The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by ComradeB on Sat Jun 23, 2018 5:47 am

Hello,

I am Brian, or ComradeB. I introduced myself in the introduction thread a one or two days ago, and then I promised I would contribute original content that day. I failed to do this due to the fact that I assumed no one would be interested, however in my email today I was surprised to discover several responses to my introduction expressing anticipation for my contribution. Better late than never I presume, so the following is a brief critique of sexuality which has lived in my thought processes for sometime, but was never solidified in the form of writing. This is the first time that I will have ever explicitly expressed an overarching Antisexual position.

The primary argument for my disapproval of sex and romance is that this act inherently objectifies the partner with which the acts of sex and romance occur. I need not explain why objectification of human beings is problematic, instead I will detail how sex and romance inherently objectifies human beings.

The objectification comes in multiple forms, the first form is the judgement of, and treatment based upon, physical appearance. The second form is the judgement of, and treatment based upon, personality. I recognize that the second form is perhaps much more controversial than the first, given the fact that most people treat the idea of loving a person based upon personality as a good thing, however in this letter I will detail why this is problematic. The third form is the judgement of, and treatment based upon, profession or socioeconomic status. There are of course other forms of objectification in the sexual board of admissions, however I will focus on these three in the remainder of this letter.

I will grant that emphasis on physical appearance varies from person to person. There are people who exist in which physical appearance encompasses almost all of their criterion for a partner (Partner meaning romantic and/or sexual partner), and others who exist in which physical appearance encompasses relatively little. However this does not make a difference to me, as what matters is that physical appearance plays any part in the judgement process. Particularly the dimensions of the face, which is a very interesting case study since the dimensions of the face commonly contribute a lot to the judgements of physical appearance. The reason that this is interesting is because these facial differences are very slight, and insignificant in other areas of life where humans are objectified for other purposes (e.g. In sports their main concern is with physical features that affect sports performance).

However in the Sexual Board of Admissions, minute facial dimensions play a role in determining sexual partnership. These dimensional differences are so minuscule, that virtually anyone can take a photo of their face, upload the photo to a photo editor, make several small changes and instantly change from what is socially accepted as attractive/unattractive to the exact opposite. This has led to people who, for example, growing up were deemed as unattractive by their peers, only to suddenly become attractive as an adult and subsequently being treated better, also, people who have experienced changes in weight have also reported being treated better or worse both in public and in sexual context. This has led many people to receive plastic surgery to change these facial features, however outer prosexual society has responded to cosmetic plastic surgery with a hostile attitude, telling those who undergo procedures that they need to be more confident and accept their bodies. Imagine that, the same people who treat you better, or worse, based upon physical features which are not easily changed, become hostile toward those people who undergo relatively extreme measures in order to (do what amounts to) be treated better. I believe that people should question why a person feels the need to change their face rather than hate them for it, shaming doesn't do anything to address the underlying issue.

The last paragraph was a bit of a ramble, relevant, but off track a bit, so I will return to my primary argument. Physical appearance should not play a role at all in judging anyone for the vast majority of things which exist, including sex, especially a determining role. Western society today, generally agrees that people should not be judged by their physical appearance, rather by their character, people will often times justify sex by claiming that physical appearance plays no role, however this is an easily debunked claim, given the fact than when asked which features they look for in a partner, physical features will most likely be named, and when asked which features they do not like, physical features will also most likely be named. Physical appearances does not offer any conclusive information about the character of the individual, especially those physical appearances that are brought by genetics, and the character of the individual should be the only factor considered in regards to social judgment. And physical appearance is inherently a factor in determining a sexual partner.



Take this analogy, imagine that you would like to play a basketball game and you need to choose between two people to be on your team. Person A is decent, however he cannot shoot the ball reliably, he can handle the ball reliably however he never passes the ball, he often times expresses dissatisfaction at your mistakes in spite of the fact that he also makes the same mistakes. On the bright side, he follows the rules. Person B can shoot reliably, handle the ball reliably, passes the ball regularly, is encouraging, and follows the rules. Now imagine that you consider Person A to be very physically attractive whilst you find Person B to be very physically unattractive, so you choose person A in spite of the fact that your choice may cause you to lose the game. This is extremely unfair to Person B, everything that was within Person B's control he did well, however Person A is chosen for a rather superficial, immature reason.


