deluded, coping) feeling of self-respect is more important than the big fat material salary itself.

    Austrian School economists see half the picture, calling these kinds of funding boondoggles "malinvestments" during a bubble. But that misses the other half of the picture -- it's not just that free money during a bubble makes people think there's no costs to anything, so the money goes into dead ends.

    It does go into dead ends -- but that is largely due to the demand for self-respect and self-esteem among the teeming hordes of strivers greedily grasping for those free-flowing funds.

    Adam Smith made this point in The Theory of Moral Sentiments -- man not only wants to be loved, he wants to be lovely, i.e. to be worthy of that love, like he is being loved cuz he deserves it. Otherwise it could be pity-love, which feels rotten.

    That doesn't mean he will actually behave in a way that deserves to be loved by others -- he may just cook up a rationalization for why he's so love-worthy, while acting in a rephrehensible way, rather than behave in a genuinely love-worthy way.

    Anyway, the point being for now -- don't bother with Google's search engine, if some site has its own in-site search engine.

    It's not as if Google cannot return search results from YouTube -- it absolutely can. It's not like there's a firewall around YouTube that Google can't see inside of. It's just that Google's search engine has been thoroughly corrupted by fake-work / make-work pRoJeCtS.

    It's not political censorship either, although they did that as well during Obama's 2nd term onward. There are no geopolitical implications about a Japanese anime bunny-girl streamer being a master at rhythm games. Google just plain and simply DOES NOT WORK anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Imagine thinking you could ever achieve immortality by uploading your mind to a computer, when something as simple as a search engine -- and yet, the global flagship of its kind -- has been thoroughly corrupted and lies a decomposing abandoned mess, within your fairly brief life so far.

    Boomers and some Gen X-ers may be more delusional about this, cuz the progress line for "computers" has gone up so much over their lifetimes -- they remember when there were no computers, no internet, no cell phones whatsoever.

    But Millennials and Zoomers were basically born online, and the things they took for granted as the baseline -- NOT as the most recent pinnacle of ever-skyward progress, but simply the most pathetic default baseline -- have utterly broken down and lie in ruins, before they've even turned 40.

    Tech-tards had better find a more clueless demo to sell their slopaganda to, and that's precisely why they target their sales pitches to literal Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers, who couldn't know any better from their lived experiences.

    Millennials and Zoomers would intuitively known from their own lived experiences, yeah no, uploading your mind to Google means that your digi-mind will be totally broken and unusable in 10 years or less.

    Uploading your mind to Amazon World Services cloud means that when Trump or Vance start a self-shooting tariff war, and China deprives us of rare earth metals, the AWS servers downstream of that change will no longer function optimally, and cuts will have to be made -- and that cinching of the online belt is going to squeeze your puny little digi-mind into pieces.

    Uploading your mind to Netflix means your digi-mind will be de-listed and unaccessible for use when their contract window expires, just like those movies that you can only watch during a 6-month period.

    Physical media last close to forever -- even the most basic mom & pop video rental store had longer-lasting windows of usability / accessibility for their "data archive" (i.e., the casette tapes).

    And even after those stores closed down 20 years ago, or at least threw out their VHS library -- those tapes are still circulating out there, or are being preserved in private collections. I still own and proudly display 3 VHS tapes that I rented, and by the time I went to return them, the store literally closed up with no notice, so I kept them, and have hung onto them ever since. ^_^

    Arabesque, The Desperate Hours, and Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. Still in their distinctive video rental store clamshell cases, too. ^_^

    Just another timely reminder of how pointless, fake, actively-harmful the AI boondoggle has been, and will always ever be. Anyone churning out slopaganda on behalf of AI is literally on the take by these transhumanist billionaire dum-dums who can't even observe what a ruined state the computer / online landscape lies in, just one generation after the bursting of the original Dot-Com bubble.

    I put aside the moral arguments for/against AI, uploading your brain, etc. Those are too open-ended and debatable -- the purely empirical and scientific angle of attack is totally undefended. Just imagine trying to sell this digi-brain bullshit, when Google's search engine lies in ruins, when Netflix suffered a Library of Alexandria-level wipeout of its archive when it transitioned from physical media to online streaming services, and the whole rest of the pathetic state of "tech" these days...

    ReplyDelete
  13. And so we're

    Spamming uwu till we get banned
    Getting stored in one another's RAM
    Gotta deactivate, off-a the site
    And then you draw some art about me
    And we find our alt accounts
    And then we say:

    I think we're anon now
    No TOS to tell us what is not allowed
    I think we're anon now
    The sharing of our screens is the only crowd...

    * * *

    Another fragment from a couple years ago, when the audience and the talents were both on the high, not the hangover. Hehe. To the tune of:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Q3mHyzn78

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've tried not to be a noob
    But when I'm gaming with Moom
    I can't let up the chase
    Cuz you make my kart race

    Blocked me off of the site
    You're my malware file
    You keep bricking PC's
    Yeah, blue screen and can't tweet

    Something's feeling cringe now
    Cuz I'm drawing my fursona with wings
    If I could fly right through the screen now...
    Cuz you've got that owl thing

    So log off, log off, log off of my thread
    And follow back my alt instead
    I don't, I don't, don't know what it is
    But I need that owl thing
    You've got that owl thing

    ReplyDelete
  15. Loss of control during socially harmonious phase of 50-year civil discord cycle. While looking through videos of dance shows from '90s TV, I stumbled upon an Italian one called Non E la RAI, from the early '90s. It had more variety than just dancing, but dancing was a crucial part of it.

    Look how wild people used to dance to Eurodisco back in the good ol' days! ^_^

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtiTVVgPWKE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vw4qg9OcXw

    To point out the details for those who are not corporeal, they're throwing their bodies off-balance at a fast pace, including a lot of zig-zagging motions, and these include not just their legs but their torso and even their arms. They're whipping their arms around, twirling or spinning their whole body, lifting their legs up high when they "step" (knees rising up to the waist), and whipping their head and hair around. Girls don't whip their hair around anymore...

    All destabilizing motions, especially at the fast pace they're doing them.

    The overall impression is that they're not in personal control of their bodies, they're possessed by some spirit that's moving them around at will, and they are just going along for the ride with that puppet-master spirit.

    So it's not "lack of control" in the sense of entropy, or doing random motions and falling flat on your face and lying still, half-conscious, as though you were shit-faced drunk and can no longer coordinate your body. Their sense of propioception is entirely intact -- indeed, heightened, as proven by their frenetic off-balance motions that *don't* make them fall over.

    Their body shows control, but it's not coming from the individual owner of the body -- it's from some external spirit, or the crowd-vibe, or the music, or something else. "Allowing others to control your body" is more accurate than "loss of control".

    Also, several of them are playing a trust game -- jumping off of a high diving board and landing in a fairly shallow pool (shallow enough that the water only comes up to their waist while they're standing in it). The underwater shots make it clear how miraculous it is that none of them were injured!

    I'm sure the engineers planned and calculated the safe depth beforehand, but still, that's quite a lot of trust to be putting in the crew! If it were a movie, it would qualify as a stunt. You don't see stunts like that in movies anymore, let alone performed by the stars themselves...

    ReplyDelete
  16. The reason is pretty simple: when interpersonal trust is high, people don't feel like they'll be scrutinized, criticized, and ostracized for how they behave, as long as it's pro-social rather than anti-social of course.

    So, don't worry what anyone else thinks -- just go wild when you're dancing. It's not like "everyone else is going to think you're weird and want to ostracize you, but you should pay no mind to them".

    It's more like, "Don't worry, no one is going to think you're weird in the first place -- they're going to think you're cool and fun and exciting. And the onlookers will want to join you rather than ostracize you."

    So they're more likely to cut loose and go wild -- not in an anti-social way like violence, just dropping your guard and going crazy, in the right setting, like a dance party.

    Also, when trust is high, you're more willing to put your faith in someone or something else controlling your body -- cuz that external force is benevolent (pro-social, harmonious), and would not manipulate or exploit you while you were in such a vulnerable state of surrendering control over your body.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And vice versa for why people in the discordant phase of the cycle do not dance or otherwise behave in such wild, loose, abandoned ways (that are still pro-social).

    Dancing styles since the late '90s, lasting through the early 2020s, are more calculated, vampy, slinking-around, seductive, all in a highly controlled and poised kind of way.

    Like the dancer has total control over their own body -- rather than surrendering control to a larger spirit or crowd-vibe -- *and* they're going to use that control in order to manipulate the audience, scheme them, wrap them around their finger, etc.

    Or if the audience is fellow females, to use that self-control to intimidate their same-sex rivals in the mating dance arena -- the ubiquitous dance-off and booty-battle and etc. during the discordant 2000s and 2010s.

    See the music videos for "Promiscuous," "Side to Side," and so on. Controlled, vampy, manipulating.

    It's very reminiscent of the burlesque / striptease trend of the 1950s and '60s, or the go-go dancers at clubs of that time. As shown in, e.g., the striptease scene in The Graduate. Not wild and abandoned, but fully in control -- and in that case, not only wrapping the male dupes in the audience around her finger, but also intimidating a same-sex rival to the point of crying.

    No woman used dancing as a weapon from the disco era to the '80s and through the mid-'90s techno era. They were too harmonious and happy and eager to have fun, not turn every social interaction into a competition with winners and losers.

    That ties into the catfight trend of both the late '40s through the early '70s discordant phase, and its revival from the late '90s through the early 2020s. And its absence from the late '20s through the early '40s, and again during the late '70s through the mid-'90s.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you were in dance clubs during the 2000s and 2010s (they have since died off, so it's hard to judge the 2020s), you couldn't help but notice how awkwardly and standing-still most of the other people "danced", aside from the calculated vampy performer types.

    They were too afraid of being considered weird and ostracized, perhaps with good reason, given how competitive and anti-social their peers were.

    Very similar to American Bandstand from the '60s, near the peak of social chaos. You'd think social chaos would lead to wild abandoned dancing -- but they were incredibly awkward and motionless, considering they're on a dance show and in a "safety in numbers" group setting. Social chaos leads to turtle behavior, not butterfly behavior.

    I was one of the lone wild dancers during the discordant phase, probably cuz I was a bit earlier of a generation than them, and imprinted on the max of social harmony, and have never worried about anyone thinking I'm weird, trying to shame me, ostracize me, etc. As my occasional half-hearted haters always find out, I cannot be shamed if I'm not doing anything wrong. Try it on an insecure Millennial like yourself instead. ^_^

    And far from alienating the rest of the crowd with my loss-of-personal-control dance style, they all looked up to me like I was the lone brave soul fighting the good fight against the awkward, anti-social, navel-gazing mainstream of the zeitgeist. Always happy to lift the crowd's spirits, and encourage them to do so themselves, by modeling the right behavior!

    The last time people were such wild abandoned dancers was the good ol' big band / swing era, from the late '20s through the mid-40s. Sometimes literally bouncing off the walls, using overhead ceiling joists as a monkey bar to grab onto and swing off of, throwing each other's bodies around like rag dolls...

    In a high-trust, harmonious phase of the cycle, you bet!

    ReplyDelete
  19. And no, the crowd looking up to me as a role model was not just the teen and college babes who were eager for me to pull them up onto the stage and dance next to or against me.

    I mean, sure, they loved it -- super-hot guy, wild dancer, non-stop stamina (4 hours of intense gymnastics with few breaks). But really I think it was the wild part that got them so excited. I'm sure there were a few other hot guys there, but they weren't role models for high-trust abandoning self-control kind of behavior.

    And the guys were just as eager to jump up on stage and dance next to me -- no homo, more like the frat bro types who wanted to cut loose like a wild-and-crazy '80s college frat party. They'd always ask my name, pat me on the back, point and scream to the others, "This guy - is an '80s - LEGEND!"

    One of them asked if my name was Dan? I said, No, why? "Ah, cuz everyone calls you Dan, Dan, the '80s Man!" LOL. ^_^

    I miss having an environment where I can be the life of the party, week after week, for years upon years. It's the part I hate most about the current decade, as we plunge into imperial collapse and all our most seemingly default baseline institutions -- like, "local dance clubs" -- have utterly vanished, yes still many years after the Covid hysteria has ended.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Xanadu's opening scene begins with very large-ranging head and hair whipping! I knew it had to be there somewhere, but it's literally the first series of motions that the first muse to awaken makes. There's plenty of spinning, often with hair-whipping worked into the spin, but it's crazy to see throwing your head around in a circle being the opening "step" in the movie's choreography.

    Well, that sets the tone perfectly -- wild and abandoned, not calculated and vampy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5_vZAidRQ

    Notice also the full extension of the arms, full extension of the legs, leaping around, spinning fast, whipping the head and hair -- it's very explosive and straight-arrow motions. The opposite of Bob Fosse's distinctly slow, languid, sinuous motions, which fit the calculated / vampy / audience-manipulating zeitgeist of the '50s and '60s and first half of the '70s (discordant, low-trust).

    Disco in general, Saturday Night Fever, Xanadu, and everything after it -- at least until the mid-'90s -- was the swinging of the choreographic pendulum away from Fosse-esque slow sinuous seduction, and toward explosive carefree spontaneity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Before moving on to other '80s examples, just want to emphasize another pro-social role that wild and abandoned dancing plays within the harmonious phase of the cycle.

    It's not just about the individual dancer signalling that they trust the larger force that's controlling their body, and so being a role model to do likewise -- encouraging others to trust that same larger external force, to take over *their* bodies as well.

    It's also a person-to-person signal, like "Hey, you can trust me not to manipulate or exploit you -- look how I'm obviously not in calculated control of my own body. If I'm not in control of myself, then I certainly can't plot, scheme, trick, deceive, or manipulate you."

    Carefree spontaneity prevents the cold, clinical, calculated mindset needed to exploit others.

    That's why we're so drawn to those babes from Non E la RAI -- aside from having ripe scantily clad bods. There were music video girls like that during the 2000s and 2010s -- but the early '90s babes are signalling how carefree and spontaneous they are, putting us at ease about "is she going to try to play games, shit-test, and otherwise use our interaction as a contest to boost her sense of winning rather than losing?"

    Well, some of "us" are drawn to those type of girls. Those of us who imprinted on the harmonious phase. There's a lot of Millennial and Zoomer guys who imprinted on the discordant phase, and *like* girls who are cold, calculating, and manipulative, who move around in slow slinking seductive motions.

    You wanna get used? That's yer problem, Millennial / Zoomer. But you can see why they developed that preference -- what else was there to choose from, for them? Might as well mold your tastes to fit what is available. A coping mechanism.

    ReplyDelete
  22. A lot of Millennials and Zoomers call themselves "perfectionists," when they really mean "control freaks" or "power-trippers". They're the opposite of carefree and spontaneous -- they're paralyzed by anxiety, and by the fear of not being in total control of themselves / others / their environment / etc.

    Rather than being a sad thing that we should feel sorry for, we should shame them for it -- it's just another form of anti-social, me-first, attempt to always gain the upper hand and have the last word. It's cohesion-corroding competitiveness.

    Worth considering, when we try to imagine (or relive) what the harmonious phase was like -- when people didn't care about exercising control, let alone to such an egocentric degree, and wanted to share power rather than viciously compete over it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Can't neglect the iconic "drenched on the chair" scene from Flashdance, set to "He's a Dream".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-9NHe28wGg

    It actually opens with a bit of Fosse-esque slow slinky strutting and finger-snapping, but it pretty soon goes into explosive territory.

    After she gets drenched, she whips her head and hair strongly forward, then again backward, and then some more while she pounds on the seat, and periodically throughout the rest of the dance.

    A later number, set to "Manhunt", also involves mostly explosive movements, and lots of head whipping (although the dancer's hair is too short for the hair to go flying around as well).

    Even her "floorwork" (choreography done while mostly on the ground) is pretty upper-body demanding and explosive. She isn't making sinuous slinking motions like a seductive animal crawling on all fours -- her lower body is fairly still, and she's pulling herself forward with her arms and hands, like climbing. And not in careful, measured, thinking-it-over motions like when you're rock-climbing -- direct, confident, ever-forward pulling motions.

    The lyrics are a great compliment, part of the confident woman who initiates the interaction, is too restless and eager to just wait around for a shy guy to make the first move. She's on a "manhunt"! That's why her motions must be so explosive and aggressive, since the shy retiring role is already being played by her crush, and she has to bluntly seize the opportunity and leave no room for languid ambiguity.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xoqPXklDQU

    ReplyDelete
  24. Briefly back to the early '90s for another iconic "whipping around drenched hair" photo -- the album cover of Rid of Me by alterna-hottie-baddie PJ Harvey:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rid_of_Me

    There are zillions of examples from music videos of the '80s and first half of the '90s of girls whipping their hair as they come up from underwater. This just happens to be better preserved in our memory cuz it's a still image from the cover of a seminal album.

    When are art-hoes gonna start whipping around their long, dark, thick, DRENCHED mane of hair???

    They don't wanna be hot and exciting anymore... or at least, not through the early 2020s. Maybe as the pendulum swings away from the discordant phase, we'll get more of the harmonious-phase culture, like hot alt babes whipping their hair around like they're possessed -- and playing it straight, not for self-conscious irony-poisoned meme value.

    PJ Harvey wasn't just meme-ing with that album cover...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Last one from the '80s, showing what strip club dances used to look like by then, as opposed to the Midcentury burlesque shows. From Beverly Hills Cop (strip scene begins at 2 min). NSFW.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDLyybDpSls

    Explosive motions, arms and legs fully extending, whipping the head and hair around, looking possessed rather than in personal control.

    ReplyDelete
  26. During the 2000s and 2010s non-topless pole dancing craze, their movements were more Fosse-esque. Slowly winding down and around the pole while upside down, slowly extending their torso away from the pole while holding onto it, and so on.

    Not like the wild animals from Flashdance or Beverly Hills Cop.