In the Sexual Board of Admissions, this is commonplace. A person who is otherwise competent is rejected whilst a person who is otherwise incompetent in accepted. This does not exclusively entail having good character and being deemed unattractive, people who *trigger warning* would be deemed "good at sex" can be rejected due to their physical appearance, and I think that this debunks sex as a recreational (rather than an intimate) activity, as in recreation a person would most likely choose a partner who is competent at whatever recreational they are engaging in (e.g. If you're doing psychedelic drugs with someone, you prefer someone who doesn't panic when they hallucinate).


I foresee an objection, the objection that in recreational activities people are often times not judged by competence, but are not judged at all. For example sometimes people will play table tennis with another person for no real reason, perhaps to bond, however bonding implies friendship and friendship does not inherently require physical appearance to be a determining factor. Therefore sex, viewed as a recreational activity, does not necessarily necessitate objectification in the form of physical appearance.


I disagree with this objection, as virtually no one will have sex with someone else without taking physical appearance into account. And in the rare case that such a thing does happen, champions of human rights debate to this day whether or not such actions count as consent (e.g. prostitution, blackmail, etc)


I realize that this has gotten to be very long. So I will end it here without writing any further on the matter. If you guys enjoyed this then I will modify it and finish it some other time.

ComradeB

Posts : 30
Join date : 2018-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by SCH0206 on Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:25 pm

I enjoy reading your post. What you said about pulchritude is something that I can relate to. During my K-12 years, many of my peers picked on me for not being "beautiful" enough. This drove me to honor inner beauty, something many people take for granted.

What you said about people being looked down on in their past due to being unattractive only to be treated better years later reminds me of a trope in TV shows and films. A homely character is a misfit during their K-12 years, and when it fast forwards to a high school reunion or something, they have a makeover, and suddenly they get respect from those who picked on them. (Yeesh, what a message to send. You only have value if you bow down to a superficial standard of attractiveness. Talk about shallow.)

About cosmetic surgery: I'm not sure if I agree with you about all prosexual people condemning cosmetic surgery. I guess in my opinion, it varies from person to person; some condemn it while others praise it. But, I do agree with you about those who are hypocritical about it. Speaking of cosmetic surgery, it made me think about Rodrigo Alves, aka the Human Ken Doll. He broke the world's record in having the most plastic surgeries (about 60). He barely looks human, and I can't help but feel sorry for him. In an article, he admitted that he had the surgeries as a response to his peers picking on him as a kid. According to him, the surgeries make him a stronger person, but I don't see how caving in to bullies make you a strong person. I hope that he concentrates on inner beauty or he may kill himself if he gets anymore surgeries. I found out that he speaks about five to six languages, and that's beautiful to me. Why can't he just focus on that?

I do have one nitpick, though: you mentioned that some prosexuals judge others based on social status or profession, but you didn't go deep into it. I would like to hear you elaborate on that.

Otherwise, excellent essay!

SCH0206

Posts : 456
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by Biscotti on Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:09 pm

As an aside, this made me think of something.

I'm against plastic surgery.
However, I am for digital avatars. (for this point, imagine a world where ONLY digital avatars exist)
What's the difference?

Maybe the latter is more honest about what it is? Just an avatar. It can be changed on the fly, and to whatever you want.
And perhaps because of that reason, it also solves the problem of judging by appearances. A digital avatar would be so arbitrary that it would be completely illogical to judge someone by it.
Also unnecessary surgery is gross.

--

I like your post and I think we've come to the same conclusion. When arguing antisexualism, I look for negative things that I could say sex inherently is. And like you, objectification is always the most sound objection I have in that framework (the framework of saying it's inherently something negative). 

I'd also like to hear you elaborate as SCH0206 says.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by ComradeB on Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:38 pm

@SCH0206 wrote:About cosmetic surgery: I'm not sure if I agree with you about all prosexual people condemning cosmetic surgery. I guess in my opinion, it varies from person to person; some condemn it while others praise it. But, I do agree with you about those who are hypocritical about it. Speaking of cosmetic surgery, it made me think about Rodrigo Alves, aka the Human Ken Doll. He broke the world's record in having the most plastic surgeries (about 60). He barely looks human, and I can't help but feel sorry for him. In an article, he admitted that he had the surgeries as a response to his peers picking on him as a kid. According to him, the surgeries make him a stronger person, but I don't see how caving in to bullies make you a strong person. I hope that he concentrates on inner beauty or he may kill himself if he gets anymore surgeries. I found out that he speaks about five to six languages, and that's beautiful to me. Why can't he just focus on that?

I do have one nitpick, though: you mentioned that some prosexuals judge others based on social status or profession, but you didn't go deep into it. I would like to hear you elaborate on that.

Otherwise, excellent essay!

Thank you for your response! When I wrote the essay I was not careful enough to make the caveat that not all prosexuals are against plastic surgery, I do recognize that not all prosexuals are against it. However I also feel that being pro-plastic surgery does not make sex any more acceptable. For one, most people will never have access to cosmetic plastic surgery, this means that only the rich will have the ability to undergo procedures. Two, there are some things, deemed important by society, that cosmetic surgery cannot change, such as height, and it also cannot make major differences in skin tone. Three, I'd imagine the more people change their face, the higher the beauty standards will get and we'd all just get back to square one. Four, plastic surgery encourages people to change a part of them that should not even be relevant, instead of changing parts that should be relevant.

I feel that the emphasis on physical appearance in modern society is a form of classism and doesn't help anyone.

ComradeB

Posts : 30
Join date : 2018-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by ComradeB on Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:40 pm

@Biscotti wrote:As an aside, this made me think of something.

I'm against plastic surgery.
However, I am for digital avatars. (for this point, imagine a world where ONLY digital avatars exist)
What's the difference?

Maybe the latter is more honest about what it is? Just an avatar. It can be changed on the fly, and to whatever you want.
And perhaps because of that reason, it also solves the problem of judging by appearances. A digital avatar would be so arbitrary that it would be completely illogical to judge someone by it.
Also unnecessary surgery is gross.

--

I like your post and I think we've come to the same conclusion. When arguing antisexualism, I look for negative things that I could say sex inherently is. And like you, objectification is always the most sound objection I have in that framework (the framework of saying it's inherently something negative). 

I'd also like to hear you elaborate as SCH0206 says.
Thank you for your response! I agree. What are your other objections to sex?

ComradeB

Posts : 30
Join date : 2018-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by xenosimiana on Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:52 pm

"I disagree with this objection, as virtually no one will have sex with someone else without taking physical appearance into account. And in the rare case that such a thing does happen, champions of human rights debate to this day whether or not such actions count as consent (e.g. prostitution, blackmail, etc)"
 
First, I want to say Welcome! It's great to have another member on the forum!
 
The person or object that’s available and not considered attractive plays substitute. So, in some or many cases they “fantasize” about someone (or even something or a situation) that’s considered attractive to go through with it.
 
Your essay is very compelling, but I still think that sex can be viewed as recreational to a certain extent because of the activity itself; the drive to participate, esp. if it can achieve the end goal or get closer to it. Sometimes people play basketball with a crate as a hoop instead of an actual one.
 
I’ve heard a few stories of men and women getting caught “cheating” on their partners with someone that’s unattractive compared to their partner they’re cheating on. And many people would ask the question: “Why did he/she do that when their partner is very beautiful?” One reason would be, “They wouldn’t give me sex or a type of sexual act I wanted.” But I guess that would probably play into this:
I think it’s a little ironic you mention their debating on whether it's consent when it's with an unattractive person, because in my mind it's almost the same with an attractive one. 

xenosimiana

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by ComradeB on Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:46 am

@xenosimiana wrote: The person or object that’s available and not considered attractive plays substitute. So, in some or many cases they “fantasize” about someone (or even something or a situation) that’s considered attractive to go through with it.
 
Your essay is very compelling, but I still think that sex can be viewed as recreational to a certain extent because of the activity itself; the drive to participate, esp. if it can achieve the end goal or get closer to it. Sometimes people play basketball with a crate as a hoop instead of an actual one.
 
I’ve heard a few stories of men and women getting caught “cheating” on their partners with someone that’s unattractive compared to their partner they’re cheating on. And many people would ask the question: “Why did he/she do that when their partner is very beautiful?” One reason would be, “They wouldn’t give me sex or a type of sexual act I wanted.” But I guess that would probably play into this:
I think it’s a little ironic you mention their debating on whether it's consent when it's with an unattractive person, because in my mind it's almost the same with an attractive one. 
Objectification is not only about physical appearance, so even in the case where one fantasizes about someone other than the person they're having sex with, that is still problematic because there are possibly other objectifying confounding factors at play. As well as the problem of a person using another person in sexual context.

Your cheating example, I'd argue, doesn't help the prosexual argument much, as again there are other confounding variables contingent on objectification. Also the very act of monogamous relationships are problematic, no one has exclusive usage rights on anyone else, that is objectification at its finest.

And when I was talking about the problem of consent, I did not mean an attractive person having sex with an unattractive person, I meant a person having sex with another person through means such as prostitution and blackmail. Is prostitution consensual?