    ReplyDelete
  27. A compilation of dance scenes from Showgirls, maybe NSFW, I didn't check the whole thing. But it shows how through the mid-'90s, dance styles were still mainly about losing control, being possessed, and as a result whipping the head and hair around, and extending the limbs in explosive motions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcH3UTjGVnk

    She's also portrayed as an anti-social out-of-control kind of person, not just carefree and spontaneous. It's shading into the focus on weird, seedy, etc. kind of characters that the discordant phase is so fond of.

    Also, an early example of a prominent yuri-baiting kiss between Elizabeth Berkley and Gina Gershon, showing that the sexes were just starting to re-segregate in 1995. Not as flagrant of an example as Cruel Intentions from later in the '90s, but still notable.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB_1LSxIC4o

    ReplyDelete
  28. To wrap up today's lecture, a brief look at contrasting lyrics, for songs that are all about doing a specific dance, or dancing in general.

    Usually they try to encourage the listener / crowd to dance, but from the discordant phase, the 1962 dance-craze song "The Loco-Motion" (by Little Eva) also admonishes the audience to still be control freaks, and not to get wild.

    "Do it nice and easy, and don't lose control"

    Nice and easy -- gentle, slow, careful, calculated, not explosive and abandoned, which they would've felt to have been reckless and endangering. You don't wanna go crazy and wind up snapping your neck like those swing dancers from the '30s, now do ya?!

    Then the specific control-freak language about don't lose control. A proper dance song is supposed to tell you to give up the worry about who's controlling what, and just go crazy. Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy," "Self Control" by Italodisco singer Raf and covered more successfully by Laura Branigan, and a long list of encouragements to get wild and out of control in "Conga" by the Miami Sound Machine / Gloria Estefan --

    "I know you can't control yourself any longer"

    "Don't you fight it"

    "Let the music move your feet"

    And so on. Don't be such an uptight control freak -- we're not in a panopticon like they were back in the '60s, it's the '80s and we can cut loose and not worry about it!

    ReplyDelete
  29. You have written several posts on this blog in defence of the "Dark Ages". Would you say you have any particular location or date range(s) that you would most like to see?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hmmm, I re-watched the "Side to Side" video for the first time in several years, and they do have hair whipping after all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXiSVQZLje8

    But overall, the choreography is still on the slow, sensual, sinuous side, not explosive and high-energy and limb-extending.

    Especially the arms -- they really don't use their arms in choreography after 1995 or so. Have a look at those Non E la RAI dancers, and see how common it was to be extending, waving, swinging, or otherwise throwing their arms around.

    In fact, that was the main thing that the crowd at '80s night noticed most about me -- swinging my arms around rhythmically, not just lower-body motions that you associate with dancing, based on the feet and legs and hips. They'd try to do a little imitation of it, cuz it was so novel to them -- very cute looking back on it. ^_^

    Dances from the last discordant phase didn't really swing the arms around either, other than "the monkey" from the '60s, but that's nowhere as extreme as arm movements from the swing / big band era, or the '80s and early '90s.

    Back to the head / hair whipping, when they do it in "Side to Side," it remains part of the whole sensual sinuous framework. It's not like they're going crazy, and head / hair whipping is one effect of being in a possessed frenetic state.

    It's a very slow, deliberate, overly fluid motion -- almost like it's a put-on or affectation, or on-the-nose, etc. Self-conscious, deliberately aimed at getting a rise out of the audience, using it as one trick in their larger bag of tricks to spellbind the audience and wrap them around their finger.

    And it's never part of a whole-body tremor or seizure like the out-of-control girls are doing. So you can still distinguish what kind of head/hair whipping it is.

    They don't spin very much or at all either, and that prevents a certain type of hair whipping -- where it raises up on its ends and is carried around in a circle during the spin. Horizontal circular whipping.

    And they don't shake their head from side to side (facing left, then facing right, and back again), which also creates that horizontal circular whipping motion in the hair.

    And because they don't really get their arms worked into a frenzy, they don't do the powerful hair-fluffing motion that the carefree and spontaneous girls do quite regularly. When their arms are so busy, that fluff really sends the hair into motion, much like the whipping effect.

    So my hunch about head/hair whipping is still mostly right.

    ReplyDelete
  31. As one example of arm-involving dances from the swing era, one of the earliest -- the Charleston -- from the late '20s, has the arms extended, and waving or swinging around while extended.

    Yes, even for the women -- arm motions are not about strength, but coordination. They're not lifting heavy objects with their arms, they're swinging them around rhythmically. None of those dancers from Non E la RAI have much musculature on their arms or shoulders. Swinging, not lifting.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Another iconic '80s example, the dancing scene from The Breakfast Club. Every movie had to have a dancing scene back then, and some were entirely about dancing!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG78fq6KAPA

    Notice that everyone makes some kind of rolling or whipping motion with their neck, head, and hair.

    Bender is doing some head-banging -- a practice that gradually died out after the mid-'90s, but I remember doing that all the time with the metalhead types in middle school, including at school dances, or while moshing around in the shower (with our clothes on, and with no one else present in the shower -- kids stopped taking naked showers in school by that point). Speaking of whipping wet hair around...

    Claire is shaking her head quickly from side to side, sending her hair into a horizontal circular whipping motion as a result.

    Brian loosens his neck and makes his head point alternately up at the ceiling, rolling down to face the floor -- more of a wobbling than a whipping, but still part of losing self-control and looking possessed, not deliberate and composed.

    Andrew violently shakes his head to the side and back a few times, but he has short hair so it doesn't look as dramatic, and most of his dramatic moves are whole-body gymnastics anyway, where you hardly notice his head.

    Allison is similar to Brian, not really getting worked up into a whirling dervish frenzy, but still loosening her neck to look up at the ceiling, bow it down toward the floor, and look possessed, until she gets exhausted and collapses.

    It's a trust-building exercise -- don't trust people who dance too calculatedly and sensually, when it's time to just cut loose and lose control as a signal of trust.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Claire also does a few fast spins, which whips her hair around in a circle.

    Final thought on this topic -- I learned a great word in Italian from the comments to those videos (and several others like them from that same show):

    "Spensieratezza", meaning a state of being carefree, unburdened by worries, etc.

    Someone was commenting on the girls having that quality, and by implication what kind of qualities their descendants today have (deliberate, calculating, self-conscious, anxiety-crippled, insecure, etc.).

    So spontaneous and carefree. It's not just the ripe scantily clad bods, it's how they're animated by the person's energy, personality, etc. Aura, vibes, persona, stage presence, whatever you want to call it -- it adds a lot, and these qualities have changed drastically for the worse over the discordant phase of the cycle.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Some more signposts from y2k choreography. First, "Bootylicious" by Destiny's Child, where the singers and backup dancers are hardly moving at all, and where most of the movement is in the lower body at that. Basically no head or hair whipping.

    Also an early example of using dancing as a weapon against same-sex rivals, as the three girls booty-bump each other out of the way, in order to be in front-and-center position. Every social occasion is becoming a competition, not a cooperation or collaboration.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyYnnUcgeMc

    Then from Beyonce's solo career, "Crazy in Love", which to its credit has two retro-themed segments. The first one where she's wearing daisy dukes and a bra-less tank top, set in gritty Noo Yawk loading dock -- very late '70s and '80s. She does some explosive movements, and several head/hair whips.

    Then a later one where she kicks off the top of a fire hydrant and the water is gushing all over a Noo Yawk street -- also recalling the '70s and '80s and early '90s when that was a common sight. She gets her hair drenched and whips it around, sending water everywhere.

    Other than these distinctly retro-themed segments, though, she and her backup dancers don't whip their head and hair around, don't extend their arms or use their upper body much at all, and most of the focus is on the hips, ass, and legs. In the segment where they're all wearing bright jewel tones, their arms go through a slight chugga-chugga motion close to the torso, not extending them -- the days of arm motions are over by now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViwtNLUqkMY

    ReplyDelete
  35. One of the most iconic videos with choreography ever, "Dirrty" by Christina Aguilera. Not only is most of the focus on the lower body movements, this video popularized what later was termed the "slutdrop" during the "everything has to be branded with SLUT" zeitgeist of the 2010s -- squatting down as far as possible and popping up fast. Also known a "drop it like it's hot" during the 2000s.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rg3sAb8Id8

    The floor work is getting more into floor-humping, in that curvilinear sensual way, not a la the scene from Showgirls where the choreographer is shouting at her to "thrust it!" meaning her pelvis thrusting upward while on the ground, in a more explosive motion.

    There's a segment that is just BEGGING for the girls to be whipping around their drenched manes of hair, but they only do it halfheartedly once or twice. They're more into humping the flooded floor and moving slowly and sensually enough that hardly any water is thrown into the air by their bodies, aside from Christina giving the water on the floor a kick with her feet, which is on the antagonistic side. A very far cry from the Flashdance water-poured-onto-the-chair scene.

    Other staples of the discordant phase -- a prominent catfight scene in a boxing ring, weird / deviant sexuality (possibly the first appearance of furries in a mainstream music video, or any media format), combative alienated Fight Club attitude overall, and as Christina later explained herself, a focus on being a power-tripper and control freak (she's a strong independent woman who's front and center, controlling everyone and everything else, etc.).

    The makers describe it as a "post-apocalyptic orgy," but there's no hint of any sex taking place, or even making out or intimate up-close dancing. It's performatively sexualized and fetishistic, but that means anti-sexual -- fetishes being a replacement or displacement away from the real thing.

    And as every guy found out during the 2000s and 2010s, the girls who dance in slutdrops are not actually sluts in the sense of nymphomaniacs eager to hook up with some guy that night. They're doing it to booty-battle their same-sex rivals in a dancing competition, and to wrap the guys in the crowd around their finger just to power-trip and control-freak them, not to chase after them and wind up in bed later that night -- which will be spent alone, after she leaves with her "girls night out" female friends who she showed up with and spent the whole time with.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And now for more breaths of fresh air from the early '90s, as a contrast from the harmonious phase of the cycle.

    Speaking of floor-humping, there's a brief pair of segments from "Good Vibrations" by Marky Mark & the Funky Bunch that appear to be floor-humping, beginning around 3:45, one with 3 girls, followed by one with 3 guys:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kctwd4w7R0

    However, I'll note a few differences from the floor-humping of "Dirrty" and similar choreography. First, in the early '90s type, the legs are fully extended and somewhat apart from each other, similar to a wrestler's sprawl. Only the feet are being used for support, not the lower legs, knees, or upper legs. And their upper body is held up by just their hands (for the guys) or their elbows and lower arms (for the girls). Their torso is off of the ground, not relaxing against it, and it's either parallel to the ground (girls) or at an angle to it (guys), rather than upright.

    All of these combine to give the impression more of a push-up than simulated sexual riding, grinding, thrusting, etc. It's a push-up, but where the core area (including the butt on the back side) is rising up and down, perpendicular to the ground.

    This integrates it more into the theme of working out, exercise, fitness, etc., that shows up throughout the video. There *is* a sexual scene in bed, but neither the guy or girl are shown making explosive motions or doing choreographed moves of any kind -- it's a naturalistic portrayal of two hot people starting to make out in bed. It doesn't resemble the choreography whatsoever -- which means the choreography is not supposed to look very sexual, and indeed is mainly acrobatic and gymnastic and fitness / gym related, true to the swing / big band revival zeitgeist of the New Jack Swing era.

    The floor-humping in "Dirrty" and routines like it, is more of a simulation of a girl riding or grinding on a guy in bed. Their legs are bent at the knees, not extended, and they're resting on their feet + lower legs + knees, not just their feet. Their torsos are more upright, or at a slight angle, not parallel to the ground like a push-up. And their motions are more writhing, sliding, grinding, etc. -- fluid sensual motions like actual sex, not the explosive rising and falling motions of the "Good Vibrations" video, which are meant to mimic high-energy exercise routines, not sex.

    And the slutdrop is more like the riding sex position as well, where her torso is moving up and down, perpendicular to the bed / floor / ground. The "Good Vibrations" girls are raising and lowering their torsos *parallel* to the ground, like a push-up, not a squatting or sitting motion that mimics sexual riding.

    ReplyDelete
  37. No one's going to deny the sexual tinge to that floor work in "Good Vibrations", but it's just a faint tinge -- it's 95% a high-energy exercise routine, with 5% sexual-ish teasing tinge. The "Dirrty" floor work is 100% sexual simulation.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Now for the pinnacle of '90s choreographed music videos, "If" by Janet Jackson from '93. If you were alive and watching MTV during the '90s, this by far made the greatest impression on you for "music video with choreography in it". Nothing else comes close. And sure enough, part of the New Jack Swing era.

    This version of the video is almost entirely the dancing, the usual version has the dancing intercut with other shots from around the nightclub with other non-dancing characters. This version shows off the choreography better.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1RzHAKODP8

    The intro and the verses of this song are fairly mellow, not what you'd think would motivate explosive choreography. But the pre-chorus and chorus build and build toward a climax, and the instrumental bridge has a fair amount of tension in it as well. Even for a song that isn't the most hardcore danceclub banger, it still has the most memorable choreography for the decade, and it isn't mellow to match the music.

    Generally, the arms extend fully and swing around as well, the legs extend fully into kicks, and there's head/hair whipping. The sequence during the bridge uses taut, springy, rigid movements, not smooth fluid sensual ones. Similar to the "making boxes around the face" from "Vogue" at the outset of the '90s.

    Speaking of floor-humping, there's not much floor work here. The girls lower the guys slowly down toward the ground, but it's more like a gender-swapped dip from dancing, not mimicking a sexual position. When the guys are flat on their backs, the girls do a very slight drop while straddling them -- but their knees don't even make it to 90-degree angles, let alone a further squat down on top of them a la riding cowgirl. It's just the faintest tinge of a sex position.

    A bit more suggestive is when the guys are kneeling with their faces just inches away from the girls' crotches, and yet they don't simulate the guys thrusting their heads forward or the girls grinding their pelvises toward the guys' faces. The girls roll and swing the guys' heads around, another example of the head whipping around -- albeit here due to someone else controlling it. And at the end of this sequence, the girls whip their own heads and hair strongly backward, then strongly forward on the next beat. It's more explosive than fluid, thereby dialing down the sexualization.

    Then there's the part where the girls grab the guys' crotches from behind and then quickly shove them forward toward the ground, before that very light drop. It certainly goes through a sequence that evokes a sexual encounter -- the girl leading the guy around by the dick, then shoving him onto the bed, and proceeding to ride him. But the sequence is so broken up into snapshots rather than a continuous tracking shot, as it were, and the motions are not slow fluid and sensual, that it's more impressionistic than a graphic simulation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Nice meshing of the lyrics of "If" with the choreography. It's about a girl chasing after a guy who might be unaware of her.

    But instead of a calculated clinical seduction, she uses innuendo rather than direct references, and she makes it clear that she's not in control of herself -- she just can't help it. And therefore, she couldn't possibly be manipulating, tricking, deceiving, or exploiting him -- she lacks the self-control and discipline to plot, scheme, etc.

    So it touches on the "girl taking the initiative" theme, and not in a power-tripping, control-freak, you'll worship and obey me cuz I'm a queen / goddess, etc. kind of way. She's hoping that he is equally lacking self-control in her presence, so that they can both just give in and lose themselves in the moment.

    It's about cooperating toward a common goal -- sparking a hot passionate torrid love affair -- not competing against each other, or making a sexually antagonistic fetish out of the battle between the sexes. It's about mutual surrender of control, not mutual competitiveness to gain the upper hand and have the last word.

    Her allusion to closing her eyes, thinking of the two of them, and then getting "there" so many times, is similar to "I Touch Myself" by the Divinyls from the outset of the '90s. It does mention masturbation, but not to glorify it or normalize egocentric "sex" acts -- rather to say, I can't stand merely pleasuring myself while I imagine us together, I GOTTA HAVE THE REAL THING, PLEASE!

    It's emphasising the power that others have over us, and our helpless pining-away feelings, making us want to connect with others -- not to anti-socially dismiss others and praise our own masturbatory acts as equal to or better than real sex with another human being.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Finally, a trio of videos by En Vogue, Salt-N-Pepa, and both of them in a collab. First, "Free Your Mind" by En Vogue, from '92:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iQbBbMAFE

    This mainly R&B song crosses over with hard rock, and that shows in the choreography. The guitar player with long dreadlocks is shown headbanging and whipping his hair around, much like in any rock video of the time -- a practice that stopped some time in the late '90s, I'm guessing (without investigating) from the Marilyn Manson era onward through emo. He had long hair that he could've head-banged, but I remember his stage presence being more about slow slinking fluid -- yet creepy -- motions, like a serial killer trying to weird out his victim.

    Also, toward the end of the video there's a guy who stage-dives and proceeds to crowd-surf -- a typical trust game being played from the early '90s, and which also died out by the late '90s (just like moshing, which is another form of losing control and appearing to be actively possessed).

    The setting is a runway fashion show, whose real-world examples rarely involve slow sensual slinking around -- typically, it's confident strutting around like you know what you want and aren't shy about going after it. Taking the initiative, confidence, self-esteem, etc. And their arms and legs do move in bursts, not fluid continuous motions.

    Most of them have up-do's, but the one with her hair long and down does whip it around and use her hands to give it a powerful outward fluffing.

    They don't use quite so much arm work as in other videos, since runway models are mostly about their "walk", i.e. their legs, while keeping their arms fairly still. And yet, within that constraint, they manage to use motivated props to achieve a similar effect as explosive arm or hair movements -- they have long flowy black capes that they thrust out to the sides and sweep around in horizontal circles, much like whipping the hair around or swinging their arms around, but in keeping with it being a fashion show and focusing on their clothing as much as their bodies.