In regard to sex as a recreational activity, I did not mean that it was not a recreational activity, instead I meant that it cannot be justified as one. For example, cage fighting is a recreational activity, however cage fighting is problematic so rational people generally are against cage fighting. The arguments for sex usually come as either the argument from intimacy (sex is an expression of love) or as an argument from recreation (sex is a fun recreational activity), my counterargument is that in both of these cases, sex is problematic as one cannot get over the objectification of another human being.

To detail further why fantasies are still a problem. Imagine if you wanted to hang out with Person A, but Person A doesn't really care about you or like you, however Person A can't hang out with Person B who Person A does care about and like. So Person A agrees to hang out with you, while walking in the park, Person A imagines that you're Person B and pretends that you're Person B just so that Person A can bare hanging out with you. How would that make you feel?


Last edited by ComradeB on Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:55 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Adding new information)

ComradeB

Posts : 30
Join date : 2018-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by xenosimiana on Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:11 am

@ComradeB wrote:
@xenosimiana wrote: The person or object that’s available and not considered attractive plays substitute. So, in some or many cases they “fantasize” about someone (or even something or a situation) that’s considered attractive to go through with it.
 
Your essay is very compelling, but I still think that sex can be viewed as recreational to a certain extent because of the activity itself; the drive to participate, esp. if it can achieve the end goal or get closer to it. Sometimes people play basketball with a crate as a hoop instead of an actual one.
 
I’ve heard a few stories of men and women getting caught “cheating” on their partners with someone that’s unattractive compared to their partner they’re cheating on. And many people would ask the question: “Why did he/she do that when their partner is very beautiful?” One reason would be, “They wouldn’t give me sex or a type of sexual act I wanted.” But I guess that would probably play into this:
I think it’s a little ironic you mention their debating on whether it's consent when it's with an unattractive person, because in my mind it's almost the same with an attractive one. 
Objectification is not only about physical appearance, so even in the case where one fantasizes about someone other than the person they're having sex with, that is still problematic because there are possibly other objectifying confounding factors at play. As well as the problem of a person using another person in sexual context.
I know that it isn't and there's other factors involved, it seemed to be what you were focusing on more. And you're saying the same thing I'm saying in a different way, I don't quite get your point in typing this part. Don't take it as me being confrontational or whatever.

Your cheating example, I'd argue, doesn't help the prosexual argument much, as again there are other confounding variables contingent on objectification. Also the very act of monogamous relationships are problematic, no one has exclusive usage rights on anyone else, that is objectification at its finest.


And when I was talking about the problem of consent, I did not mean an attractive person having sex with an unattractive person, I meant a person having sex with another person through means such as prostitution and blackmail. Is prostitution consensual?


Ok, I'm not talking about one person being attractive and one being unattractive, what I mean is how one perceives the other as attractive or unattractive, and the motive for why they would or wouldn't, at least I thought that's what you're saying in that particular part. I'm thinking you mean in the rare case someone does have sex with another without taking physical appearance into account, that certain folks would debate as to whether it's consensual (with someone defining or interpreting consensual to mean that they "want" to instead of "need" to, for the lack of better words) that only happens through blackmail, prostitution, etc. In other words, someone would only have sex with someone they deem ugly out of money or threats.

Is prostitution consensual? There's levels to it, but for now I would say yes and no in terms of someone willingly making the choice to pursue that compared to for example, getting kidnapped and threatened to do that.

In regard to sex as a recreational activity, I did not mean that it was not a recreational activity, instead I meant that it cannot be justified as one. For example, cage fighting is a recreational activity, however cage fighting is problematic so rational people generally are against cage fighting. The arguments for sex usually come as either the argument from intimacy (sex is an expression of love) or as an argument from recreation (sex is a fun recreational activity), my counterargument is that in both of these cases, sex is problematic as one cannot get over the objectification of another human being.

To detail further why fantasies are still a problem. Imagine if you wanted to hang out with Person A, but Person A doesn't really care about you or like you, however Person A can't hang out with Person B who Person A does care about and like. So Person A agrees to hang out with you, while walking in the park, Person A imagines that you're Person B and pretends that you're Person B just so that Person A can bare hanging out with you. How would that make you feel?

It's disgusting really, it's devaluing and doesn't end well. I also think A is fake, pathetic, and wasting their time and mine. In the case that I don't recognize it at first, eventually it's ugly head is going to rear because more than likely A would try to make me more like B, because I think the fantasizing would only last for so long esp. if their separation from B is extensive. And because I'm not that conforming, A would get mad at me for not trying to be like B so I'll stop hanging out with them. All of that could've been avoided if they've been honest.


Last edited by xenosimiana on Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

xenosimiana

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by ComradeB on Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:13 am

Since we agree on everything else, I'm just going to try and address where we seem to have some confusion.

"I'm thinking you mean in the rare case someone does have sex with another without taking physical appearance into account, that certain folks would debate as to whether it's consensual"


Well, not exactly. My argument starts from the assertion that physical appearance is always taken into account, even when on the surface it seems as if it doesn't. For example, let's say that Person C finds Person D unattractive, but bearable, therefore Person C chooses to have sex with Person D (for whatever reason), on the surface it seems that Person C is not taking physical appearance into account due to the fact that Person D is unattractive, however at that point it's about being above a certain standards. Granted that Person C found Person D to be physically repulsive, Person C would not have sex with Person D.



In other words it's more of "X looks bad, but I could still have sex with X given the circumstances, however if X looked any worse then I couldn't bear doing so."



There is no controversy that the aforementioned is consensual. However in cases such a prostitution, a prostitute virtually has no choice, people generally go to prostitutes because they could not

have sex otherwise. So if a prostitute gets picky then he/she would likely lose business, therefore they virtually have no choice but to have sex with whoever is willing to pay, regardless of how repulsive

he/she finds the client. And not only this, but the prostitute usually
must pretend as if he/she enjoys it. This is what I meant. In this case, would this be considered consent?

ComradeB

Posts : 30
Join date : 2018-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by xenosimiana on Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:45 pm

Ok.


Last edited by xenosimiana on Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

xenosimiana

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by Biscotti on Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:23 pm

I don't think someone needs to be pretty in order to be treated as an object. 
The ways sex is objectifying is in several dimensions, probably because it is rooted in physicality and is mindless (when it is not sociopathic). And objects don't have minds.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by SCH0206 on Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:26 pm

@Biscotti wrote:I don't think someone needs to be pretty in order to be treated as an object. 
The ways sex is objectifying is in several dimensions, probably because it is rooted in physicality and is mindless (when it is not sociopathic). And objects don't have minds.

You're right on target saying that. I should know because I was treated like a laughingstock by many of my peers during my K-12 days due to not fitting the superficial standards of beauty.

SCH0206

Posts : 456
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by Biscotti on Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:18 pm

You're right on target saying that. I should know because I was treated like a laughingstock by many of my peers during my K-12 days due to not fitting the superficial standards of beauty




I wish I had something to say but I can't recall anytime in my school where someone was made fun of for their relative "ugliness".
Aside from when I was in like kindergarten.
I can't recall anything like that happening in actual high school though. I suspect the motive would be by evaluating people on their social-sexual status, (as what this topic is about) which wasn't really a thing in my social group as far as I was aware (guess I was lucky)

Ironically as an antisexual I'm inclined to be biased against or feel sorry for pretty people. The reasoning being that they're more likely to be manipulated or exploited by others, or be manipulative themselves.
Though then I feel guilty for thinking that, because I begin to wonder if I'm patronizing them the same way sexuals are.
But then I read a post on AVEN or somewhere that once again re-affirms these stereotypes as having some truth to them.
For example, what got me started along thinking this was someone on AVEN I talked to, who was lamenting just how sociopathic her interactions with others had become because of her looks. (Which changed how people would interact with her, and after awhile her with others). Unfortunately last I spoke to her it seems she wasn't making the most intelligent decisions either (but who knows).
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by Biscotti on Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:42 pm

@ComradeB wrote:
@Biscotti wrote:As an aside, this made me think of something.

I'm against plastic surgery.
However, I am for digital avatars. (for this point, imagine a world where ONLY digital avatars exist)
What's the difference?

Maybe the latter is more honest about what it is? Just an avatar. It can be changed on the fly, and to whatever you want.
And perhaps because of that reason, it also solves the problem of judging by appearances. A digital avatar would be so arbitrary that it would be completely illogical to judge someone by it.
Also unnecessary surgery is gross.

--

I like your post and I think we've come to the same conclusion. When arguing antisexualism, I look for negative things that I could say sex inherently is. And like you, objectification is always the most sound objection I have in that framework (the framework of saying it's inherently something negative). 

I'd also like to hear you elaborate as SCH0206 says.
Thank you for your response! I agree. What are your other objections to sex?

One way of arguing it, as I said, is finding things inherent to sex that are negative. Objectification was one. I believe the other one that I came to was that sex is inherently manipulative.

Aside from those you can still find plenty of other arguments against sex. Subjective ones are fine, that it's gross, or disgusting or intrusive.
That it's weak, people who view themselves sexually (or even perhaps romantically) have a toxic view of themselves and others. You can bring up the many incoherent psychological philosophies people make up to justify their sexuality, and extort many dumb $#(* out of each.
Also instead of trying to justify antisexualism (Antisexualism to me is obvious), try getting sexuals to justify PROsexualism.