    Come to think of it, it's like the stripper from Beverly Hills Cop using part of her costume as a prop in lieu of extending her arm or whipping her hair -- casting out her feather boa to drag over a patron who's sitting close to the stage. It's not aggressive like a whip, it's lighter and more playful and soft, but still in the same family of extending her "self" outward. It is a deliberate move, not a loss-of-control move, as though she's trying to reel him in like a fish. But it's the least aggressive and manipulative that such move could be.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Shoop" by Salt-N-Pepa from '93, which only has choreography in one of the three settings, but still notable. Lots of extended arms, swinging around, and some head/hair whipping. A bit more floor work, including some of the girls on their knees (i.e. legs bent, supported by their knees, lower legs, and feet) in a somewhat suggestive way.

    But also including a brief sequence with the same kind of taut, springy, rigid arm movements like "Vogue" and the bridge from "If". It's a very mellow song overall, not a dance anthem, so choreography is not expected to be really powerful. And yet, what there is does use a more explosive than fluid / sensual form of motion.

    The slow, fluid, sensual motions are reserved for the beach setting, where the girls are sitting down watching the guys, while writhing around in their beach chairs cuz they want what they see so bad.

    I wanted Salt from this video SO BAD when I was a teenager, I never got tired of how constantly this video was played by MTV. One of the rare super-feminine baby-faced honey bunnies who not only "can pull off" short hair, but looks *better* with short hair. Lots of volume (the Aqua Net era), and long enough to have a visible direction and movement, but stil clearly on the short side. And with such a teasing, confident baddie attitude -- the part where she repeats back the phrase "smell it!" as she opens her thigh into the camera, Lord help me...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vaN01VLYSQ

    ReplyDelete
  42. And "Whatta Man" by Salt-N-Pepa ft. En Vogue, whose music video is from '94. Like "Shoop," it's a very mellow song, a slow jam, so no explosive choreography is to be expected, and yet there is.

    Mainly they're gently moving side to side or dipping slightly while standing up. And the segments with Pepa in the bathtub, Salt standing on the bed, and Spinderella on the bear rug (lol) all show them making slow, fluid, sensual motions.

    However, toward the end there are quite a few acrobatic and gymnastic moves by the backup dancers -- leaping, tumbling, twirling around while leaping, etc. Pretty explosive moves for a slow jam.

    And the simulated lapdance is more explosive than the slow fluid sensual motions that a real lapdance would use. It's more like the segments in "If" where the girls are moving the guys around in a highly stylized way, not simulating a sex act.

    Again, not notable for its overall explosive or possessed choreography -- but for how explosive it is for a slow jam. No slow jam from the late '90s onward is going to involve acrobatics or other loss-of-control / possessed by a spirit activities like that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vgV_dVkXN4

    ReplyDelete
  43. Another thing that makes the floor-humping not so sexual or tawrdy in "Good Vibrations" is that the dancers are in a geometric formation -- something as simple as being in a straight line across, and facing the same direction.

    This makes it look like they're structured by some larger force -- perhaps just a gym coach, an aerobics instructor, or a drill sergeant at boot camp, who is facing these files. "Drop and give me 20!"

    It makes it look more like an exercise routine in a gym.

    Whereas in "Dirrty," only some of the time are the dancers in the shower arranged in formation. Most of the time they're not facing any particular direction, grouping around Christina but not as part of a geometric shape -- just writhing around her individually, not as in they're following her commands or someone else's commands to "drop and give me 20!"

    That's the only scene that looks like it might get sexual any moment now -- yuri-baiting, of course, since it's all girls writhing around in an orgiastic pile with their focal babe in the center.

    NOT the kind of formation you'd see in an aerobics class, high school gym class, or boot camp drills.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Contrast the "Side to Side" video with its '80s inspiration, "Physical" by Olivia Newton John.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWz9VN40nCA

    Many of the exercises involve extending the arms fully outward, especially the fat ones who really need the drill sergeant / boot camp treatment, to get in shape. Stretching or reaching their arms upward, jumping jacks, and so on.

    You couldn't show jumping jacks in an aerobics-themed video from the late '90s through the early 2020s, since that would be too explosive and taking-up-space of a movement. During the socially discordant phase, people want to just keep to themselves, making small fluid motions and taking up minimal space with their body.

    You might think it'd be the opposite way -- that during discordant, hyper-competitive times, people would try to puff up their chests, walk around with their arms extended, etc., in order to invade others' personal spaces and pick a fight.

    But it seems to be more about the loss-of-control / active possession vs. control-freak micromanaging thing. Have another look at those dancers from Non E la RAI -- quite often there's two girls facing each other, only inches apart, doing very wild limb-extending motions. But it's not like a contest to intimidate the other -- it's more like they're amplifying each other, creating a positive feedback loop of possessed energy.

    In the "Side to Side" video, the girls are hardly moving around with limbs fully extended, certainly not their arms. And the guys toward the end are literally just sitting around, hyper-composed. They can't even manage a simple full leg extension like "standing up", and their arms are folded too, like they're toy Ken dolls.

    NOT wild-and-crazy active possession -- languid, opium den / gay bathhouse, melting-away rather than soaring upward.

    ReplyDelete
  45. A brief note on the direction that the face is pointing during a head/hair whip -- in the wild / possessed-by-a-spirit type, it often faces upward. At least the neck craning backward, perhaps aided by the spine bending backward as well.

    In the deliberate, calculated, vampy, wrapping the audience around your finger type, they almost never look straight up. Regardless of head whipping or not, they're looking parallel to the ground, or slightly downward.

    Whipping the head and hair is one of the few ways they might mix this up, with a chance to be facing upward. But 99% of the time, they whip their head/hair so that it just moves horizontally, not upward.

    There are three directions you can move your head in, using your neck, to cause it to whip, and bring the hair whipping along with it:

    1. Tilting forward or backward. This is the only surefire way to be staring upward (by tilting backward), and gives the hair a vertical circular motion, parallel to the line of sight.

    2. Shaking side to side, or a panning motion in camera terms. Does not result in looking upward, and the hair travels in a circle parallel to the ground.

    3. Tilting left or right, i.e. changing the angle that the side of the neck/head makes with the shoulders. Does not result in looking upward, and the hair travels in a circle vertically, but perpendicular to the line of sight (a la the PJ Harvey album cover).

    Re-watching the discordant phase hair whipping, they all involve some mix of 2 and 3, so it can take on a somewhat vertical motion, and somewhat horizontal as well. But they never face upwards.

    They're very intent on not facing upwards -- even in a pronounced head/hair whipping movement, they still have to be facing forward, to the side, or somewhat downward -- anything but upward.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Facing upward is a key part of what makes the Breakfast Club dances look possessed, losing self-control. Brian cranes his neck back, Bender does head-banging that involves facing upward for part of the motion (head-banging is mostly the 1st kind of head motion, from the previous comment -- tilting forward and backward), and Allison faces upward for a moment before collapsing.

    Although she's not making a movement, Olivia Newton John is facing upwards in the shower portion of the "Physical" video. So is the dancer in the "water poured onto the chair" segment in Flashdance.

    And yet in the "Dirrty" video, they're in a shower room whose shower heads are on the ceiling and pour straight down. So it would be the most natural thing in the world for the dancers to crane their heads back, face upwards, and get the water poured onto them just like in "Physical" and Flashdance.

    But they don't! That would involve facing upwards, and this is too much of a loss-of-control / possessed motion, so they just ignore the shower heads above them.

    There's exactly one girl in the "Side to Side" video who faces upward in the shower scene, for a brief moment. Otherwise, they don't face upward, whether in the shower or elsewhere, and whether they're whipping their head or not.

    ReplyDelete
  47. What is it about facing upwards that signals possession and loss of control? It looks like you're facing, or addressing by eye-contact, whatever larger spirit or force is possessing you. Acknowledging something so larger than yourself that it literally hovers over you or is so big you need to crane your neck back to see its face.

    It's also not part of the audience -- you're temporarily not looking at them either. It tells the audience that it's larger than them as well.

    You could avoid the audience by looking downward, but that wouldn't suggest that what you're looking at is *larger* than you or the crowd, but *smaller*. You have to look upward to signal the presence of something larger than you or the crowd combined.

    The longer you hold that upward-facing position, the more it looks like you're communicating with it, perhaps receiving a message or a set of body instructions, as though it were coming from a great big drill sergeant or aerobics instructor up in the sky.

    And as though its communication was pouring down onto you, much like the water pouring down from a shower head. Your face is the opening of the empty vessel that is your body, and you're a muse being taken over or filled up by the spirit pouring its energy downward into your face from the sky.

    It also signals trust in the social environment, since you're at your most vulnerable by turning away from your surroundings in every direction -- everyone milling around in the plane of the floor / ground level. They could attack you from any direction, and you wouldn't see it coming.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Facing upward was another standard move for me, back when dance clubs were still open and bustling. Not looking up all the time, but peppering the dance with a facing-up head position.

    Sometimes for a little while, like when you're doing alternately high kicks and bouncing or hopping off of the lower leg. Your legs are already soaring upward -- might as well tilt your head back a little so you're facing upward as well.

    Staring straight ahead, into your own feet / shins while you high kick is a bit on the vampy / calculated side, like you're doing the kick just for the hell of it, not as part of an integrated soaring-off-the-ground movement.

    Or if you go from standing to squatting, you can tilt your head back on the way down, and still on the way back up, and return to looking straight ahead when you're standing up again. Your torso and body is moving vertically, why not accent that by looking up vertically? IDK, but it's a natural thing to do.

    Similar to looking straight up while you're squatting down to pass under a limbo bar. I guess my "squatting" motion also involved a little bending-back of the spine, too, like doing the limbo. Not like in a squat press.

    If you want to look wild and possessed in the club -- tilt your head back, maybe even your spine too! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  49. The shuffle dance craze from the 2010s was similar to the twerk-y kind of dancing from rap / R&B, but for the techno-dance genre. Minimal arm movements, rarely extended arms, let alone swinging around the arms. Arms kept close to the torso, and bent at the elbow.

    Fancy footwork, which prevents the legs from extending fully, let alone off to the side or kicking, or anything like that.

    And NEVER looking upward, indeed usually facing clearly downward.

    Maybe the occasional hair whip when they do the odd whole-body spin, but not moving or whipping the head around, certainly not to face upwards.

    As a reminder for pre-Zoomer generations, see the LMFAO video for "Party Rock Anthem" ("every day I'm shufflin'..."), and two of a zillion compilations of shuffling (not necessarily to the same music they were dancing to, but synced up to the same tempo).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ6zr6kCPj8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN34WpTPPL0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qTFGmgfei4

    ReplyDelete
  50. MOOMBA GOOMBA ROMBA, Part II: Electric Goob-a-moom! Will continue the lecture later...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Just to wrap up that discussion on shuffling, it goes to show how it's not only the ripe scantily clad bods that are so appealing about those Non E la RAI dancers. The 2010s shuffling babes look just as nice.

    But basically all of the early '90s girls are smiling or looking possessed, whereas maybe half of the 2010s girls are smiling and the others look poker-faced or deep in calculated concentration / focus -- the opposite of carefree, spontaneous, and devil-may-care.

    Look at the shuffling video set to "Blue," and notice the guy with the fedora -- he couldn't look more calm and collected and composed, both body and facial expressions, considering that he's dancing up a storm with his feet. All the activity is so localized to the feet, and somewhat the lower legs.

    Shuffling barely uses the upper legs, let alone hips, torso, arms, or neck/head. So even the type who wants to work up a sweat dancing like crazy, still have this control-freak need to not be possessed by something else.

    It's like they want to quarantine the dangerous energy to only the most necessary body part for dancing -- the feet. If they allowed that frenzy to work its way up to their torso, arms, and head -- danger! look out, loss of control ahead! You're gonna go bouncing around like one of those swing dancers from the '30s, or New Jack Swing backup dancers!

    The fact that shuffle dancers tend to look downward at the ground adds to the feeling of them being calculating and in-control -- like, planning out their next step, observing their feet to make sure the right moves were carried out, or surveilling their surroundings on the ground to make sure nothing poses a threat to their dancing.

    Staring somewhat downward gives off a vibe of being vigilant, while staring somewhat upwards gives off the vibe of not being worried about immediate threats -- either trusting the environment, or surrendering to fate.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Back to another classic early '90s video, "What Is Love" by Haddaway. This is the kind of song that shuffle dancers like to do their fancy footwork to, but look at how different the choreography was when it was made:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEXWRTEbj1I

    The main dancer is the vampire babe... man, they really don't make goth babes anymore. Not after 1995 or so. There's nothing Marilyn Manson / creepy / weird / emo about her costume and persona. It's straight-up goth, the dark femme fatale side of the Romantic environment.

    They don't feature girls with striking high-relief facial features anymore either. What a nose! Perfect vampiric physiognomy.

    Anyway, regarding her dancing, she moves in long strides down the hall, extending the legs quite a bit. This ties back into the theme of confidence and self-assurance -- no need to take baby steps, or to keep changing direction like in shuffling like you're confused or unsure.

    When she's close up, she does lean her head back a bit, looking somewhat upward -- this shows it's not just a good spirit that could be possessing someone, it could be a dark evil one as well.

    In Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the dark priest is staring either straight ahead or somewhat upward -- dark priests, shamans, devil-worshipers, etc. don't look downward, as though trying to visualize their master's purported dwelling in the underworld. They look upward! It's not about where that spirit normally resides, but about signaling their larger-than-life size, if they were present here on ground level on Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The vampire babe tends to extend her arms fully, sometimes swinging them around in large circles, and more often to hold open her flow cape, which she sometimes sends into a flying motion just like the runway walkers in the "Free Your Mind" video discussed earlier. She very rarely keeps her arms bent and close to the torso.

    Notice how she's invading his personal space just by standing so close, but also sweeping her cape around him and such. You might think this is antagonistic or a kind of contest -- but it's not! Antagonistic and competitive would be trying to shove him away (a la the booty-battle in "Bootylicious"), or otherwise keep her distance, as though he were a lowly untouchable not worthy of her royal highness' presence.

    Rather, she's trying to set up a cooperation or collaboration with him -- winning him over to join her on the dark side! Cooperation and collaboration does not have to be for a good cause, it could be for a dark cause, as long as it's not anti-social.

    How can dark causes *not* be anti-social by definition? Well, dark in the sense of being a goth sub-culture, hanging out in dimly lit mansions, dancing on the mantle above the fireplace, getting it on with hot vampiric babes wearing dramatic black-and-red capes -- that kind of thing. Not necessarily robbing, raping, killing, selling drugs, etc., like some common street gang.

    And she's not preying on him like a predator -- that would involve restraining him, biting his neck against his will, and so on. She's putting on a display of what he could have if he freely chose to join her way of life, and he decides to live a little on the exciting side, and takes her up on her offer.

    She is a very confident, direct, persistent saleswoman for the goth way of life, but she's not a predator or harmer. She's too darkly sexy to have to resort to that... ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  54. In fact, he's the one who's wandered into their mansion, he shows no signs of being kidnapped, drugged, tied up, or even locked in a room -- he's freely roaming around their mansion. At the beginning, he's shown slowly opening a door and peeping in on them voyeuristically, as they're dancing.

    He's fascinated by them -- cuz they're fascinating physical performers.

    And if the vampire babe is such a threatening predator, why isn't he trying to get away or at least keep her at arm's length? Toward the end, he's reaching his arms out to her as she advances toward him. He knows what he's getting involved in -- and he wants it.

    The only time he's trying to get away is when the blonde chick is climbing up the stairs, while he tries to crab-walk backwards away from her. OK, so he doesn't dig blondes and is already monogamously smitten with the brunette and her dramatic cape act. Doesn't mean he wants to leave the mansion altogether -- else he'd be heading for an exit, not merely backing away from one of the girls (while wanting to be surrounded by another one of them).

    ReplyDelete
  55. And to conclude today's choreography lecture, a whirlwind tour through dances that prominently feature the arms extending, as one of the many signs of loss-of-control / active possession that we've seen during these early '90s videos.

    They're from the harmonious phase of the cycle, as people feel more comfortable letting go of personal control in harmonious non-competitive environments. And when the cycle turns discordant, they clam up or turtle inward -- even the types who like being active, like those shuffle dancers from the 2010s.

    The last harmonious phase began in the mid-to-late '70s, and in dance history that means disco. Even if you weren't alive back then, even if you can't dance or hate dancing, or hate disco specifically -- you're still aware of the most iconic single dance move from that era, the skyward pointing!

    This came in two variations, a less explosive (and less iconic) version where the arm is bent at the elbow, tricep against the side of the torso, then extending the arm outward and upward. And a more explosive one (the iconic one) that first involves a downward pointing toward the opposite hip, as a winding-up motion for the more dramatic skyward point after that. Like winding up for throwing a ball.

    Both of these originate from (or at least were popularized by) Saturday Night Fever -- no surprise there. The less explosive one shows up in the solo dance set to "You Should Be Dancing". The more explosive one shows up in the group dance for "Night Fever," and is what most people think of when they picture "disco-era dancing in a club":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tG5SllettU

    ReplyDelete
  56. We've already covered all sorts of examples from the '80s and early '90s with raised arms. But we'll add another one from rap, to emphasize that it used to be danceable, even if the dance was simple to do, and it involved the arms, extended, and raised.

    That is, the ubiquitous at the time dance for "Hip Hop Hooray" by Naughty By Nature -- raise both hands, tilt them to the left side, then to the right side, then back again, like a windmill going back and forth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1Xn1vzOM4

    This move was imitated shortly afterward by "Boom Shake the Room" by Will Smith:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AVWZwZq_QU

    Both of those videos feature stage-diving and crowd-surfing, the classic trust game "dances" of that time, signaling a harmonious social environment. Awhile ago I showed the video for "Slam" by Onyx, where over half of the video is the rappers crowd-surfing. "Hip Hop Hooray" has one toward the end, and it's more prominent in "Boom Shake the Room".