This is me trying to summarize the 847 posts I've made on here into a few sentences. I could def elaborate and go into excruciating detail of my beliefs but fear it would derail this topic.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by SCH0206 on Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:25 pm

@Biscotti wrote:
You're right on target saying that. I should know because I was treated like a laughingstock by many of my peers during my K-12 days due to not fitting the superficial standards of beauty




I wish I had something to say but I can't recall anytime in my school where someone was made fun of for their relative "ugliness".
Aside from when I was in like kindergarten.
I can't recall anything like that happening in actual high school though. I suspect the motive would be by evaluating people on their social-sexual status, (as what this topic is about) which wasn't really a thing in my social group as far as I was aware (guess I was lucky)

Ironically as an antisexual I'm inclined to be biased against or feel sorry for pretty people. The reasoning being that they're more likely to be manipulated or exploited by others, or be manipulative themselves.
Though then I feel guilty for thinking that, because I begin to wonder if I'm patronizing them the same way sexuals are.
But then I read a post on AVEN or somewhere that once again re-affirms these stereotypes as having some truth to them.
For example, what got me started along thinking this was someone on AVEN I talked to, who was lamenting just how sociopathic her interactions with others had become because of her looks. (Which changed how people would interact with her, and after awhile her with others). Unfortunately last I spoke to her it seems she wasn't making the most intelligent decisions either (but who knows).

I guess you were lucky to not go through what I went through because it was really tough, especially since little to nothing was done about the bullying. The adults (including my own mother) were more concerned about my quiet, loner behavior than me getting picked on. It's a wonder that I didn't take up plastic surgery. (I can't afford it anyway, and I won't get it even if I could afford it.) Thank goodness those years are behind me, though I do still have some insecurities as a result. I think bullying is harder for kids today than it was during my childhood. There was no social media during the late 90s/early 00s, so at least my bullying was kept within school and I could temporarily escape from it at home. Now, anyone with a smartphone can snap your picture without your consent and put it up for the world to see, making it harder for you to escape from, and that's why I find keeping a low profile more important than ever, even if others think there's something wrong with my introverted behavior.

You make an excellent point about feeling sorry for prettier people. With them, they're only liked for their looks, and when you think about it, I rather be despised for who I am than be liked for shallow reasons. As someone who's "lowly," I don't have much to lose, while a popular person has a reputation to uphold, so they're under a lot of stress. For those who use their looks to manipulate or put down others, they have an elitist attitude that may come back to haunt them one day.

SCH0206

Posts : 456
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by ComradeB on Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:39 am

@Biscotti wrote:
@ComradeB wrote:
@Biscotti wrote:As an aside, this made me think of something.

I'm against plastic surgery.
However, I am for digital avatars. (for this point, imagine a world where ONLY digital avatars exist)
What's the difference?

Maybe the latter is more honest about what it is? Just an avatar. It can be changed on the fly, and to whatever you want.
And perhaps because of that reason, it also solves the problem of judging by appearances. A digital avatar would be so arbitrary that it would be completely illogical to judge someone by it.
Also unnecessary surgery is gross.

--

I like your post and I think we've come to the same conclusion. When arguing antisexualism, I look for negative things that I could say sex inherently is. And like you, objectification is always the most sound objection I have in that framework (the framework of saying it's inherently something negative). 

I'd also like to hear you elaborate as SCH0206 says.
Thank you for your response! I agree. What are your other objections to sex?

One way of arguing it, as I said, is finding things inherent to sex that are negative. Objectification was one. I believe the other one that I came to was that sex is inherently manipulative.

Aside from those you can still find plenty of other arguments against sex. Subjective ones are fine, that it's gross, or disgusting or intrusive.
That it's weak, people who view themselves sexually (or even perhaps romantically) have a toxic view of themselves and others. You can bring up the many incoherent psychological philosophies people make up to justify their sexuality, and extort many dumb $#(* out of each.
Also instead of trying to justify antisexualism (Antisexualism to me is obvious), try getting sexuals to justify PROsexualism.

This is me trying to summarize the 847 posts I've made on here into a few sentences. I could def elaborate and go into excruciating detail of my beliefs but fear it would derail this topic.
Can you elaborate on it being inherently manipulative?

ComradeB

Posts : 30
Join date : 2018-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by Biscotti on Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:16 am

Sexual arousal lowers the disgust threshold, thus sex-positives are manipulated to find it not disgusting.
Really sex is an unfounded, fringe and disgusting institution. So why is it so popular?
Because people in the vast majority manipulate people to have sex and sex manipulates people to not be revolted by it. 

Remember this if you're ever arguing that it's disgusting with someone who disagrees. Sure it's a subjective argument. But their side as an inherent disadvantage in integrity due to this fact.

I could find other examples.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by ComradeB on Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:22 am

@Biscotti wrote:Sexual arousal lowers the disgust threshold, thus sex-positives are manipulated to find it not disgusting.
Really sex is an unfounded, fringe and disgusting institution. So why is it so popular?
Because people in the vast majority manipulate people to have sex and sex manipulates people to not be revolted by it. 

Remember this if you're ever arguing that it's disgusting with someone who disagrees. Sure it's a subjective argument. But their side as an inherent disadvantage in integrity due to this fact.

I could find other examples.

I see.

ComradeB

Posts : 30
Join date : 2018-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by radarerror31 on Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:08 pm

I think all close-pair bonds should be viewed with suspicion, not just sexual selection.  Obviously as humans exist now, pair-bonding is necessary for children to grow into functional adults, and society as a whole is a very large network of pair-bonds that form the basis of our economic system (and would form the basis of any alternative economic system), but that does not mean that they are inherently good.  The inability to question this is a feature of ideological capitalism or ideological fascism, an appeal-to-nature argument which any student of basic philosophy and logic could debunk after about five minutes of study.  Yet, the stupidity of this argument persists, because it is repeated over, and over, and over again, and force fed down our throats.

That sexual selection is the realm of the superficial is obvious.  That this superficiality is celebrated and given central importance, as in neofascist ideological systems like those that permeate the present society, is downright disgusting.  This had to happen though, because if society were held up to ruthless criticism as it should be, the order we live in would have been torn down decades ago.

radarerror31

Posts : 24
Join date : 2017-11-17

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by ComradeB on Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:55 pm

@radarerror31 wrote:I think all close-pair bonds should be viewed with suspicion, not just sexual selection.  Obviously as humans exist now, pair-bonding is necessary for children to grow into functional adults, and society as a whole is a very large network of pair-bonds that form the basis of our economic system (and would form the basis of any alternative economic system), but that does not mean that they are inherently good.  The inability to question this is a feature of ideological capitalism or ideological fascism, an appeal-to-nature argument which any student of basic philosophy and logic could debunk after about five minutes of study.  Yet, the stupidity of this argument persists, because it is repeated over, and over, and over again, and force fed down our throats.

That sexual selection is the realm of the superficial is obvious.  That this superficiality is celebrated and given central importance, as in neofascist ideological systems like those that permeate the present society, is downright disgusting.  This had to happen though, because if society were held up to ruthless criticism as it should be, the order we live in would have been torn down decades ago.
I agree. Are you a communist?

ComradeB

Posts : 30
Join date : 2018-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by Guest on Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:06 am

To play devil's advocate, it makes evolutionary sense to scrutinize potential mating partners, so that the offspring can be as mentally and physically healthy as possible. I don't like the game of life personally, but those are its rules. That's still the only real reason for sex and sexual partnership, no matter how much people try to romanticize the whole affair to make it less traumatizing. The main problem (besides sex itself) arises when parents bond longer than it's necessary to raise the offspring. Lifelong partnership was never intended, and certainly not with people you have sex with. That kind of relationship would be too manipulative, unhealthy, unbalanced and degrading to maintain without taking long-term psychological damage. Interesting that so many people hold on to the notion that they must seek out friendship-like lifelong relationships with those they have sex with. That's like wanting to be lifelong "friends" with the kid you bully, or the kid that bullies you. "Friends".

Why would one even wish to enter a relationship such as this? Let the breeders do their thing, it's not like we can stop them anyway. If one is lucky enough to be "ugly" (appearing to have suboptimal DNA), all the better for them I say. That's probably the only way to navigate society without being sexually harassed at every turn. It's still going to happen, but not as much.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by ComradeB on Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:20 am

@Stars.of.Tears wrote:To play devil's advocate, it makes evolutionary sense to scrutinize potential mating partners, so that the offspring can be as mentally and physically healthy as possible. I don't like the game of life personally, but those are its rules. That's still the only real reason for sex and sexual partnership, no matter how much people try to romanticize the whole affair to make it less traumatizing. The main problem (besides sex itself) arises when parents bond longer than it's necessary to raise the offspring. Lifelong partnership was never intended, and certainly not with people you have sex with. That kind of relationship would be too manipulative, unhealthy, unbalanced and degrading to maintain without taking long-term psychological damage. Interesting that so many people hold on to the notion that they must seek out friendship-like lifelong relationships with those they have sex with. That's like wanting to be lifelong "friends" with the kid you bully, or the kid that bullies you. "Friends".