    Another classic rap-derived dance of the late '80s and early '90s is the running man, whose standard version has both arms extending forward, then both pulling backward, and repeating again. This video says there was an earlier version where one arm was extended forward and the other backward, and alternating between them, like some versions of the Charleston from the original swing era (also a harmonious phase):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYpRasK4c9k

    I thought the sprinkler dance was from the '80s or early '90s, but Wiki says it goes back to the disco era -- still from the harmonious phase, though. Mixing the "arm sweeping out a circle" and "using the arm to point" trends, both requiring extended arms and no turtling!

    ReplyDelete
  57. The cabbage patch dance from the late '80s and early '90s also extends both arms forward, then pulling them back in, and then back out and so on, much like the running man.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Lastly, a view from the transition stage of the mid-'90s, as the harmonious phase is going to turn discordant. One of the last major dance crazes, and certainly the last to involve extending the arms for a decent part of it -- that's right, the Macarena!

    The English version, and the famous accompanying dance, took over the world in '96. The fully extended arms during the initial steps harken back to the disco lineage, while the sinuous booty wobble at the end of the sequence looks forward to the twerking era, where the arms will no longer play a role.

    Later, in 2002, another Spanish-language dance mini-craze was popular, "Asereje" by Las Ketchup. But its dance doesn't extend the arms. They're always bent (even when held overhead), and usually held close to the torso (except for that final overhead motion).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkynEPjkstI

    Whether it was Latin crossover, rap, rock, techno-dance, or anything else -- extended arm motions died out during the late '90s and were absent by the 2000s.

    ReplyDelete
  59. OK, one last example, but from the swing / big band era. I've already gone over the Charleston, but the equally mega-popular conga had a version that did not involve putting your hands on the person in front of you (which itself involves extending the arms fully). It was still done in a group setting, but without touching a partner.

    Aside from the prominent "outward kick" on that final beat, the person shoots both arms upward, perhaps also giving their face a little tilt upward. See this scene from Too Many Girls (1940), where Desi Arnaz is leading a massive crowd, seemingly the entire town, like a pied piper, or rather a pied drummer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5QrGD0oUgY

    Look at all those arms shooting straight up, and talk about appearing possessed by some larger spirit!

    There are other typically gymnastic / acrobatic moves from the swing era, but the Latin crossover dance of the conga was also not shy about fully extending the limbs.

    And again, while being in close proximity to numerous other people -- harmonious environments put people up close together, where they're comfortable "invading" or rather co-occupying each other's personal spaces. Discordant phases see people retreating to their own little turf patches, turtling, or actively running away from others / pushing them away, due to low trust and competitiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Girls, the hottest flirtatious move you can do, that is dead simple, and that you can use IRL, in a selfie, or if you're a face-streamer, is pointing at someone close-up.

    And with a smiling, mock-accusatory look on your face. You can say something mock-accusatory like, "You! ... are so bad!" Or, "And you! ... where have YOU been?!" Cute, flirtatious, one of the easiest ways to take a little initiative, yes, even if you're otherwise a passive kind of girl.

    It needs to be close enough that it's "invading" or rather co-occupying the target's personal space, which signals your comfort and trust with that person. If you didn't trust them, and wanted them to go away, you'd cross your arms in front of you and move as far away from their personal space as you could.

    Other classic flirtatious moves that involve fully extending the arm -- the "come hither" enticing beckoning gesture. And reaching out with the palm upward, using the forefinger to stroke underneath the person's chin -- just like that absolutely fascinating vampire babe does to her target in the video for "What Is Love"!

    It's not "invading" my space if I want it...

    It's co-occupation of space, for a cooperative collaboration. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  61. All right, that's it for tonight. Time for X-Files and Picket Fences for a late dinner and maybe a little dessert.

    There's a mixed-sex crime-fighting duo in Picket Fences, BTW, if you didn't know. And like Agent Scully, Deputy Max is also a redhead, and also a total babe!

    Yeah, back when the battle between the sexes was totally over, and they could be friends and partners (not as a euphemism for significant other), and, y'know... will they or won't they? If they don't, that's always cool. But there's always the option, which does not exist in a battle of the sexes, socially discordant climate.

    Luv the early '90s. Such a breath of fresh air. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  62. Picket Fences created this specific type of duo first, BTW -- debuted in '92, X-Files followed one year later.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Now a whirlwind tour through '60s dances, to emphasize how much they contrast with the swing / big band era and the disco / new jack swing era, on either side of the discordant phase of the late '40s through the early '70s.

    Two compilations, and one on the nitty gritty:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5Lmk1YCXFU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZdvihA7Y1A

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S3Yt-NxY0E

    Aside from the jerk / the monkey, there's not a whole lot of arm work, let alone that fully extends and swings the arms.

    Most of the focus is on the footwork -- and it can get very fancy and frenetic, like the mashed potato, the skate, the pony, and the nitty gritty. Very reminiscent of shuffle styles from the 2010s -- exactly a full 50-year civil discord cycle echo after the '60s.

    For the most part, though, '60s (and '50s) dances are pretty low-key and low-energy, and often the dancers look awkward and insecure. The social fabric was starting to really fray, and that's why. They don't have the carefree, happy-go-lucky faces that dancers from the '30s and early '40s have, when the cycle was in its harmonious phase.

    Other dances are reminiscent of the twerk, like the twist and the watusi -- shaking the thighs, hips, and butt from side to side, and even slowly dropping down and rising up again while twisting. America was at its imperial peak, not imperial collapse, so it isn't as decadent as its 2010s echo, but it's still a notable contrast with swing and disco, which also belonged to the New Deal and imperial peak period.

    Very little of a gymnastic or acrobatic nature, usually the limbs are bent (especially the arms), not taking up lots of space or swinging out the fully extended limbs, very tight control over the facial expressions -- poker-faced or at most a smile, not smiling to possessed by the spirits. Much like 2010s facial expressions on dancers (awkward ones or shuffle stars).

    Fluid swishy motions overall, not explosive.

    Almost never whipping the head or hair -- maybe slightly during the monkey.

    And never tilting the head back to face upwards, except for the backstroke version of the swim (which was not a common version of it, though, usually the swim has you facing forward).

    ReplyDelete
  64. As for Latin dances from the '60s, here's how people danced to the new genre of bossa nova (no audio, unfortch):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAtSOEMKXcQ

    Arms are bent, somewhat extending away from the torso, but also crossing back in front of it. Mostly about the footwork, which gets a little fancy, though still on the mellow / lounge / cooling-down side of the '60s vibe. Definitely not head or hair whipping or facing upwards.

    Samba is a far broader genre with a longer history, but it also came to acquire the same emphasis on fancy frenetic footwork, with less motion in the arms -- and definitely not using explosive motions to fully extend the arms, like the version of the conga from 1940 that was shown earlier.

    Not facing upward -- and if anything, a tendency to look slightly downward at the ground. And keeping a poker face, looking composed and focused, not wild and abandoned and possessed by the spirits.

    All of these combine to give an impression that is highly reminiscent of the shuffle craze of the 2010s, and there was already a Brazil craze in the 2000s, so it's possible that samba was a direct influence on shuffling.

    Look how similar they are during the 2010s, from this street dance to samba music:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAAlABaX8XM

    ReplyDelete
  65. And with the death of Pope Francis the neoliberal era ends in the Vatican.

    ReplyDelete
  66. After "What Is Love," let's take a quick tour through horror-themed music videos and their choreography, which will lead us to a couple of exceptions from the late '90s.

    The most iconic is "Thriller" by Michael Jackson, and although the monsters in the dancing segment toward the end are supposed to be undead zombies, they're very lively!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnqjkJTMaA

    Hey, it was the '80s -- harmonious, carefree, spontaneous. Their costumes, hair, and make-up say zombies, but their choreography is more like members of a spirit possession cult lead by a shaman.

    There's still some twist-y, watusi-i swishing of the bent / loose legs and arms, perhaps as a throwback to the era that spawned the genre of horror movies that the video is paying homage to -- from the '50s and '60s, hence the voiceover narration and rap by Vincent Price, rather than contempo slasher ones from the early '80s.

    Still, to fit the disco era of the music itself, there's quite a few explosive arm-pointing-outward motions, and a prominent overhead clap with both arms extended, much like a jumping jack. And there are several times when the dancers are tilting their faces upward, to signal being possessed (like the sequence where they're marching off toward the side with their hands raised to show their claws).

    Next, and tying into the Latin crossover, "Rhythm Is Gonna Get You" by Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZkjeJKBI0M

    Like "Conga," the lyrics play up the theme of losing self-control, and being possessed by some larger force -- the rhythm -- which will take over control of your body, whether you want it to or not. A little more predatory of a tone than the more upbeat "Conga," and matched with a darker horror-esque music video, evoking spirit possession, voodoo, and other dark Caribbean rituals.

    When Gloria is first shown hunched over the drum with tribal face paint on, she does a prominent head roll while facing upward -- typical sign of spirit possession. Later she does a backward and forward head/hair whip. When the dancers show up and parade around the stage, they use full arm extensions upward, much like the 1940 version of the conga, while also spinning and whipping their head/hair around for good measure.

    One of the guys in the band does a bit of fancy footwork, but mainly the focus is not on the feet. Either whole body, or upper body.

    We have to start a campaign to convince AOC to don some Caribbean tribal face paint and work herself up into an ecstatic spirit-possessed frenzy, in a remake of this video! If not, she'll be surrendering some iconic meme potential to right-wing Miami Cubans... and she wouldn't want that to happen, would she?

    A bold red band right across the face at eye level, some small white details underneath it, some small feathers in the front section of her hair to frame her face... It could be fairly simple -- but playing up her exotic Boricua sex bomb potential, not the scolding schoolmarm from Westchester County image. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  67. C'mon AOC, don't let them just whitewash and Eurowash you -- don the sexy tribal face paint, and preserve the culture of the indigenous! ^_^

    (Tastefully Nat-Geo tribal toplessness not required, but not prohibited either.)

    ReplyDelete
  68. Two deep cuts by British new wave girl group Toto Coelo, "I Eat Cannibals" and "Dracula's Tango", both with a horror theme:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzB9-Wd67A

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n14cKJAYAAw

    In the first one, their major hit, there's quite a bit of extended arm motions, although not tilting the face upward. But still, the movements are in bursts and explosive, not sinuous and fluid and vampy, despite the group seemingly being tailor-made for such choreography -- a wolf-pack of 5 babes chanting innuendos like "eat me, eat you, incredibly delicious too". They appear more possessed than calculatingly seductive.

    Ditto for the second one, which is even more horror-themed in its setting, possibly the most gothic video ever made. There's not quite as much extended arm motions as in the first one, but they're still there.

    And even when their arms and legs are bent, they aren't moving in swishy twisty motions like the '60s dances -- they're in strong bursts, like they're puppets being jerked to and fro by a larger puppeteer, similar to "the robot" and other forms of pop-and-lock dancing from the same period.

    It *is* more fluid and sensual than the first video, perhaps because, like Thriller, it's paying homage to a somewhat older genre of horror movies -- the Hammer horror standards of the '50s and '60s and early '70s, with a faceless stand-in for Christopher Lee arriving at the end of the video.

    A notable rare appearance of an Indo-Aryan babe being highlighted for her striking dark features, in a gothic / horror setting. Usually they don't like being exotified in the West, but she was the exception -- preferring to participate in edgy Western genres like new wave (with Toto Coelo) and glam rock just afterward (with Cherry Bombz).

    There was a Punjabi actor who played the thuggee cult leader in Temple of Doom, an equally rare instance of them playing a dark ritualistic role, but sadly he didn't have a sexy Punjabi junior priestess to play a femme fatale role akin to the sexy Nazi babe from The Last Crusade.

    But for those willing to search through the deep cuts, we'll always have Anita Mahadervan as a goth vampiress. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of Indo-Aryan, there is a new book coming out on the circumstances that lead to the spread of the Indo-European languages:

      https://books.google.ca/books/about/Proto.html?id=KHAjEQAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

      Delete
  69. A while back you noted that one positive of William of Normandy's conquest of England was the end of Viking Raids and frequent civil wars between Anglo-Saxons and Danes. The last ten or so minutes of this podcast take note of this and other benefits like the end of slavery in England:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5P9w0VZQ3a0

    ReplyDelete
  70. Finally, two from the late '90s that are exceptional for having fairly gymnastic and possessed choreography, despite it being the outset of the discordant phase. These phases don't change 100% overnight, and at the beginning of the transition, there are examples with one foot straddling either side of the divide.

    The first, which is horror-themed, is "Everybody" by the Backstreet Boys from '97:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M6samPEMpM

    Although a mainstream boy band, not Marilyn Manson, this video is already venturing in the "weird, creepy, disgusting" form of horror that will become the norm in discordant times, away from the "sublime, mysterious, violent" form of horror that was the norm in harmonious times. I went over that before -- sublime vs. gross horror, mirroring the cool vs. weird shift in sub-cultures' primary value.

    But it is still fairly gothic, with dim mansions, vampires, candelabras, and so on.

    The video is paying homage to Thriller, and so is the choreography, but mainly Thriller's own homage to the '60s swishy / twisty kinds of dances, and not so much the striking overhead claps and arm-pointing.

    There is a decent acrobatic sequence, though, involving the werewolf.

    And upon looking over the video's thumbnail, at least one of the Backstreet Boys is wearing spectator shoes -- jumping on the '30s swing revival of the late '90s, which was still trying to hold onto the harmonious social mood and explosive style of dancing.

    A whole lot of every zeitgeist, but that's how it is when the phases are changing and there's initially confusion.

    One year later, and not a horror video, "Baby One More Time" by Britney Spears has some fairly gymnastic dancing, even in the hallway segment where there's not much space and they're wearing their restrictive uniforms.

    There's even more leaping and tumbling in the gym segment, as well as fully extended arm motions, bending the spine and head back while looking upward, and other signs of wild and possessed rather than calculated control-freak choreography.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-u5WLJ9Yk4

    Like the Thriller homage in "Everybody," this video is a clear throwback to teen movies from the '80s and first half of the '90s.

    And the song itself is a bit of a throwback, with the opening wah-wah guitar lick, the funky bass-line, and the lyrics and emotional tone being like '80s teen torch song "Foolish Beat" by Debbie Gibson (and to a lesser extent, "Careless Whisper" by George Michael -- but Britney clearly resembles the lovelorn teen Debbie Gibson more than George Michael). Not much choreo in the Debbie Gibson video, but just to hear the resemblance in the music:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf8BoWKeHow

    ReplyDelete
  71. Irys would like "Foolish Beat," and there's even a Nihongo adaptation from the same time, "Nemurenu Yoru wo Sugite" by Saho Nozaki:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob5Spvq9lUc

    I thought for sure the Debbie Gibson song would've been big in Japan, since they love moody teen torch songs, especially by Western girls. But maybe this Nihongo adaptation took its place on the charts instead.

    If the nephilim princess is looking for another torch song to add to her repertoire, alongside "Careless Whisper" and "Baby One More Time," then "Foolish Beat" would be a perfect fit! And she knows her dad would love it, too -- another classic showa song to share as a fave! ^_^

    This Billboard Hot 100 chart-topper was written, performed, and produced by Gibson herself when she was just 16, making her the youngest female artist to do so. A perfect fit for Irys' joshi kousei outfit, and her eternally 17 persona that she shares with the pirate goddess! ^_^

    I checked, and only Irys and very recently Biboo have sung "Everybody" during karaoke. Coco did on the JP side awhile ago, and also from Holo JP, Fubuki and Matsuri did a brief, meme-y a cappella version 5 years ago.

    Highly underperformed classic -- let's hear it some more! Biboo's 3D karaoke just got the ball rolling again, so that leaves Irys to reprise it for the first time in 3 years, and Moom and Goob sometime before they graduate soon! They've both done "I Want It That Way" before, but not "Everybody".

    Don't censor the word "sexual" either -- just go with the flow, and let the spirit take you over! Neither Irys nor Biboo censored it, but just in case Moom or Goob were considering it -- don't! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  72. Scratch that, Irys sang "Everybody" recently. It was "Baby One More Time" that was 3 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  73. But she should still sing "Everybody" again sometime soon!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Epilogue to this journey on possessed choreo, about the robot dance. Hopefully the last leg on this wide-ranging trek, and I can get back to architecture.

    Why does the robot tie into the loss-of-control theme? Well, the movements are explosive or burst-like, even if they don't fully extend the limbs. They're not fluid and continuous, they're start-and-stop, step-wise, discrete, cleanly separable bursts.

    They're mimicking the robots or machines used in industrial manufacturing, like you'd see on the automated part of an assembly line in a "how it's made" educational film.

    None of those machines have autonomy or an internal locus of control -- they have been programmed by someone else, or perhaps are being operating remotely by an operator, like the discrete burst-like movements of a garbage truck, crane, excavator, etc.

    So in that sense, they're not moving of their own free will. Their movements are structured, not random, not erratic. They're choreographed. They're the machine version of moving around due to "spirit" possession by some larger external force (the operator, who is their puppeteer).

    Pretty neat connection, don'tcha think?! ^_^ That's why you make the trek up the Cliffs of Wisdom in the ruins of the blogosphere. Who else is going to draw this analogy, when the robot looks so crisp and well-behaved in its movements, while the spirit-possessed dancers look so wildly out of control?

    They both share the quality of not being in control over their own motions, only differing on the nature of who they are (or are supposed to mimic), and therefore, who's supposed to be the operator of their body.

    It makes total sense as long as you're guided to it by the right insights and framework. Which I usually am. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  75. The robot exploded in popularity during the breakdancing mania of the late '70s, '80s, and somewhat the early '90s. More of an '80s thing, though, for its peak.

    Oddly enough, it's first popular example is from November 1973, fairly close to the peak of social chaos. However, it was not the culmination of a trend that had been building since the late '40s, through the '50s and '60s, and reaching its max extent in '73.

    Rather, it was the very start of the trend, which would build over the course of the harmonious phase from the mid-'70s through the mid-'90s.

    That debut performance was by none other than Michael Jackson, then part of the Jackson 5, while playing "Dancing Machine" on Soul Train. Machine = robot, natural enough of a debut, right?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCEL_4w40Zw

    Note that there is either a breakdown of Google, or a deliberate conspiracy to sweep MJ's popularization of the robot under the rug. The above video cannot be found by Google's search engine, no matter how exactly you narrow it down. And the one that it does find of this performance, mysteriously has the robot dance sections deleted! Very lazy hard edits, so I knew something was up.

    Anyway, there is the origin of the robot. We all know how popular it became with breakdancing in the '80s.

    But it showed up in other genres that were not R&B, rap, or black-derived, as long as they had something to do with machines, futurism, etc. That would make the robot a natural fit there as well. Like the synth-y genres that came out in the late '70s and early '80s.

    Here's the music video for "The Robots" by Kraftwerk from '78. Not very much of the brief discrete burst form of motion, really only when two of them are hovering over a table and operating some of its equipment, toward the end. When they walk, they're totally fluid and human-like. But they're starting to get the idea going.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_8Pma1vHmw

    Devo's music video for "Satisfaction" has some robotic burst-like motions from the band members as they move their instruments around.

    And the punk guy is not doing the robot, but is still dancing in a way that looks possessed -- more of an anarchic punk-y approach to possession, like he's gripped by an uncontrollable seizure, not a spirit that's possessing him and structuring his movements in a choreographed way. But still a signal of loss-of-control.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jadvt7CbH1o

    A 1983 robotic dancing competition in Britain, and judging from the clothing and hair-do's, part of the new wave and synth-pop scene.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apAcMUuReAo

    ReplyDelete
  76. By the early 2000s, the robot shifted from being about those brief, discrete, start-and-stop bursts, to perfectly fluid continuous curvilinear motion. As exemplified by one of the most famous videos on the internet, an early YouTube clip of an earlier (2002) robot dance competition.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YJ3BTKMILw

    He's like a current of water! Not robotic, not like a machine in an industrial factory assembly line.

    Does it still look like he's possessed or losing control? I don't think so. It's not the kind of seizure / fit that the punk from the Devo video was doing.

    And it's not the kind of motion that we can clearly tell was programmed by someone else, or is being controlled remotely as it happens -- cuz there are discrete, identifiable component steps or motions that the whole sequence is going through.

    You press up on the controller, it moves up in a burst. You press the bend over button on the controller, it bends 90 degrees. Etc. The more discrete each motion in the sequence is, the more we can believe somebody programmed / is remote-controlling the sequence, one line of code or press of a button at a time.

    It's impossible to believe that this all-over-the-place fluid whitewater rapids current has been pre-programmed, or currently remote-controlled, by someone else. It looks like he's the one in control of what his activity.

    It does seem unusual, as though his body and especially his joints were made of jelly, so it does look like a special talent to display. But it doesn't look robotic, and doesn't look like someone or something larger than him is in control of those motions.

    So in that way, it dovetails with the shift from cool to weird during the discordant phase. He's in control, not losing control. And he has a weird or unusual body (jelly joints). It's not classic robot dancing from the harmonious phase, but in-control dancing from the discordant phase.

    ReplyDelete
  77. More on the robot dance. First, the sidewalk breakdancing scene in Flashdance, a movie about all sorts of dancing, and aimed at a broad audience, not a niche / cult movie.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3ZNFGE8PZE

    Perhaps the pinnacle of the trend in the synth-y genres, "Mr. Roboto" by Styx, whose music video shows the robots doing the robot dance, and the human beings moving fluidly and naturally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6f_2nPSX8

    A handful of other new wave examples, where there's a couple characters -- not everyone -- who move in discrete bursts with expressionless faces, a la the robot.

    "Pop Muzik" by M (the two models in the opening scenes, and who perform as assembly line machines in the final scene, passing along the records from one location to the next):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPoiv0sZ4s4

    "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles (the pair of models wearing white sunglasses):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8r-tXRLazs

    "Puttin' on the Ritz" by Taco (the man in white face paint, white bow-tie, and parted hair during the bridge):

    https://archive.org/details/taco-ritz-uncensored

    You get the idea. It was not just confined to the R&B / rap / funk genres, but broke out in the synth-y dance and rock genres as well.

    It tied into the Art Deco revival of the time, and Art Deco sculptures are much more robot-like (both their form, and their neutral facial expressions) than the earlier Art Nouveau figures, which were fluid and languid and curvilinear.

    Art Deco, like the synth music genres, was glamorizing industrial manufacturing and the Machine Age, whereas Art Nouveau was about pre-industrial au naturel forms and themes.

    ReplyDelete
  78. And a famous exception of the robot from early YouTube viral videos, which was not in the new fluid style, but adhered to the earlier discrete burst motions, and used Machine Age / Art Deco robot masks for the costumes, set to a synth-y retro '80s song for the soundtrack.

    It's the two ripe scantily clad babes doing quite the complex choreography to "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" by Daft Punk, way back in 2007, during the '80s revival.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYD_-A_X5E

    The words from the lyrics are written in marker on various body parts, and they hold up that part when that word comes up in the song, sometimes involving interacting with their partner (like the "N" on one girl's hand landing on the other girl's shoulder, which has "EVER" on it, completing the word "NEVER").

    There are a few fluid motions, but overall it's in discrete bursts, and involves extending the arms fully, sometimes into another person's space.

    This shows again that it's not about "invading" someone's space, it's about starting a cooperation or collaboration with them by co-occupying space.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Millennials and Zoomers refer to postures with the arms extended as "asserting dominance" -- but that's just them projecting. It's about confidence and cooperation.

    Dominance implies submission, and an asymmetry in the direction of power. But look at those two girls dancing -- there is no leader, and no follower. They're both equal participants, cooperating and interacting with each other to make something that they could not do on their own.

    It's about trust and confidence, and a positive feedback of confidence -- when one girl reaches out to touch the other girl, the other one feels a burst of confidence herself. She's being trusted with personal physical contact...

    And almost like it's a game of tag -- another "reach out and touch someone" game that is about camaraderie, not dominance. When the first girl touches the second, it's like she's passing the baton to her partner in the next leg of a race -- a race where they're on the same team, of course, not competing against each other.

    Or tagging your partner into a tag-team wrestling match. And then that person tagging the first person back in, and going around in a cycle, with no leader and no follower, but two equal partners forming an interacting duo, each one expressing their own confidence, and feeding that confidence into their partner, in a positive feedback loop.

    Or like the jumping chest-bump among bros, or grabbing each other by the shoulders while facing each other, or moshing around in a mosh pit (in the early-to-mid '90s, anyway). It's to hype each other up. It's a symmetric activity, not a dominance and submission activity. It hypes both of you up, and amplifies the confidence until you're both/all soaring off the ground.

    Physically awkward hyper-competitive types should try it sometime -- and say goodbye to needing all those feelgood pills!

    I've never taken a single psych drug, or hard drug, or even a whole cigarette, in my whole life. Rarely drink, and only socially before going out dancing, to loosen the inhibitions slightly -- 1 drink only, and very rarely, another one later in the night if dancing isn't possible due to overcrowding of the space, and I just want to loosen up a bit more.

    Get pumped, get hyped, and get crazy -- and that's all you'll ever need to feel the endorphin rush! But AU NATUREL, not lobotomizing yourself with empty unfulfilling cheat-codes, like your mind is nothing more than a video game!

    ReplyDelete
  80. Not to get sidetracked onto another tangent, but rape fantasies are another loud signal of the discordant phase of the civil discord cycle. I already covered the catfight, BDSM, and other signs of "sexualizing physical combat" when the sexes are locked in a competitive war against each other, during the discordant phase.

    Yes, even during the '50s, with Betty Page being the best example -- and whose persona was resurrected, when else?, during the 2000s and 2010s, when the discordant phase came back.

    Rape is a straightforward example of dominance and submission in a sexual context, so it naturally follows the same cycle of popularity.

    I just saw a bunch of dIsCouRsE recently about the topic, so figured it's worth briefly commenting on.

    It is most definitely NOT part of human nature, for either the man fantasizing about raping, or the woman fantasizing about being raped.

    Remember, primitive man's (and woman's) sex life was wholesome and free of perversions, including all fetishes, weird / warped / cursed fantasies, homosexuality in any form, prostitution, pornography, masturbation, or even what we find innocuous like mouth-to-mouth and especially tongue-to-tongue kissing:

    https://akinokure.blogspot.com/2013/03/primitive-mans-sex-life-was-free-of.html

    Hunter-gatherer women certainly don't fantasize about being raped, their menfolk don't fantasize about choking and raping the womenfolk, and if some clueless insulated media-ite from a collapsing empire visited them and asked about these fantasies, the natives would look back at them dumbstruck, like

    "Nigga, what da FUCK kinda crazy-ass weird-wypipo-ass, and ghetto-ass ratchet-ass fantasies *are there* in dat book of Diseases of Civilization?!"

    Damn right! RETVRN to nature, and stop fantasizing about rape like a fuckin' WEIRDO.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Watching several of those '80s raunchy sex comedies reminded me how wholesome the social climate was from the disco era, through the '80s, and into the mid-'90s, before getting all weird again during the late '90s and through the early 2020s.

    Sexual themes had not been that wholesome since the Depression era.

    There was nothing molest-y, rape-y, or peep-y about the harmonious phase. As discussed earlier, some of the early sex comedies in the transition (late '70s and early '80s) did include a peep-y, molest-y theme -- but in order to show what had been the norm earlier, and needed to be overcome by just trusting each other, Being Yourself (TM), and finding some eager willing partner -- since babes were trusting and horny themselves -- to mutually cooperate with, with no one dominating nor submitting to the other asymetrically.

    You could take turns approaching, sometimes the guy making the first move, sometimes the girl. And during a physical encounter, sometimes the guy would be the more active one, and sometimes the girl would be the active one. It wasn't an asymmetric conquest, it was finding mutual partners and collaborating.

    Only when the cycle turns discordant do both sexes start fantasizing about rape. The girls are unwilling to risk rejection, so they turtle into their own little world, and fantasize about some alpha dog breaking down their door and raping them, so they never have to take part in that risk-taking search for a mutual partner, which requires them to stick their neck out a little bit, or dip their toe in the pool before taking the plunge.

    Nah, just bedrotmaxx all day long, and eventually a deus ex machina will break down the door, rape her long and hard, and leave just as soon as he came, so she can retreat back into her social cocoon.

    Ditto for guys' fantasies -- they get so tired of putting their feelers out, only to get callously rejected by power-tripping / control-freak dating market minmaxxing girls. So they figure, well, why not just ditch the "ask her first" routine, and just peep, molest, or rape her instead?

    It's all about withholding from the other side, gaining the upper hand, and having the last word. It's so crazy, but then people ARE crazy during the discordant phase. That's why they pop so many feelgood pills, whether Valium in the '60s or Xanax in the 2010s.

    Quit competing, start trusting, and enjoy your non-rape-y, no-need-for-meds sex lives!

    ReplyDelete
  82. That's why femme fatales are more popular in the harmonious phase, as strange as that may sound. Aren't they maneaters, homewreckers, anti-social, only looking out for #1?

    They can be, but the trope is not there to glamorize homewrecking or undoing a man through dating-and-mating.

    First, during the harmonious phase, they always portray this archetype with a red-flag warning about getting involved with her, not with you-go-girl glittery glamorization. She's appealing, seductive -- but look out, she could be your downfall. The devil appearing in a pleasing shape.

    Second, as we saw with the vampire babe in the "What Is Love" video, she isn't actually predatory, in the sense of restraining, kidnapping, drugging, or otherwise removing the agency of her target. Luring, seducing, charming, etc. -- absolutely. But it takes two to tango, honey. So it's not about harming, preying upon, or being anti-social.

    So finally, she's present to showcase the fact that women themselves are horny and eager to take the initiative and not wait around to go after what they want, during the trusting harmonious climate.

    And while 99% of those cases are just innocent wholesome girls like you see in the '80s sex comedies, there is the remaining 1% who are not so innocent or wholesome. Not in the sense of predatory, harmful, violent, degrading, humiliating their target -- that behavior belongs to the hyper-competitive battle of the sexes climate of the discordant phase. Rather, she realizes that by pursuing her target, and if he eagerly reciprocates her advances, his downfall -- or at least, complications -- will result, and she pursues him anyway.

    She's not trying to conquer him, rob him, humiliate him, etc. She wants a torrid love affair, and she isn't going to back down easily. If he wants it as well, he'll agree to it, and he too will fully realize the risk of his downfall / complications, but will take the plunge with her anyway, if he wants her bad enough as well.

    At the end, she gets more out of it than he does, cuz she isn't undone or hit by complicating consequences *as much as* he is (she could face some, just not as much as he does). But that's not a case of hyper-competitively trying to gain the upper hand or have the last word -- it's just an inevitable consequence of, e.g., him being a married man or respectable community figure, and her being a wanton maneater.

    She isn't *aiming* to gain the upper hand, doesn't enjoy that outcome per se, it's just structurally built into the outcome, given the asymmetry in their initial conditions. And again, she never tries to coerce or rob him of agency -- she's just dangling her lure out in front of him, and seeing if he'll bite.

    She is therefore not an alpha-woman, queen bee, dominatrix, or other kind of dominant figure and him the submissive figure in an asymmetric power-imbalanced relationship.

    Equal power and agency, no attempts to submit, degrade, or humiliate the other, etc. Just both of them realizing beforehand:

    "One of us may come out the other side of this torrid love affair with a more complicated life than the other -- are we both OK with that? If so, then let the torrid love affair games begin... [devil horns emoji]"

    ReplyDelete
  83. Without going into a full survey of the trend, we need to distinguish dominatrixes or female predators in general, from femme fatales.

    The former involve some kind of power imbalance, whether a violent surprise attack, kidnapping / restraining, drugging, or deceit and fraud in the Trojan Horse sense (not merely applying make-up over her warts, but presenting a helpful and healthy exterior, with the intent to introduce harmful disease past his defenses).

    During the recent (and still lingering) discordant phase, this dove-tailed with the shift from sublime horror to weird gross-out horror.

    Right at the outset, the 1995 movie Species has a female predator who deceitfully presents as a hot human babe that just wants to get her grind on, but is actually a disgusting alien who kills her duped male sperm donor.

    A horror TV show from the late '90s, The Hunger, has an episode ("Necros") where what appears to be a hot horny babe deceives an endless string of men into bed, only to morph into a disgusting monster during sex and steal their life energy by gross-out monstrous force, leaving them a disgusting mummy-like husk, while she returns to looking like a healthy hot young fox.

    The torture porn genre that exploded during the 2000s (and traces back to Seven, from '95), made heavy use of hot babes deceiving or defrauding men with promises of just being hot and horny, before pulling a bait-and-switch, and suddenly the male dupes are being locked and restrained in a torture chamber. E.g., Hostel from 2005.

    And related movies that crossed over with the "Tumblr fake stories" / "revenge fantasy" genres, like Hard Candy from 2005, where a 14 year-old girl kidnaps and tortures a guy she suspects is a sex predator.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Not to mention actual porn that increasingly featured gender-swapped sex predation and rape, like the femdom and pegging trend of the woketard 2010s, which mixes in the weird / gross-out trend with the BDSM trend. Needless to say, no such garbage existed back in the good ol' harmonious '80s era of porn.

    Porn may not be the most important cultural domain, but in the context of surveying trends or cycles relating to sex and sexual fantasies, it's certainly relevant.

    In short, dominatrixes are not driven by their own horny desire or pursuit of pleasure -- that's the maneating, wanton, nymphomaniac floozy femme fatale. The dominatrix doesn't feel pleasure, joy, or satisfaction, but just a poker-faced or angry hyper-competitive drive to gain the upper hand, have the last word -- even, the only word -- and degrade, humiliate, and submit.

    Virtually no women feel this sexualized competitiveness on their own, and only exist in domains where male customers are paying them to act that way -- porn and prostitution.

    But it *is* hitting on a reality, that many or most women in the discordant phase have such a hyper-competitive man-hating/avoiding behavior. The male customers are accepting this, and only paying for the addition of "but can she sexualize that man-hating, ballbusting personality somehow?"

    Now that the discordant phase is finally over, hopefully we see these tropes and IRL approximations of them vanish from our culture...

    ReplyDelete
  85. Getting back to more wholesome mediums, and more wholesome times, the episode of Picket Fences that I watched last night -- "Frank the Potato Man", 1992 -- featured a panic and witch-hunt when there's a serial sex pervert who breaks into a house, takes a bath in their tub, and masturbates while in there, perhaps after having stolen a pair of panties from the young girl who lives there.

    During the witch-hunt, the teenage daughter of the town sheriff, Kimberly, is repeatedly admonished by her mother and a male sheriff's deputy to report even the most minimal of potential sexual harassment cases, lest they escalate.

    But in typical Gen X fashion, she says the issue has blurry boundaries -- there are too many cases where someone gives her a hug that might have accidentally brought her in too close, as though trying to press her boobs into him, but it might have been unintentional and innocuous.

    She specifically weighs the pros and cons to the other party -- maybe a creep could get his comeuppance, but maybe an innocent man will be tarred-and-feathered with the accusation of sexual harassment of a vulnerable teenage girl, and his reputation will never recover from that, especially in a small town.

    So she tends to favor *not* coming forth with every potential creep move that a guy may be making on her, while certainly not enjoying it or looking forward to it. She'd rather let a semi-pervy friend's father go after hugging her, than ruin an innocent man's reputation by having an itchy trigger finger for accusing them of sexual harassment and demanding them to believe all women, etc.

    She does come forward with details about who in the community hangs out near the school, looks at the girls, etc., but doesn't accuse anyone or ask charges to be brought or otherwise get the ball rolling on a sexual harassment case.

    I was really struck by how staunchly this tiny teen girl was standing up for herself by standing up for others, while being piled on by panicking adults -- the total opposite of the #MeToo abyss that we are now thankfully out of.

    Back in the early '90s, at the peak of social harmony, it's not like the norm was to never believe accusations of harassment, or to never come forward, or to deny that harassment ever happened. It was to portray all sides of the controversy, and let people weigh the pros and cons according to their own values, and respect the fact that not everyone will conclude the same thing -- so some kind of compromise has to be reached.

    And that one valid choice was "I'd rather let a minor creep go unpunished, than cause an innocent man to have his life ruined".

    She didn't even get in a shouting match with the grown-ups, she presented her case totally nonchalantly and level-headedly, without raising her voice -- and suggesting to the grown-ups, they aren't considering all the possible angles, and they're the ones being hot-headed and reckless in their witch-hunting zealotry.

    Very touching Gen-X personality. Played by Holly Marie Combs, no less. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  86. Half-spoiler alert to a 30 year-old episode that you won't be watching anyway, but the witch-hunt targeted the wrong guy, who to make matters worse had already been tried and acquitted (in a hung jury) for rape many years ago in another place. But the mob only takes that hung jury case to be more damning evidence against him in the present panic.

    I won't say who actually *did* commit the crime, you can watch to find out, but suffice it to say that it wasn't the target of the witch-hunt, and was someone you wouldn't expect based on appearances and reputation.

    So the brave little girl was right not to hype up the fact that the target of the witch-hunt did sometimes go near the school and look at the girls. They never said if he looked at the boys, too -- like, maybe he's observing the school kids as a whole, longing for the good old days of being one himself, lamenting the impoverished and isolated state he's found himself in during middle age -- not looking at them in a sexualized way. They don't say, he's just the poor town loner and silent weirdo, so they assume if he's looking at school girls, it's suspicious of sexual harassment.

    The episode does get overly preachy at times about not being so bigoted that you descend into a witch-hunt, when the evidence is blurry, but by making one of the conscientious objectors a nonchalant but principled 5'1 high school girl, it softens the hard edges of the preachy anti-witch-hunter (the bombastic defense attorney, who invokes his parents being killed in the Holocaust to angrily shut down his adversaries in the debate).

    Such a harmonious early '90s vibe, I'm really liking this show. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  87. Iconoclasm in the United Kingdom: people converting to Catholicism from Anglicanism, the King praising Islam and Judaism on Easter and hosting Islamic prayer in Windsor Castle over Ramadan. The revival of an English identity in the UK over the preexisting British identity.

    ReplyDelete
  88. American converts to Catholicism are also heritage-hating iconoclasts, and that's only picked up in the 21st century. Such as the vice-president, and half of the take-meisters on Twitter.

    If you're American, your two options for religion, as uniquely American religions, are Mormonism (for the upper and middle classes) and Pentecostalism (for the common class).

    Anything else is a Euro LARP, or other Old Worlde LARP (like Muslim immigrants staying Muslim rather than becoming Mormon or Pentecostal).

    ReplyDelete
  89. That's why Mormons and Pentecostals are banned from the Supreme Court (and probably from the presidency as well). Those are active, native, thriving American religions. They wouldn't be able to separate church and state.

    Whereas all forms of Christianity -- Pentecostalism is a spirit possession cult based on the Holy Spirit, not really Christian, and Mormonism has an entirely new set of sacred texts, rituals, and buildings -- are basically dead in America. And so is any strain of Judaism.

    There's zero chance of Christians and Jews feeling compelled to mix church / synagogue and state, in their role as jurists.

    Muslims are the only other group, aside from Mormons and Pentecostals, who would feel compelled to mix church / mosque and state as jurists. But they're very recent arrivals, haven't been assimilated like earlier arrivals have, so there's little chance of them climbing that high anyway.

    But if one of them were in a position to be on the Supreme Court, they would either bow out gracefully, or get voted down by Congress.

    They could mix mosque and state within their local ethnic enclave, just like Mormons can in Mormon-land. But at the national, and therefore imperial, level? No way.

    ReplyDelete
  90. When I said dead religion, I don't mean nobody practices in any way whatsoever -- but that it plays no role in society, as an institution itself, or as part of a larger sector it belongs to (like "organized religion").

    Southern Baptists, true to the anarchic low-trust culture of non-standard dialect regions, far from the meta-ethnic frontier, refuse to even organize into a single church. So they'll never play any role in society writ large.

    Other churches are hierarchical institutions, like the Catholics, but the head-head of their church is in a foreign country, so they'll never play a role in America writ large *as* the Catholic Church. Individuals who go to mass on Sundays may be active in American society, but not the Catholic Church itself.

    Churches, aside from Mormons and Pentecostals (and Muslims), play very little role in the everyday lives of their communities. They're not one of the key institutions that all sorts of social connections run through, like when they used to do productive labor, fed people, clothed people, housed people, collected pools of money to spend on public goods and services, served as the central meeting place for everyone in the community, and so on. I don't mean they did those things for free, but that they did do them.

    In America, those functions have largely been replaced by schools, and associated sectors of the higher-ed subgroup of schools -- like every hospital being on a college campus or college network by now. Just as with churches, schools don't do all these things for free, but they do do them, and if you want them done, you have to go through them.

    And churches are very easy to avoid, unlike other key sectors of society like agriculture, manufacturing, finance, schools, and so on. You're only exposed to them as much as you elect to be. Therefore they have zero leverage over their would-be members, or over the other actually powerful sectors of society (like schools, farms, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  91. That ties back into the recent Angela Nagle / Sean McCarthy podcast, where Angela was wondering whether beautiful art can be made without patrons who come from organized religion or the aristocracy, as they used to in Europe.

    But we still have wealthy upper classes, they just come from different sectors of society than armed landowning agrarian estates, or organized religion.

    Mainly industrialists, but others as well, like the school sector, the government itself of course, finance, and other patrons of the arts who spend their money on the arts when they could be more profitably invested in e.g. the stock market -- like the people who produced all the movies in America's highest native art form.

    Given all the beautiful -- and more importantly, sublime -- art and culture that America has created, then yes, it's totally possible for sectors other than agrarian landowners and organized religion to patronize the arts and produce great things.

    I'm not going to "defend" or write an "apologia" for American art -- if you can't see its beauty and sublimity, you're just blind (due to cultural background blinders, which is understandable if you're Euro or Olde Worlde, but unforgivable if you're an American who LARPs as a Euro).

    What produces stunning art is not patronage from a specific sector of society, but asabiya, or collective action potential. Trust, cohesion, solidarity, national pride, that sort of thing. When it's high, the elites of whatever sectors that are actually crucial to that society, will patronize the arts and produce great things.

    In some empires or great powers, that'll be the religious elites, in others the martial elites, in others a mercantile elite, in others an industrial elite, in others the schooling elites. Where they come from doesn't matter, the only requirement is that they have the wealth, power, and influence to fund and organize cultural production, and that they -- and the creatives they're funding and organizing -- have high asabiya.

    That comes from there being a meta-ethnic frontier that they're organizing themselves in opposition to, so most great art comes from polities that are empires or expanding great powers (that don't reach quite as high as empires -- like Early Modern Sweden, the Venetian Republic, or Feudal and Modern Japan).

    American art and culture aren't tumbling off a cliff due to the death of religion -- religion has never been a crucial sector of our society -- or to technological changes like "the internet" or whatever. It's just one symptom of the broader collapse in our asabiya, after our meta-ethnic nemeses have long been vanquished -- the Indians first and foremost, and later the Mexicans, and to some extent the Japanese.

    Maybe the Soviet Union / Russians during the Cold War, as our last desperate grasp for a meta-ethnic nemesis, but they're really not that different from Americans as the Indians, Mexians, and Japanese were. But that does tie into Angela's mentioning of the end of the Cold War coinciding with the first signs of American cultural stagnation (and later implosion).

    By now, we've plunged into the hangover after the soaring high, where we're actively targeting our own great cultural creations for desecration, iconoclasm, and demolition.

    You can't make sense of a hangover without first including the soaring high into your model. So, it's those soaring highs in cohesion that produce great culture, and the consequent hangovers that try to destroy it (hopefully, to limited success).

    ReplyDelete
  92. On the Cold War's role in cultural production, it's not as though the elites of one side are trying to exert "soft power" over their domestic population, in order to win them over or keep them on their own side, rather than defect to the temptations of the other side.

    If your own population is even remotely tempted to defect to another side, to lose faith in their own side and yearn for the system of the rival -- then that rival is not a meta-ethnic nemesis. They must already be highly similar, just with a few differences that make them seem like an admirable improvement over our own society.

    Like how Americans are tempted to yearn for Scandinavian society and culture -- but that only proves how similar Americans and Scandinavians are culturally. They're not on either side of a meta-ethnic divide -- well, not since the Scandis were pagan Viking raiders.

    Americans looking up to the Soviet model for anything -- economy, government, culture -- proves how similar it was to the existing American alternative. Namely the New Deal, which *was* very similar to Midcentury Soviet society, to both nations' credit.

    Well, that means the Cold War is not going to exert a very strong influence on American asabiya -- and thereby, on American cultural dynamism. Nor will the end of it signal a death-knell for American culture.

    Russians, whether Soviet or otherwise in the modern era, are simply too similar to Americans on various domains of ethnic identity. Sedentary rather than nomadic, spawned as empires against nomadic raiders (Indians in America, Turko-Mongol steppe people in Russia), Christian or historically Christian -- not from a rival to Christianity -- speakers of the Euro side of Indo-European languages, visibly similar in skin / eye / hair color, etc.

    But more importantly, we just have no real hot conflict-stricken frontier with Russia -- how could we? They're way the hell on the other side of the world, and we're in the New World. Maybe if they kept expanding eastward, and defeated Japan rather than getting defeated by Japan, the Russkies would've been the ones to bomb Pearl Harbor and threaten our westward expansion across the Pacific.

    But as history actually played itself out, they stayed in the Old World, didn't show up in the Pacific, and didn't even expand into Western Europe, where we'd scooped up several post-imperial rump states as vassals after WWI / WWII.

    Russians are too similar to Americans, *and* we've never had an active, enduring, conflict-stricken physical frontier with them. So that will be a very weak source of generating asabiya for either side, and so I downplay any role of the Cold War in American cultural dynamism -- or the end of that war and the stagnation of American culture.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Rather, American culture was still going strong after getting started in the late 1800s (after our integrative civil war), and if anything was coasting on the success of our westward expansion across the Pacific, after defeating the most formidable military in all of Asia at that time -- Glorious Nippon.

    The Cold War did have an Asian theatre, so that could've kept us more in meta-ethnic nemesis-hunting mode, as we tried to defeat the North Koreans, Vietnames, Laotians, and Cambodians -- and lost to all of them, over the course of the post-WWII era through the 1970s.

    Those were all very active, enduring (for a little while anyway), conflict-stricken frontiers. And they were against people who are highly different from Americans -- not just racial / physical appearance, I mean everything about cultural identity, other than the nomadic vs. sedentary thing.

    The Pacific theatre of WWII, then the Korean and Southeast Asian wars, were waaaay more influential on American culture than the Russian-related Cold War.

    We had a little gas left in the tank with our (failed) adventures in Central America and the Caribbean during the '80s, which revived our memories of the Mexican meta-ethnic nemesis from over a century earlier.

    Tropical jungle savages, presumably semi-nomadic (slash-and-burn horticulture), brown-skinned, speaking who knows what languages -- not necessarily Spanish or other Indo-Euro language, but an Amerindian one like Mixtec or something -- not Christian but following some strange pre-Columbian religion or African-derived voodoo or something like that. Latter-day Vikings from the New World, poised to enter our vulnerable southern border on short notice, and then BAM -- tropical savages raiding deep into the Midwestern heartland.

    Well, all that fizzled out as well, especially the thought of Central Americans invading America.

    Maybe that coincided with the end of the Soviet Union, which was supporting -- ideologically and materially -- several of those Central American and Caribbean movements.

    But again, Russia *as* Russia played little role in our cultural dynamism or stagnation. They weren't active participants in our southern and western frontiers, where our meta-ethnic nemeses have always come from. And unlike those in East Asia or Central America who they may have been funding, the Russians themselves are too similar to us.

    So that's how the Cold War relates to American cultural dynamism through the post-WWII period and somewhat into the '80s and early '90s.

    It wasn't the end of our cold war against Russia, but our string of defeats in Southeast Asia and Central America that made us think, OK, it's over for our expansion, no more new meta-ethnic nemeses will present themselves, let alone on our borders.

    ReplyDelete
  94. For that reason, our Middle Eastern wars have never played a role in boosting American cultural production, nor have their ends (like in Iraq) caused a stagnation in our culture. They simply have never been a hostile threat on our borders, only to our soldiers who travel across the world to their borders. American invasion of the Middle East may have an effect on raising their asabiya, but not the other way around.

    We've been fascinated by the Middle East since our origin, especially Ancient Egypt. In our mythological origin story, that's where we come from -- or in the updated version, from outer space, via Ancient Egypt and its pyramid spaceships. That was long before we went to war in the Middle East.

    That was just us trying to separate ourselves from our Euro, and even Indo-Euro, ancestors and present-day cousins. Unlike the Euros, we Americans culturally descend from the Saharo-Arabian sphere (in our own minds anyway -- we still speak an Indo-Euro language and follow all sorts of Indo-Euro folk customs). But regarding our myth of being founded by illustrious foreigners, it's Ancient Egypt (or Ancient Israel, for Christian fundamentalists), not anywhere from Indo-Euro-land.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Some right-wingers may have interpreted it as sarcasm when I said that the notion of us being invaded by Central Americans turned out to be a dud. But that's serious -- they have never invaded us, after the Mexican War.

    The reason there are tens of millions of Central Americans inside America's borders is their role as slaves (cheap-labor foreigners) in our economy.

    They were welcomed and pulled in with a hug by our traitorous elites, who want to replace the domestic population with foreigners, at first as part of neoliberal minmaxxing their profit margins, but by now in the imperial hangover era, because they actively have contempt for Americans and want us erased, as part of the trend of heritage-hating iconoclasm.

    They are on the other side of a meta-ethnic divide, but they are not hostile toward us. Aside from the 1% who are gang members and criminals, they came here peacefully and live here peacefully. They're no Apache raiders.

    So their influx has had little effect on boosting our cultural dynamism -- nor will their inevitable disappearance (as our collapsing empire no longer attracts slaves) cause a stagnation in our creative output.

    ReplyDelete
  96. There's a tranny propaganda episode of Picket Fences, so I take back my endorsement of it as great. Hopefully it's a one-off, and it's still good as a series. But holy shit, was that a terrible episode.

    The dialog was agitprop rather than natural, the narrative was Tumblr fake stories tier -- complete with a literal "...and then they all stood up and clapped for me against my rival" ending -- and the acting was earnest rather than campy, which is the only way a tranny story can ever be believable.

    And it's from '92, not the late '90s when this kind of tranny slopaganda would become more mainstream. Very shameful stain on the early '90s.

    I've already accepted that the show is not about "small town life" with traditional values, old time-y lifestyles, myths and superstitions and folktales and such -- it's about a white-flight liberal bedroom community. That's fine, it's no Twin Peaks, to which every show about "quirky small town life" is always compared, usually wrongly. It can still work... but not with this laughable, lazy, ludicrous slopaganda.

    True to form, the tranny is not played by an actual tranny, but by a real woman (the brusque and ambitious Admiral Nechayev from Star Trek: TNG). Her looks and personality are feminine, mature / maternal, and self-effacing (this character never wanted to be found out, does not try to lord its tranny status over others or use it as a cry-bully cudgel, etc.). In other words, it's a woman playing a woman -- while we're supposed to believe that's how a tranny would look and act.

    Trannies notoriously don't pass, or at least raise an eyebrow about "is that...?" They have zero maternal instincts, which is why they never try to take jobs as babysitters, daycare workers, or teachers in their babysitting sense.

    They do try to be teachers in their ideological preachy priestly propaganda sense, to moralistically lecture and hector their captive audience of defenseless students. Same with their guest lecturer appearances in drag queen story hour. But never to nurture and care for them like a mother, or a father, for that matter -- trannies are anti-parental, regardless of sex of the parent.

    And they never seek their Dr. Mengele enablers to construct artificial eggs, ovaries, wombs, lactation, and pregnancy. They just want them to construct an artificial fuckhole between their legs -- cuz as the most girl-hating group in existence, that's all they reduce femininity, female nature, and women's role in society to -- taking dicks between their legs. Or having their artificial tits honked by grubby desperate "no one lets me touch their tits except trannies" hands -- never to produce milk for nursing children.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Trannies thus lie at the intersection of various character types, or beings / creatures, that can never be portrayed by "an actually existing member of the type".

    1. Criminals, who are always played by law-abiding and norm-respecting people, not actual psychopaths, let alone psychos with a real criminal record.

    2. Mentally ill or deviant, who are always played by mentally normal people. And we're talking real wackos here, not "I'm so le depressed" Prozac junkies -- plenty of actors are depressives, as are lots of normies IRL. I mean, schizophrenics, autists (literal, not figurative "spectrum"), and the like.

    3. Mythological / legendary / fabled creatures that don't actually exist in reality, but do have a presence in narrative. Unicorns, dragons, werewolves, etc. Can't use a real example of one if they don't exist.

    4. Sci-fi "what if..." cases, whether artificially constructed (like androids) or natural (like humanoid aliens). Humanoid robots like Data from Star Trek: TNG are never played by actually existing attempts at humanoid robots -- but by actual human beings, putting on a robot act (like a mentally normal person putting on a schizo or autist act for the camera). Ditto for humanoid aliens -- we can't say they don't exist, but neither can we use one of them on camera, so we settle for an actual human being from planet Earth (like the Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, etc., from Star Trek).

    The common traits they share with trannies are "made-up" and "deviant", which are the fundamental traits in tranny identity.

    You don't have to always get white people to play black characters, or men to play women (while in drag), or adults to play children, or single people to played married people, or rich people to play lower or middle class people, or vice versa for any of these cases, or any number of other cases of true identity groups.

    Sometimes a man will play a tranny, so that the appearance is not so unbelievable, like David Duchovny playing a cross-dresser in Twin Peaks. But Duchovny is not a tranny off-screen, so he doesn't have all the insane, ridiculous traits that a real one would, and that character comes off as merely off-beat, a little strange, eccentric, etc. -- not as a delusional, mentally ill, suicidal, revenge fantasy-obsessed, cry-bully, zealot for a crusade of corruption of helpless innocent normies. Not a thin-skinned girl-hater who acts sadistically toward real women. And so on and so forth.

    When real trannies *are* featured in the media and entertainment, they are so off-putting and repulsive that only the paid propaganda commentators will chime in about yass slay queen, snatch that wig, etc. They cannot be shown to audiences who don't already demand "fabricated" and "deviant" to define the characters' personalities. They have not just zero, but negative potential to persuade the audience toward pro-tranny political agenda items.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Back in '92, at least the showrunners understood that much, and had a real woman play the tranny -- and to behave the opposite way that an actual tranny would, in order to make a semi-palatable plea to the audience.

    After the woketard crusade that began brewing in the late '90s and exploded during the 2010s and early 2020s, though, those better-crafted pleas fall completely flat, and it's one of the few types of "old culture" that you just cannot appreciate and enjoy decades later.

    Ditto for all the Boomer propaganda directed at sexually budding Gen X-ers in the '90s, about how everyone can and *is* getting infected with AIDS, so the most important thing is either don't have sex, or wear a condom (and maybe a female condom, spermicide, and 17 other medical devices, since you can never be too safe).

    Picket Fences also has plenty of that as well. It's really not as good as Twin Peaks or other "small town" shows, don't get too hyped about it. But it's still good compared to later slop for sure, and still better than most other '90s shows. Still, it is somewhat compromised by the periodic lib Boomer agitprop.

    ReplyDelete
  99. That list of traits also reveals the two sub-types of tranny stannies, left-wing vs. right-wing.

    Left-wing tranny stannies emphasize their deviance and criminality -- the incarnation of "be gay and do crimes". They're the most effective weapon for normalizing pathology and patholigizing normality, the guiding principle for woketard crusaders in the domain of morality and norms.

    Right-wing tranny stannies emphasize the sci-fi techtard transhumanist Ayn Randian ubermensch triumph of Faustian genius and ambition -- all fanfic. E.g. transforming a man into a woman (in reality, still just a dude, but with a fake fuckhole carved into his crotch), colonizing Mars (meanwhile we can't even clear the wreckage of that bridge in Baltimore), reviving long-extinct species (actually just current species in drag, using their current DNA with a few tweaks, not ancient DNA being put into modern procreative use), believing in mythological beasts and monsters and the paranormal or supernatural.

    Because billionaire donors and their funding streams have totally taken over Twitter, and every account over 10K is literally slurping from that money-trough, there is little hope for ever being rid of the tranny curse on that platform.

    The left-wing criminal-fetishists keep it going on the left, and Silicon Valley techtards for Trump keep it going on the right. Both while mixing or weaving it into their broader agendas -- abolishing the police and opening the insane asylums for left-wingers, computer-worshiping AI transhumanism for right-wingers.

    Before Twitter became just another slopaganda outlet like "cable news" or "talk radio", there were trannies, and tranny stannies, but it wasn't orchestrated into a whole strain of discourse, and larger agenda for politics. And individual accounts had their own viewpoints, whatever they were. Now it's just the same ol' slop as what you can slurp up on Fox News or MSNBC, just in a different delivery vehicle, given the changing media preferences of post-Boomer generations.

    It's barely worth responding to, which is why it's such an empty source of fodder for me here anymore. I've already written everything there is to be observed about trannies, crypto-trannies, fujos / yuri-enjoyers, gay pedomorphism, anti-parental gays and trannies, etc., long before Twitter became a dominant media outlet with the 2016 election.

    Billionaire patronage ruins another potential cultural outlet -- this will become a more and more familiar story as our empire collapses from imploding cohesion and heritage-hating iconoclasm.

    ReplyDelete
  100. And to be fair to the midwit billionaires, it takes two to tango, and everyone with over 10k followers is to blame as well, for slurping up not-even-that-much money in exchange for being a butt-puppet for the billionaire bankroller network.

    Sad, but perhaps predictable, and guaranteed going forward.

    That's why I respond to the Angela Nagle / Sean McCarthy podcast -- only one I know of that isn't funded by some retard whose coffers were filled by QE, for the hosts to regurgitate talking points and circle-jerk their fellow slush-fund-slurpers.

    I would say, "at least we still have streamers and vtubers", but that whole thing is imploding outside of Japan as well. But what does remain, isn't just regurgitating partisan agitprop for donor dollars, and is coming from that person themselves. So it's still got some life left in it. And it's all on YouTube, not Twitter.

    Not to say there's no talking-points-ers on YouTube, just that it's swamped by cute girls trying their best to entertain their audience, apolitically.

    ReplyDelete
  101. So in the end, it wasn't woketard commisars who killed off the practice of "having your own opinion, and not being afraid to share it". They certainly tried their hardest to shout down the opposition, but it didn't work. There was always a backlash, a nemesis, an other side -- multiple sides, in fact.

    What strangled all the opinions, points of view, personalities, and characters out of Twitter were the billionaire bankrollers, and the former take-meisters agreeing to narrow and homogenize their output in order to please their check-signers.

    They're still allowed a little freedom of thought and expression and eccentricity and association with others, but it's about 1% of what it used to be -- whether on Twitter, or even more so on other pre-social media platforms like forums and blogs and Usenet.

    My rough rule-of-thumb for "willing to take a chance on a 10k+ account whose primary online residence is Twitter, rather than YouTube or wherever else," is -- are they under 25? Maybe under 30.

    That certainly limits the kind of content they'll be capable of, or specializing in. But it's damn rare for a partisan bankroller to fund a young person, without making it obvious that it's just the youth wing of a slopaganda format. Otherwise they're too inexperienced to be an effective agitpropper.

    If you have 10k followers, and you're over 25 or 30, you are definitely not yourself on your account, we're just dealing with some rich retard's lieutenants, who he's using to target us as a pliable demographic for ideological nudging ("soft power"), no matter where you started out many years ago.

    If you're not that big, and/or if you're too young, there's a decent chance you are yourself on your account, you're sincere and authentic, and worth taking a chance on. The minute you turn 25 or 30, though, we're looking into trading you in for a younger model -- not cuz you're less attractive, but cuz you're now a hired gun by someone whose content we didn't ask for, else we would've gone straight to that funding source for his takes and anecdotes.

    That doesn't apply to vtubers, of course, since even when they are hired by a company rather than indie, it isn't for partisan slopaganda regurgitation. Natural born entertainers like the Doggy Goddess and Pirate Goddess from Hololive JP, will remain in demand throughout their 30s, 40s, 50s... until whenever they themselves want to stop and live a private life.

    ReplyDelete
  102. The only other exception is political commentators who overtly and frequently attack both parties, a la Michael Tracey or Angela Nagle or Nassim Taleb.

    That has nothing to do with preferring their ideology, or assuming they're "radical centrist" or whatever. It just means, I'm reading that person's own thoughts, feelings, anecdotes, etc., not being asked to let some rich retard's Trojan horse through my computer screen.

    I can agree or disagree with any or all of their takes, but it's a sincere and authentic starting point, and they are what used to be the norm for bloggers in the blogging era.

    Then there are platforms that are not account-centric, like Reddit or 4chan (RIP, haha jk unless?), where there's a decent chance you're reading authentic rather than bankrolled thoughts. No one is distinguishable individually on Reddit or 4chan, even though Reddit makes you use a username and/or pfp, while 4chan doesn't. It's simply not based on the account, but on the forum or sub-forum.

    So there's no way for a bankroller to hire accounts who the target audience would look up to, aspire to, respect, trust, etc. The audience for Reddit and 4chan do not know who any particular username / pfp is, and they don't form parasocial attachments, or other loyalty attachments, to specific accounts, like they do on Twitter and other account-centric platforms like Instagram.

    Most of Reddit is unusable slop, it was/still is infiltrated by intel agencies and bankrollers in the usual forums. But that kind of hired gun slop is a lot easier to spot on Reddit, since it sounds like a talking point from some circle-jerk echo chamber on Twitter, or a Tumblr fake story from that other account-centric platform.

    I only know from the Red Scare subreddit, but there's still a decent amount of "just wanted to share this" kind of posts about some painting, photo, song, or interesting anecdote. Most of those posters were on Twitter, I assume, may still lurk there, since that stuff used to be common on Twitter not too long ago. But they abandoned ship when the whole point of the platform became making it into "what if cable news, but for Millennials?" -- one curse compounding another!

    And there's still the same tired partisan bullshit there as well, but it's easy to spot cuz it's such a desperate plea to be taken for a Twitter take-meister, like they're auditioning for that role, but in Twitter's Off-Broadway venue in Reddit-land.

    How cursed the internet has become in the past few years, Jesus...

    ReplyDelete
  103. I'm less suspicious of TikTok as well, although I rarely go there. Just based on how hard the government in both parties tried to kill it off and hijack it -- that means it wasn't already in the pocket of some rich retard, whether on the left or right.

    It's still largely apolitical, not take-based. It's girls doing dances, cooking meals, sewing, etc. Or guys showing off their soldering skills, life hacks, etc. Your typical early YouTube kind of content -- and based on the enduring appeal of the Daft Bodies babes, and the (fluid) robot dance guy, I'd wager TikTok will age a lot better than Twitter, which is already a stumbling half-corpse.

    And the political slop is easy to spot and filter or not even wander near, also like early YouTube.

    And its target audience is pretty young, probably under 25 or 30. As are most of the creators. Less likely to be hired guns.

    Score another one for Zoomers, and subtract another point from Millennials. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  104. A new study on Punic DNA shows many similarities to what I've been uncovering about the Ashkenazi -- and other -- Jews, namely that they're not genetically descended from the same population that provided the seeds of various parts of their culture (Ancient Judaeans or Israelites).

    https://phys.org/news/2025-04-ancient-dna-held-assumptions-mediterranean.html

    Punic people spoke a Saharo-Arabian language, used a Saharo-Arabian-derived alphabet, and adopted parts of a Saharo-Arabian religion, all based on their role models, the Phoenicians from the Levant.

    Previously it was thought that the Punic people were merely the Phoenician people who had migrated around the Mediterranean as part of their maritime trade network activity. But it turns out, there was no mass migration of Phoenicians.

    The Punic people were mainly Sicilian / Aegean genetically, none of whose ancestors spoke a Saharo-Arabian language. This culture, which admittedly did not last very long, may be one of the few cases of any non-Saharo-Arabian group adopting a Saharo-Arabian language, which are notoriously difficult for outsiders to pick up.

    Presumably that was facilitated by a loss of all sorts of tricky shibboleth-y aspects of the language, as happens during pidginization. Not having looked into the Punic language as it was actually spoken, I'm guessing it's like Maltese and Zionish ("Modern Israeli Hebrew"), where there are some elements of Saharo-Arabian, but quite a few elements of the native language family (Indo-European in all 3 of these cases), so that it's more of a hybrid or pidgin rather than adopting a Saharo-Arabian language entirely.

    Did spoken Punic regularly use the zipper morphology of Saharo-Arabian? Did they pronounce emphatic consonants like Saharo-Arabian does? Did they have the "v" sound (if so, that's a holdover from Indo-European -- as I discussed a little while ago, "v" is highly specific to Indo-Euro).

    Something for linguists to look into, or perhaps they already have and I simply need to see what they've said to confirm or disconfirm.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Later, North African DNA was added to the Sicilian / Aegean mix, albeit in a minority quantity. Those people probably *did* speak a Saharo-Arabian language, although one more like Berber than Phoenician. So they could have picked up Phoenician fairly easily, and if they were numerous enough to serve as teachers to the former Indo-Euro speaking majority, maybe the latter could've picked up Saharo-Arabian more easily as well.

    That would be unlike the Maltese, who did not genetically include a Saharo-Arabian minority. It might be closer to the Zionists, who did include a minority of Saharo-Arabian speakers -- various North African Jews, and Yemeni Jews. And yet despite that, Zionish still is not fully Saharo-Arabian, but more of a hybrid of Indo-Euro and Saharo-Arabian. So it would be miraculous if Punic were fully Saharo-Arabian, and was probably more of a hybrid language.

    The study finds that the genetic mixing with North Africans happened later, gradually, after the initial existence of a broad Punic culture.

    That mirrors the case of the Ashkenazi Jews, who are genetically descended from two source populations -- one Anatatolian / Caucasian / Iranian, and another Slavic -- and who only began to genetically fuse after they had culturally fused. Ashkenazi burials from the 14th C. in Erfurt Germany show a bi-modal genepool, even though there were already a single cultural community by that point. Only in later centuries would they become unimodal, after intermarrying.

    This reveals the order in which two populations merge -- first they fuse culturally, then a bit later, genetically. They don't first encounter each other, indulge in some exotification and get it on, and once their children are born, begin to merge their cultures. Other way around.

    Why do they come together to form a single merged culture? For economic reasons -- for both the Punic and various Jewish converts from the Dark Ages, to gain access to the ethnic patronage networks that control lucrative trade routes.

    Both the Sicilian / Aegean and the native North African groups had a material interest in having some control over the Mediterranean-wide trade networks that the Phoenicians were establishing, and both had to somehow imitate or join the establishers of those trade networks -- speaking Phoenician (or some pidgin based on it), adopting their religion, and so on.

    This common economic interest led to them having a shared cultural interest, and after that endured for some time, they figured -- why not cement this new culture by intermarrying? Economic and cultural "scenes" may come and go -- you have to make sure they're somewhat enduring before you cement the cultural fusion with a genetic fusion.

    ReplyDelete
  106. The lucrative trade routes that Ashkenazis wanted access to were those passing through the Khazar Empire, BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Bob Fosse’s “rich man’s fugue”.

    The lead dancer swishes her ponytail around.

    But it is very controlled.

    No one cracks a smile in that dance.

    Apparently, it was uncomfortable for the lead dancer—her hair piece gave her an headache and her shoes were too small. Poor girl!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Fascinatingly enough, there appears to be a distinctive Indo-European cultural practice among the Punic people, which mirrors the pattern of the Ashkenazi Jews, both of whose source populations were Indo-European rather than Saharo-Arabian.

    In fact, it's one I already covered extensively -- egg decoration! Related to playing the egg-tapping game. Do a CTRL-F for "egg":

    https://akinokure.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-non-judaean-origins-of-medieval-and.html

    The article on the Punic DNA study includes an image of a painted ostrich egg from Punic grave goods found in southern Spain.

    I noted in the post above that egg decoration is not mentioned for Ancient Romans or Greeks, although it is for their Medieval period. It does have deep roots in Iranian and Slavic cultures.

    So, perhaps the Punic egg decoration is the missing link to attest this practice among Ancient Greeks -- and they were *ancient* Ancient Greeks, before the Golden Age of Athens and all that. More like the Greek Dark Ages of the early 1st millennium BC.

    Since they're only found as grave goods, we don't know the cultural context in which they were made for other occasions. The Indo-European ritual decorates eggs for the springtime renewal holiday -- from which our Medieval and Modern Easter eggs descend, as well as decorated eggs for Nowruz.

    Did Punic people also decorate eggs for their springtime renewal holiday? Who knows? But it's possible, given their affinity for decorating eggs for funerary purposes. Maybe it was a broader practice of theirs, and descended from a common Indo-Euro origin with Easter eggs and Nowruz eggs.

    Egg decoration is certainly not common for Saharo-Arabian cultures, and the only one that shows some variant of it is mixed between Indo-Euro and Saharo-Arabian -- namely, the Sephardic Jews of Iberia, some of whose ancestors were Indo-Euro (and others, arrivistes from North Africa). So it's doubtful that Punic people adopted this from the Phoenicians, or from the local North Africans.

    Especially the egg-tapping game -- that goes as far east as northeastern India. But for that, we'd need a good ethnography on the Punic people, or even an off-hand reference to it from the old old days. It's very widespread among Indo-Euro cultures, though, so they very well may have played that game for the springtime renewal holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Zooming out to other big-picture questions, this study is another nail in the coffin of the genetic migration model for the spread of languages and culture generally. If that's how it worked, genes and culture would correlate highly -- but the more we look, the lower that correlation becomes.

    The reason is simple -- there are all sorts of material / economic reasons to adopt a foreign culture -- elements of it, anyway -- but not intermarrying with them. You want an active role in their trade route, so you have to be able to communicate with them, maybe break bread and build trust through shared holidays / celebrations / rituals, share a moral framework, and therefore borrow (elements of) their religion. But you don't have to get it on with them and raise children together -- that's superfluous to operating a lucrative trade route (or whatever else the economic cash cow is).

    Let alone if there are empires expanding -- then huge swaths of people come to adopt a foreign language cuz of who is conquering them and administering their territory. A large fraction of the world speaks Indo-European languages, but very few of the large sub-group of them from Central and Southern America were speaking them 500 years ago, and their genes are not correlated with "Indo-European" genes.

    At a finer-grained level, a large fraction of Americans have recent ancestors who did not speak English -- even if they spoke some other Indo-Euro language -- but now they all do. It's not as if 99% of American DNA traces back to Britain. And the African-American minority did not speak any Indo-Euro language before coming here.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Finally, on the topic of expanding empires, the Punic DNA study further suggests that the Phoenicians were not an empire -- not an expanding polity. They were mainly setting up an international or cosmopolitan economic network, and relied on locals to do the main work outside of the Phoenician homeland. And *that* is how they spread their language, alphabet, religion, etc. -- not by conquest and/or migration, but giving foreigners an economic incentive to adopt parts of their culture.

    The Phoenicians fall into that sub-imperial / regional great power level, which usually only happens during some kind of power vacuum, and comes to an abrupt end when true empires begin expanding.

    The Phoenicians were expanding throughout the Mediterranean in the wake of the Late Bronze Age Collapse, coincident with the Greek Dark Ages, which gave the Sicilian / Aegean people good reason to set sail for North Africa, adopt Phoenician culture, and live more prosperous lives than they could back in their bombed-out homeland.

    Phoenicians were not spawned on a meta-ethnic frontier, in response to a meta-ethnic nemesis, and so they were not bound to expand like an empire.

    When real empires came along in the second half of the 1st millennium BC, like the Achaemenids and later the Romans, first the Phoenicians and later their Punic cultural relatives were defeated and absorbed.

    Phoenicians and Punic people could only hold together as a culture as long as there was no super-cohesive empire expanding nearby. That was possible between the Bronze Age array of empires, and the Classical Age array of empires, during the time of the Odyssey. Some of Odysseus' men could have wound up speaking a Phoenician pidgin in Carthage!

    But once the super-cohesive empires, spawned in reaction to meta-ethnic nemeses, arose -- it was game over for the Punic people and the Phoenicians.

    Indeed, the Punic people were one of the 2 main meta-ethnic nemeses that brought about the Roman Empire -- the first and strongest one being the Celts / Gauls to the northwest, but later the Punic people to the southwest.

    That Punic pressure to Southwest Italy is why it is more cohesive than Southeast Italy, even though both were spared the far more intense pressure from the Northwest due to the Gauls. Southwest Italians at least had some degree of meta-ethnic nemesis bearing down on them, when the Carthaginians invaded.

    That is why the Campanians were more loyal and reliable allies of the Romans, compared to the Southeastern Italic tribes, who were eager to ally with the Gauls and Carthaginians instead -- what traitors! Just a bunch of jealous haters who couldn't stand for the Romans, rather than themselves, to be the uniters of the peninsula.

    And that's one reason why Naples has always been a far more cohesive and influential and creative city in Italy, especially compared to the rest of the Mezzogiorno. They were also a Byzantine protectorate for awhile, but unlike Venice (another Byzantine protectorate), they succumbed to the Germanic hordes, whereas those hordes were held at bay near Venice, increasing the meta-ethnic pressure which led to the high asabiya and expanding regional polity of the Venetian Republic, which I covered here:

    https://akinokure.blogspot.com/2023/12/venetian-ethnogenesis-and-its-role-as.html

    ReplyDelete
  111. Confirmation #1 -- Punic language had "v" by the 3rd C BC. Wiki says that "b" was fricativized to "v", but that's only half the truth -- its location was changed from bilabial to labio-dental, and that's the key thing that's so Indo-European, a labio-dental fricative.

    Some language have a labio-dental approximant (Dravidian), or a bilabial fricactive (Modern Spanish), but labio-dental fricative is the purest phonological shibboleth for Indo-European as you can get. It is as distinctive of Indo-Euro as the emphatic consonants, or pharyngeal consonants, are for Saharo-Arabian.

    Saharo-Arabian speakers have never independently evolved a "v" sound, nor have they even adopted it for loan words that come from Indo-Euro, like Arabic pronunciations for "Volvo" or whatever.

    So it is almost guaranteed that the speakers of Punic were not originally Saharo-Arabian -- adopting and mainstreaming a "v" would've been as difficult as the Romance speakers of Malta adopting and mainstreaming an emphatic consonant -- which they did not. Or Yiddish and other Indo-Euro speakers adopting emphatic and pharyngeal consonants when they learned Zionish -- which they never did. Zionish has none of the phonological shibboleths of Saharo-Arabian.

    I write these thoughts as they occur, so that I can use them as predictions, rather than look too extensively into them and write it all at once.

    So far, major confirmation of my hunch -- Punic was not a Saharo-Arabian language, although in some ways it may have imitated or been modeled on one, and was adopted by non-Saharo-Arabian speakers, whose Indo-European native tongue left distinctive Indo-Euro fingerprints on it, like the widespread use of "v".

    Bingo!

    ReplyDelete
  112. And we can dismiss lazy claims about Punic people "borrowing" a "v" sound after initial contact with the Romans.

    First of all, Latin didn't have "v" -- neither did Proto-Indo-Euro, which was more of a "w". So there was no "v" in Italy for the Punics to pick up from Italic speakers.

    Likewise, there was no "v" in Ancient Greek -- also the "w" from Proto-Indo-Euro. (Avestan, the ancient Iranian language, also lacked "v" but did have "w".) So, it was not carried over from the Ancient Greek of the Sicilian / Aegean population.

    And the Punics only first encountered the Italics in battle in the mid-3rd C BC, by which point the "v" was already widespread in Punic. It would have taken some time for contact to copy it from one place to the other.

    Also, meta-ethnic nemeses do not generally copy each other's culture! That's the whole point, that they're so different and antagonistic. Why didn't we adopt elements of any Native American language's phonology? Cuz that would've come from the Indian raiders who were our meta-ethnic nemesis! Why don't we just start scalping our fellow Americans while we're at it...

    ReplyDelete
  113. As I explained in the earlier discussion of "v" and Indo-Euro, because it's not there in the Proto stage, or even various ancient attested descendants (like Ancient Greek and Latin), it was more of a reaction to encounters with various non-Indo-Euro cultures during Late Antiquity and the Dark Ages.

    Indo-Euros discovered that those people, many of whom were Saharo-Arabian speakers, could not pronounce a "v" but that the Indo-Euros could -- not cuz it was inherited from P-I-E, but for whatever reason it wasn't that difficult for them to improvise it on the fly.

    So that was the solution they hit upon, to distinguish Indo-Euros from non-Indo-Euros, no matter who the latter group was.

    This was not some physical / mechanical process that happens all over the world throughout time -- only the Indo-Euro languages evolved the "v", all throughout their range, from Ireland to India. I doubt they held an Indo-Euro-wide council to decide this matter for all of them. They just tried things out, and noticed that "v" was something that none of their non-Indo-Euro neighbors / enemies could pronounce, while they themselves could.

    So they independently adopted a "v" throughout Indo-Euro territory, as a shibboleth for who was Indo-Euro vs. not-Indo-Euro. And not cuz they conceived of themselves as Indo-Euro, and their rivals as non-Indo-Euro. They conceived of themselves as Punics, as French, as Sasanians or Persians, or Armenians, Byzantines, Turks, or whatever.

    But all sorts of their rivals were not-Indo-Euro, and This One Weird Trick was a common solution to distinguishing Punics / French / Armenians / Punjabis / etc., from their various non-Indo-Euro antagonistic neighbors.

    Punic adoption of "v" is actually far ahead of schedule -- perhaps because they were one of *the* original cases of Indo-Euros encountering Saharo-Arabians, both from the Berber-ish North African strain and the Phoenician sailer strain. Italic and Hellenic languages wouldn't adopt the "v" for some time later, when they encountered the Arabian armies who spread Islam in the Dark Ages, or some other Saharo-Arabian nomadic group during Late Antiquity.

    In any case, it shows that Punic was Indo-European, notwithstanding whatever other elements it tried (and/or failed) to adopt from Phoenician. If you pronounce "v", your language is not Saharo-Arabian.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Confirmation #2: disappearance of pharyngeal, uvular, and epiglottal consonants. Wiki says this happened in "Late" and "Neo-" Punic, but perhaps this was just the more conservative orthography finally yielding to the earlier spoken reality.

    No pharyngeal "h" or ayin, which were instead written to represent vowels -- which Saharo-Arabian languages did not do. No glottal stop. No "q".

    That would only leave emphatic "t" and "s" as distinctly Saharo-Arabian consonants. But I'm sure the story is similar there, too -- preserved in writing to distinguish words used in contracts, rituals, etc., but either pronounced identically in speech, or still using two different pronunciations -- but not a Saharo-Arabian emphatic pronunciation. Maybe something like "t" vs. "th" in English.

    Otherwise, we're supposed to believe Punic had 3 "s"-es, akin to seen, sheen, and saad in Arabic. I *don't* think so, given the fate of those other distinctly Saharo-Arabian consonants in the throat area, and given the Indo-Euro language spoken by the adopters of Punic.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Also worth emphasizing the time-frame -- we're not talking about Saharo-Arabian languages in the 3rd millennium AD losing a "q", like some dialects of Arabic have.

    We're talking about a purported Saharo-Arabian language losing so many of these unique consonants 2000 years ago! Impossible!

    They could only have been "lost" if they were never fully adopted in the first place, due to the speech community being non-Saharo-Arabian speakers (Indo-Euro, as it turns out), and the resulting language being a hybrid or pidgin.

    ReplyDelete
  116. So far, the lexicon is heavily Semitic, no surprise there. But that doesn't prove anything -- look how much Semitic there is in the lexicon of Farsi, but it's Indo-Euro. We know the Punic people were trying to communicate with Phoenician overseers, so of course they would choose Phoenician words for easing communication.

    And as I pointed out earlier w.r.t. Maltese, you can borrow multiple forms of a base word, without those multiple forms representing productive morphological processes in your language. Like how English adopted "radius" and "radii" from Latin (or pseudo-Latin for science), despite English having no such rule about altering "-us" to "-i" to indicate the plural number.

    Semitic zipper morphology, the various verb forms, etc., do seem fairly productive in Zionish, so it is possible for non-Saharo-Arabians to adopt their unique morphology. But *not* their unique consonants -- and that's why the literal example of shibboleth comes from phonology, not morphology.

    Phonology is too physical, morphology less so. One is far more wired-in after rote practice during development, the other is more abstract and cerebral and can be acquired by putting your thinking cap on and imitating it in adulthood.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Confirmation #3: a shift toward analytic and away from synthetic ways of conveying meaning. That is, not encoding meaning by complex inflection on the words themselves, but leaving that part simple and relying more on word order and syntax.

    As I've been explaining for several years now, simplified morphology and shift to analytic means of conveying tense, aspect, mood, etc., is a telltale sign of L2 learners picking up the language -- almost always due to imperial expansion.

    Well, in this case it's more of a regional great power than a proper empire, but the same reason applies. Shitloads of people who are not only not-Phoenician speakers, but not-Saharo-Arabian speakers, are trying to communicate with Phoenician overseers.

    And all that damn inflection is opaque rather than transparent, and arbitrary much like a shibboleth, so just get rid of it. Word order is more transparent and straightforward.

    IIRC, Zionish is like this as well -- it has productive zipper morphology like other Semitic languages, and it distinguishes multiple verb paradigms, etc. ... but relies a lot more on syntax and word order, than on inflection, compared to Biblical Hebrew.

    Maltese is even more analytic than Zionish.

    Modern Arabic, for that matter, has lost a ton of its former inflection -- cuz it became an imperial lingua franca after the Arabian Empire that spread Islam brought it to L2 learners all across North Africa and the Middle East.

    In any case, more evidence that Punic was not Saharo-Arabian, and its speakers didn't come from that kind of background. They were L2 learners adopting it for some pragmatic purpose (wanting to help administer a trade route, and being able to communicate with their overseers).

    ReplyDelete
  118. That's it on this topic. Lots more for you to learn, than what appears in the original study, or the press releases about it -- that's why you have to make that trek up the Cliffs of Wisdom to ask the sage of the blogosphere's ruins, what his thoughts on it are?

    If it's an intersting topic, I'll let you know! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  119. Addendum: Punic did not have "v" after all, but the other confirmations still stand for the language being a hybrid or pidgin, not a Saharo-Arabian language entirely. There was still a loss or absence of several distinctly S-A consonants, and there was a loss of inflection / synthetic strategies in favor of analytic / syntactic / helper word strategies.

    But upon looking deeper into whether Punic had "v" -- no, it definitely did not. Again, we have no native speakers or recordings, or apparently any detailed linguistic commentary from the time it was spoken. So at most we can say there was something in the vicinity of "v".

    But was that a bilabial voiced fricative? No way. Not only did the Indo-Euro languages of that time period *not* have "v" (Proto-Celtic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Avestan, Pali -- none had it back then), neither did any of the Saharo-Arabian languages.

    It would have been the first appearance of "v" in world history, by many many centuries. That is an extreme claim, so we require extremely convincing evidence -- and that simply isn't there for this not-so-well attested language of the 1st millennium BC.

    What *was* it then, if not "v"? Probably the voiced bilabial fricative, written as beta in phonology (B with a tail under the vertical part). Wiki claims that this "v"-like thing evolved from an earlier "b" -- which means this was just another example of Saharo-Arabian languages of that time producing an allophonic variant of "b" as beta, typically when pronounced between two vowels.

    Aramaic did this, so did Biblical Hebrew, and possibly the closely related Phoenician did as well. If Punic modeled its phonology on Phoenician, it could have borrowed this beta consonant as well -- it's not emphatic, uvular, etc. Not so distinctive of S-A languages, not very hard to pronounce, so the Sicilian-Aegean majority could've adopted it without much trouble.

    There are other S-A languages today where beta is an allophonic variant, in addition to some Indo-Euro languages where it's allophonic (like Modern Spanish). Seemingly the only one where it's phonemic is Kabyle -- a Berber language, which has fricatives as phonemes where most other Berber languages have stop consonants.

    But all sorts of other language families throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia have it as an allophonic variant as well. It's not very distinctive of any particular language family. Not a shibboleth sound, like Saharo-Arabian emphatics, or the Indo-European "v" (from the Medieval and Modern stages).

    So, the "v"-like consonant of Punic was likely beta, as an allophonic variant of "b" between vowels (or other sonorants?). So that first confirmation can be ignored, and the people who write the Wiki entries need to be clearer in how they represent the truth -- there's no way it's "v", so write it as beta or the labiodental approximant or whatever it was, and don't fool people into thinking it's "v"!

    Like I said, the other confirmations stand, and Punic appears to be like Maltese and Zionish -- just without the "v" that both of those Indo-Euro-derived languages had, since they're from the Medieval to Modern era, whereas Punic didn't have a "v" to carry over from its Indo-Euro speakers' first language, since no language had "v" back then.

    Indo-Euro / Saharo-Arabian hybrid at best, perhaps more of a pidgin, and in any case, reflecting the fact that the Punic people were *not* Levantines or other Saharo-Arabians, except for a local North African minority, akin to North Africans and Yemenis being part of Israel, where the majority are Indo-European.

    ReplyDelete
  120. And the larger point being -- culture could've told us a lot of this *without* analyzing their DNA. Just tell me whether they pronounced emphatic consonants, had uvular / pharyngeal / epiglottal consonants, back in the 1st millennium BC when all the other Semitic speakers did. If they didn't -- guess what, they're not speaking a Semitic language, and they're not culturally Semitic either! They must be adopters of (parts of) Semitic culture, from outside of it.

    The only other major cultural group in that time and place would've been Indo-Europeans, and from the southern Euro portion -- so, just what the DNA would have confirmed, Sicilian and Greek.

    Genetic analyses can produce contradictory, fuzzy, or misleading outcomes depending on who all is included in the comparison cases, or in-group vs. out-group cases. The cultural analysis wouldn't have been confused.

    Do a good cultural analysis first, and only when that's unclear, run a DNA test. We're talking about cultural groups anyway, and asking where they came from, who their cultural predecessors were, who their genetic ancestors may have been, etc.

    No one asks big questions about a genetically defined population -- "Where did haplogroup XYZ come from, and when?" Who cares? We ask big questions about where culturally defined groups -- Indo-European speakers, Italians, Romans, Berbers, Punics, Phoenicians, Gauls, Franks, French, etc.

    Genetic populations are not interesting, especially for studying history. History's actors or characters are not genetic populations, but cultural communities.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Last point, about mythical foreign founders: Dido founded Carthage in mythology, and she was supposedly a Phoenician queen from Tyre, who set sail for the Maghreb with some Cypriots. IDK if Cypriots in the 9th C BC were Greek-ified, or still Levantine transplants. But either way, they would've been foreigners in the Maghreb.

    I think that myth makes better sense in light of the Punics / Carthaginians NOT being Phoenicians, Levantines, or other Saharo-Arabians. It makes Dido an even more exotic foreign founder, if the community claiming her as their founder is Sicilian and Aegean, with a North African minority (still not Levantine).

    If the Punics were just Phoenicians who had mass-migrated elsewhere, then Dido is merely the first mover of that migration -- she's not a *foreign* founder. And who wants to be founded by ones genetic and cultural ancestors? That's too chauvinist -- we want to be founded by some illustrious noble foreigner, whose glory is a vouching for us, or an extension of credit to us.

    "Hey, don't take our chauvinist self-serving word for it -- take the word of our illustrious noble foreign founder!"

    In their mythological genesis narrative, Rome wasn't founded by Romulus and Remus directly -- but by a Trojan, Aeneas.

    Reminder: Trojans were the enemies of the Greeks in the Trojan War, and were closer to the Hittites and other Anatolian Indo-Euro cultures. So the Romans were constructing their new identity as decidedly non-Greek or even anti-Greek, they were no longer Greco-LARP-ers with flat-roofed temples and post-and-lintel architecture, they were the arch-vault-and-dome inventors!

    In the Roman mythology, Aeneas meets Dido herself, so there's another link between the Trojans as legendary founders and another faraway civilization. But even if we dismiss this as a Roman myth, not a native Punic myth, it still stands that Dido was a foreign exotic founder, cuz the Punics were mainly Sicilian-Aegean, with a Maghrebi minority, none of them being Levantines.

    Yep, Levantine hottie-baddies were all the rage even before the reign of Queen Zenobia. Unstoppable charmers. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you think about the Sumerians? What’s your hypothesis on them?

      Delete

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."