Why would one even wish to enter a relationship such as this? Let the breeders do their thing, it's not like we can stop them anyway. If one is lucky enough to be "ugly" (appearing to have suboptimal DNA), all the better for them I say. That's probably the only way to navigate society without being sexually harassed at every turn. It's still going to happen, but not as much.
This is especially telling because a lot of people leave their partners when extreme hardship occurs. For example I remember a person got cancer, and when it was clear that the person was not going to get better, the persons partner left them. It's extremely sad but it happens all the time. Now of course there are partners who stay, but the fact that a lot of them leave and find it justified makes the whole ordeal sketchy.

ComradeB

Posts : 30
Join date : 2018-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by xenosimiana on Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:43 pm

@Stars.of.Tears What you said reminds me of my "Friends and Lovers" topic, this notion of most sexuals believing that being "friends and lovers" is like having the best of both worlds when in many cases it seems like oil and water, an oxymoron.
In terms of evolution, I'm curious to know what you're (or anyone else's) view is on certain birds for example mating for life, it seems these particular animals can do this whereas others esp. humans struggle. Another thing, sometimes I feel like humans project, misinterpret, or personify (there's a particular word I couldn't think of but hopefully you know what I mean) animal behavior. I agree with you on the dislike of the "game of life", for the most part.

@ComradeB It's one of many ways that show how fragile and  weak these types of relationships are. It makes me think of a few that either leave or kill their entire families for some particular reason such as wanting their freedom. In some cases these people wanted to be married with children, and when they get that, seeing it's not what they wanted they up and leave. Another aspect is finances, the struggle of providing food and shelter for a family is difficult, so they leave their spouse and children to fend for themselves, which I think is evil and weak. Especially when I see some of those that've left their families create new ones just to do the very same thing they've done to their previous family or just forget about the previous one entirely, leaving people hurt and abandoned.

xenosimiana

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by Guest on Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:28 am

@xenosimiana wrote:@Stars.of.Tears What you said reminds me of my "Friends and Lovers" topic, this notion of most sexuals believing that being "friends and lovers" is like having the best of both worlds when in many cases it seems like oil and water, an oxymoron.
In terms of evolution, I'm curious to know what you're (or anyone else's) view is on certain birds for example mating for life, it seems these particular animals can do this whereas others esp. humans struggle. Another thing, sometimes I feel like humans project, misinterpret, or personify (there's a particular word I couldn't think of but hopefully you know what I mean) animal behavior. I agree with you on the dislike of the "game of life", for the most part.

The few bird species that mate for a longer period of time do it because it minimizes energy loss. Attracting a new mate each time costs energy and resources, so they prefer to stay with the same mate to ensure constant reproduction without risk. The young needs to be taken care of by more than one parent, that's why they form partnerships at all. They don't give milk, so one has to protect the nest while the other looks for food. For mammalians, the food is already in the female's udder, so this is unecessary. (So, why are humans monogamous...they're not. Socially maybe, for psychological stabilization purposes, but not sexually). Also, if the partner has proven themselves to be trustworthy of being capable of raising young into adulthood, there is little need to look for someone else that might be less competent.

As to why the ones that do mate don't struggle, it's because their emotional life is much less complex than ours, they simply act by instinct. We do too, but our instinct is more complex, with more variables, and therefore more prone to "error". Also, even amongst birds that share the same mating partner for a long time, "infidelity", as we would call it, happens quite frequently. It actually depends on the individual bird though, since more complex creatures have individual personalities due to the malleability of their psyches. What we would call a personality, anyway. All things in the universe have a personality (personality simply meaning: memorized actions necessary to take in oder to reach a less complex/painful state within your specific environment), but not to a level people would find worthy of mention.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by androtic on Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:27 pm

@ComradeB, this a very well written and interesting musing. You have touched in the aspect of how you perceive the things to be regarding appearance in mating selection and how they are, in some sense, wrong. I think that we should strive first to  understand things as they are and them we are going to be in a much better position to evaluate them and to, hopefully, someday help things change.
@ComradeB wrote:Physical appearance should not play a role at all in judging anyone for the vast majority of things which exist, including sex, especially a determining role.

So I ask you, why do you think that physical appearance play a role in judging people and has a determining role in sex?

androtic

Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-08-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The criterion for which a romantic/sexual partner is chosen

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum