Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 08:58:02 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Is the PHWOAARR thread we have a bit rum?

Started by Polymorphia, October 07, 2020, 08:10:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

JaDanketies

My former employers were (and still are) fixated on minor grudges and getting revenge on people and controlling others, to the detriment of the success of their business and their reputation. A minor example of this was a time when one director spent about 5 hours distracting the whole office by having a loud argument with HSBC call centre staff because they charged a few quid to post paper statements to him. There are plenty of major examples, too.

The personality traits that make people want to be business leaders are often detrimental to their business and to the individual's wellbeing.

Whether Weinstein wanted power or sex is an unknown. I'd suspect it was part of a perversion of sex that had him fetishising his power.

Pulling it back to previous conversations, I would believe the majority of sex eorker clients do not get off on being the powerful person in the transaction, but there are plenty of CEOs in the world and I bet a lot of them do. I don't even think a lot of the psychos I've met in the business world are overly interested in making a bunch of cash - doing people over and asserting their power is just as attractive to them. And in capitalism, an enjoyment of being a powerful shithead is a great way to make serious dough.

It's not a revelation to note that a major factor in the harms faced by sex workers comes from sexual sadists with empathy deficits.

Glebe

Quote from: Blue Jam on October 16, 2020, 06:09:17 PMO RLY? I had a very painful rejection as an undergrad living in halls. I had won a pair of tickets to a gig and asked a guy if he wanted to come with me. He politely declined... but it later became painfully apparent that he had told his mates and they'd all had a bloody good larf at this munter thinking she might have had a chance with him. I even got a fake text from him on Valentine's day, actually from one of his mates who asked "so... did you get his text then?" while trying to keep a straight face. I laughed it off and said "Yeah, very funny" while quietly dying inside.

Sad little men.

gib

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on October 16, 2020, 10:09:17 PM
Shoah 2: Electric Boogaloo

are you absolutely convinced that the pedo thread path is a worse outcome than the philosophy cunts path?


kalowski

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on October 16, 2020, 06:28:39 PM
What's that film set in the future where people are matched up by computer and they have a video conference and then have sex apart from each other via some weird brain gizmo and then they donate their eggs and sperm to some fancy laboratory IF they want a child?  I think that will tick some CaBbers' boxes and make sure that no one has filthy, dirty, dangerous sex.
.
Sleeper?


Shit Good Nose


Johnny Yesno



Inspector Norse


Paul Calf

#521
Quote from: Blue Jam on October 16, 2020, 06:09:17 PM
O RLY? I had a very painful rejection as an undergrad living in halls. I had won a pair of tickets to a gig and asked a guy if he wanted to come with me. He politely declined... but it later became painfully apparent that he had told his mates and they'd all had a bloody good larf at this munter thinking she might have had a chance with him. I even got a fake text from him on Valentine's day, actually from one of his mates who asked "so... did you get his text then?" while trying to keep a straight face. I laughed it off and said "Yeah, very funny" while quietly dying inside.

Quote from: Glebe on October 16, 2020, 11:41:22 PM
Sad little men.


Totally agree. Chuckling, inane fucking morons. Men like this are the main reason I tend not to like the company of men.




Totally separate from the above, I think this is on average the most conservative thread I've ever read on any forum.

Buelligan

Quote from: Buelligan on October 07, 2020, 11:21:03 PM
I never visit it because I'm not interested at all in who people fancy.  I also worry that people I might otherwise like a lot may post some shit there that would make me despise them, so I never read it, just to be on the safe side.

This.  Fucking hell.  Yeah, the alternative to having your life ruled by your genitalia is shariah law, puritanism, conservatism.  Imagine having a ratio, something you actually discussed with a parent or other life-guide, covering how many indiscriminate humans you might persuade to fuck you under any lawful circs.  Imagine that being important in any way.  Imagine believing that you can use people for recreation and you don't owe them care and still imagining you're one of the good guys.

Keep away from the humans.

TrenterPercenter

Not sure if it is intentional but that post reads like you are quoting and agreeing with yourself in third person.  Which is weird.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Buelligan on October 17, 2020, 10:25:01 AM
Imagine having a ratio, something you actually discussed with a parent or other life-guide, covering how many indiscriminate humans you might persuade to fuck you under any lawful circs.  Imagine that being important in any way.  Imagine believing that you can use people for recreation and you don't owe them care and still imagining you're one of the good guys.

Is this a joke, i'm completely baffled by this, not just because its composed in really unclear way but are you suggesting that people are exagerrating a view about not having casual sex to being puritanical and criticising it by exagerrating a view in which ?these people? then are doing ratios, discussing with their parents  and viewing sex as a souless recreation?

It's really hard to tell with all the having to "imagine" stuff through it - how about you just voice your opinion and people can decide whether they agree with it or not.

I might do, i just don't understand what you are saying here.

JaDanketies

that Jesus fella might've been mad, but said some good shit back in his day. "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "And why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank that is in your own eye?" were definitely some of his classics imho

Lisa Jesusandmarychain

If I had the IT chops, I'd be putting up that lovely image of Her Who Plays Villanelle from " The Worst Of The Beatles" thread pretty sharpish in order to contribute to the light relief vibes, I don't mind telling you.

Kelvin

Quote from: Buelligan on October 17, 2020, 10:25:01 AM
This.  Fucking hell.  Yeah, the alternative to having your life ruled by your genitalia is shariah law, puritanism, conservatism.  Imagine having a ratio, something you actually discussed with a parent or other life-guide, covering how many indiscriminate humans you might persuade to fuck you under any lawful circs.  Imagine that being important in any way.  Imagine believing that you can use people for recreation and you don't owe them care and still imagining you're one of the good guys.

Keep away from the humans.

My comments about being puritanical were in relation to posts about casual sex. You say your comments werent that general, in which case i retracted what i said. I stand by them with regards to anyone who believes that having casual sex typically means a person lacks empathy or is "using" or harming people. That obviously happens, but its not how it has to be, or, in my experience, how it usually is.

Nothing i said was defending the phwoar thread, or porn, or considering people notches on a bedpost.

And if you werent even alluding to me with your "conservative, puritanical" remark, you really ought to consider whether your posts are being clear enough. I know your comment was directed at lots of people, but I dont like being lumped in with your other remarks.

beanheadmcginty

Quote from: JaDanketies on October 17, 2020, 10:38:08 AM
that Jesus fella might've been mad, but said some good shit back in his day. "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "And why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank that is in your own eye?" were definitely some of his classics imho

I just misread "own eye" as "brown eye" there.

Shit Good Nose

I know I said earlier in the thread I wouldn't have any further serious input, but as the subject has moved on a bit from being specifically about the tits, six pack and arse thread...


Like Blue Jam I'm glad that I'm WELL out of the dating game now as it sounds like these days it's a minefield covered in a layer of thin ice sprinkled with egg shells.  I also had some similar experiences as Blue Jam growing up, so I empathise and sympathise there.


Reading between the lines, there seems to be some cryptic man-hating going on in this thread, which is no different from saying all women are two-faced snakes - I thought we had moved on from the point where the only way to attack sexism was with sexism.  That's a bit rum if you ask me.

There also seems to be two basic points that one or two posters are, again cryptically, suggesting and agreeing with:
1 - all men who partake in casual sex, watch porn or pay for sex are either rapists or have the potential to be a rapist, ditto any men defending others' rights to partake in casual sex, watch porn or pay for sex;
2 - all women who partake in casual sex, or are involved in any way charging for sex or exhibiting their bodies, are purposely putting themselves in harm's way because they have no other option

both of which are, of course, absolutely ridiculous obtuse thinking, and anyone who thinks that probably needs to have a word with themselves (and I don't mean wanking).  Once again, there is an assumption being made and asserted by a few that the world is, or should be, a simple black and white (no racialism pun intended) place with absolutely no room for any grey, and that's an assumption made quite often on CaB - not just on this subject - and it's the same few who don't seem to be able to accept that things can't always be easily slotted into YES or NO pigeon holes (I don't mean bums and fannies).


So, I dunno.  I guess what I'm saying is - as long as no one gets hurt (unless you enjoy gimping up and being spanked and having hot candle wax poured on your todge) and it's all consensual, who are we to tut, point our finger and cry "MONSTER!!!!!!!".

flotemysost

Lots going on in here and I probably haven't given it all its due attention, but the sex work quandary is one that I'm not really sure where I stand on. It seems logical to consider that sex work could, theoretically, be a legitimate and respectful exchange of services and money - but when you're up against millennia of toxic and lethal misogyny being ingrained into the majority of cultures around the world (as well as equally pervasive and hateful homophobia - as I imagine the majority of male sex workers largely cater to male clients, although I know that's not always the case) it's just not possible to say that this can be guaranteed to be a safe, respectful career path and to pretend otherwise is really disingenuous, IMHO.

A few years back, I used to meet guys from the Craigslist 'personals' section now and then (this was pre-Tinder, and the "just go to a bar" option is always harder than it sounds - what, just stand there on your own like a lemon til someone asks you out?) and a few of them, in messaging, offered me money upfront (as in, over emails, before we'd met) for spending time with them. Which was absolutely not what I was after at all, I just wanted to get laid. However if you're going by the "it's just getting paid for something you enjoy, no harm done" theory then I should have been fine with that - but it would completely change the dynamic of the encounter, they would effectively be my employer and I'd lose any agency (although I do realise that was already an arguably risky thing to be doing).

It also brought home that if I wanted to, a privileged twat like me could do that stuff for a bit of a laugh, a risque story (and I believe some have, in the name of gonzo journalism type stuff) meanwhile there are women and men who really really don't have that choice or that power. I'd highly recommend the memoir Skint Estate by Cash Carraway for an account of the reality of contemporary sex work for British women living in poverty and escaping domestic violence. (It's also very funny.)

Re: casual sex, I'd disagree that anyone who engages in it lacks empathy but I'd certainly agree that it is a complex area - I'm sure I have hurt others in my pursuit of casual (always, I hasten to add, protected - always) sexual encounters, which I'm not proud of. And I've been hurt as well. And I'm aware that I have a pretty terrible self esteem and on some level, I'm sure I am seeking some sort of emotional validation from it. However I'm wary of going down the road of slag=unhappy, settled relationship=the end goal (and I know that's not at all what you were suggesting in your posts Buelligan, but it's a narrative that many do espouse, and one deeply entrenched in misogyny a lot of the time.)

On that note I find some of the comments here about "thank goodness I'm out of the dating game" a bit depressing - although I understand the point they're making, I really hate the thought that it's all just a means to an end, and I've certainly had my share of terrible dates but I also really enjoy meeting new people and not feeling the pressure of it having to go anywhere. Although having said that I'd be lying if I wasn't more than a bit envious of people in "established relationships" right now... but that's by the by really.

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: Mister Six on October 16, 2020, 07:56:53 PM
When I say "functionally", I mean "objectively" or "shorn of social expectations and biases". What's the difference between renting out your fingers to type, your arms to shovel, your feet to deliver, your genitals to pleasure, from a working perspective? There isn't one, really.

I agree with much of the post this relates to but this particular point is way, way off. As Trenter says, sure, the transactional nature might be superficially the same but actually, the functional differences between the body parts is hugely significant. I suggest you draw up a list of things you would hold in your hand versus things you would put in your mouth / up your arse and consider whether it really is Jesus informing your choices.

Shit Good Nose

#532
Quote from: flotemysost on October 17, 2020, 12:47:20 PM
On that note I find some of the comments here about "thank goodness I'm out of the dating game" a bit depressing

That may just as much be an age thing, though, and also a possible presumption (founded or unfounded) that in the post "#metoo" woke era the way people used to seek out a partner may not be the generally done, or accepted, thing any more.  I don't know, I've never particularly analysed it as I've been in a solid(ish - Mrs Nose's mental health issues for a few years aside) monogamous relationship for nearly 20 years and married for 16 of them, but from what I've been told by (male AND female) younger friends of mine in their 20s, and (male AND female) older single friends, it does sound like a completely different dating world out there than it was "back in my day" and largely in bad way, which I find a bit depressing looking at it from the other end. 

Kelvin

Quote from: flotemysost on October 17, 2020, 12:47:20 PM
Re: casual sex, I'd disagree that anyone who engages in it lacks empathy but I'd certainly agree that it is a complex area - I'm sure I have hurt others in my pursuit of casual (always, I hasten to add, protected - always) sexual encounters, which I'm not proud of. And I've been hurt as well.

Personally, I think there's more risk of someone being emotionally hurt if you meet the person in a bar/club, etc, as opposed to online, as unless the ground rules are laid out beforehand, there is the possibility of one person thinking it might mean more than the other. I still think honesty, being upfront, reduces that risk greatly, though.

On dating sites/apps, however, people usually state what they're looking for on their profile; relationship, chat, no strings, right now, etc, and it's also usually broached in the conversation before you meet. It's just easier and more direct online. That's why I dislike the idea that anyone's being "used". Ninety percent of the time, I meet someone who contacted me first, so technically I'd be the one getting taken advantage of, by them. But I'm not. We're two adults who are explicitly saying we want the same thing, usually confirming likes and dislikes beforehand, then meeting up for mutually enjoyable fun. It's not inherently abusive or one-sided. Not unless an individual makes it so - which is true of all things.       

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on October 17, 2020, 11:50:56 AM
I know I said earlier in the thread I wouldn't have any further serious input, but as the subject has moved on a bit from being specifically about the tits, six pack and arse thread...

well i'm glad you did because it was a good contribution imo.

I think there are 2 separate things;

1) The act and safety of sex workers (mainly women), this encompasses the physical and situational dangers of the work, the legality and the relation to the law (I mean it is not unheard of for police to brutalise sex workers and arrest them despite them being victims of rape or behave as though they cannot be victims of rape because of the work they do), the stigma from society caste on them, the immediately coercive and the historically coercive influences on their choices (i.e. born into poverty, sexually abused by relatives, low self esteem etc..., and the liberty, choice and volition of sex workers themselves who might enjoy have a healthy relationship with their work - i'll point out again sex work does not need to involve any physical contact or even ever being close to someone technology has allowed sex workers to more easily operate independently under their own direction, rules etc...this is an extension of the sex telephone lines where switchboards would direct calls to individuals working from home.

2) The impact of sex work on society outside of the industry or work (again mainly women).  This encompasses the extending of sexism into and already sexist culture promoting an idea of women being sexually available for men, the commodification of sex and questions about its intrinsic value, exploitation and human biological drive, the impact of readily accessible pornography to minors, the impact (personally feel quite strongly about this) on women made to feel inferior for being not being atheistically similar to porn/models stereotypes - that value is derived from looks (sadly this is a much wider thing than simple porn)

And of course the impact on men (men of the forum stand up! remember I said there is an interesting conversation to be had here, men are the main consumers of porn they can become addicted, sex is marketed to us at a young age and used to control and coerce men - porn isn't available out of the goodness of peoples hearts and women aren't draped over tanks because they make them go faster - sex sells and it needs someone to sell it too, to many times men seem act as though producer are on their side, culturally it is used as a male currency and format of communication and acts a framework to harm men, yes men by making them believe they have to play the roles that the sexist culture confers on them (again sadly much wider than porn but definitely in there).

As mentioned for me as 1) is the real, pressing, current behaviour (likely 10s of thousand of women in sex workers around the world being abused right now as i am writing this) then the safety and protection is paramount.  As banning sex work doesn't work/hasn't worked (Us and lots of other countries have tried this) and isn't necessarily desirable as it is infact telling women what to do with their bodies, we have to mitigate the dangers placed upon those currently engaging in it.  I think this means proper government funding for refuges (lots are run by religious groups and come with "add ons"), support and link workers that can help women escape, proper legal provision that protects sex workers rights so that they can always feel safe approaching the police, and education, lots of education for communities and men about the realities of sex worker and how to spot someone that might be being abused/coerced and how to help them.

To be clear my points on puritanical thinking where about when people who say they care about women but only want to ban sex worker because of their own personal issues with the area (which might legitimately be linked to 2) then don't seem to have any practical consideration beyond their own feelings about it for the women that are being damaged by it.  Saying stop sex work, everyone who is involved in it is disgusting! Is the square root of fuck all in actually doing anything to help these women.  The puritanical bit is because this is remarkably similar to religious groups that seek to remove un-pure things from the world rather than help the invariably messy unique and wonderful humans that the collapse into moral dichotomies.  Its just a another form of asserting control.

I've no idea where consenting people wanting to have causal sex comes into this (i would just be a little bit careful with consensual, someone can consent as they are expected to do so not because they wanted to do so).  People like to have sex it's none of anyones business regarding what prior or post commitments they make to each other.  I can't believe Buelligan would be saying that and i presume this is where the confusion is as this would be very puritanical, i mean how would you ever assess this in the first place? checklist?, once someone has sex with someone they thought they really cared about can they never leave?! change their mind!?

Of course this is where marriage actually came from, as a puritanical manner of deciding who got to have sex with each other and what was the state then managing their relationship (well the churches said the relationship belonged to god so they were kind of brokers).  Whilst the man was controlled to some degree in this arrangement (and there were lots of advantages for men playing their cards well with the parishes in the vein - which plays into the treatment of women at the time and contemporarily) it was the women that were treated as chattel and afforded markedly lesser rights in the process........still to this day though there is no end of women queuing up to have their special day (you can say different vows now so it's ok!) for various tenuous arguments which are nearly all still massively related to sexist tropes.


That is people though.  messy wonderful things that they are.

Blue Jam

Re: Being out of the dating game: I was already settled in a long-term relationship around the time dating apps became popular. Part of me wonders if I missed out and if I would have had some fun with them if they'd been around earlier, but a larger part of me just thinks "Nah".

Over on Reddit you get a lot of people posting about dating apps, in particular a lot of angry young men ranting about "heightism" and women supposedly refusing to date any man under 6' tall, people complaining about being "ghosted", women getting dick pics and angry messages when they've rejected or ghosted a guy etc. I do worry that a whole generation seems to be forming negative impressions of the opposite sex via the distorted lens of dating apps and it's horrible to see.

Obviously this pandemic we're having makes it harder to just meet someone in a pub but dating apps just sound horrible to me, like shopping on Asos by putting in your search filters to find the perfect dress with the right length, right colour, right neckline etc when attraction is wonderfully irrational and just doesn't work like that.

As SGN says, dating just seems like a different world now, and much less fun and relaxed than it used to be.

Bazooka

Gypsies have it right, you just physically grab who you want.

Quote from: Bazooka on October 17, 2020, 02:50:32 PM
Gypsies have it right, you just physically grab who you want.

The original swipe right.


TrenterPercenter

#539
Quote from: Blue Jam on October 17, 2020, 02:24:38 PM
Over on Reddit you get a lot of people posting about dating apps, in particular a lot of angry young men ranting about "heightism" and women supposedly refusing to date any man under 6' tall, people complaining about being "ghosted", women getting dick pics and angry messages when they've rejected or ghosted a guy etc. I do worry that a whole generation seems to be forming negative impressions of the opposite sex via the distorted lens of dating apps and it's horrible to see.

Someone shamed me on here once during the CABLADS riots for posting a update about Billy Steele from Reddit.  There is apparently a lot of wronguns on there so not sure they are healthy representative sample of people (also people on the internet vs people IRL completely different kettle of fish).

That being said I think heightism is a thing isn't it, being a tall man of 6ft2 (and i've just done a poo! - Sugarhill Gang consider rewrite) i've had my height objectified (golly gosh!) by quite a few women, so i've got a bit of empathy for short men who either rightly or wrongly have complexes about it - got few mates as well that it has affected (with most going the getting pumped as way of compensation).

Getting ghosted i suppose comes back to the rejection thing which is horrible for anyone.

What is abnormal and not ok is sending dick pics or being angry at women about it  , that is just not a nice way to behave but it is pretty likely borne out of insecurities.

These insecurities of men btw are often spoken about in terms of their shitty ways of dealing with them, you aren't going to see the men whom rejection and insecurities trigger their eating disorders, or that go and self harm, or become suicidal or a whole other invisible things that people do when they are emotionally unwell.  Now after a protracted call to try and get men talking about mental health I can tell you behind the scenes in services we are seeing a vast level of problems in mens mental health.

This isn't aimed at you Blue Jam at all i'm just segwaying into it but we still have a serious problem with talking about men's mental health, thats not just me a man on the internet saying it but from someone that has worked in mental health for 20 years (fuck sake) it is very clear now that we are getting to crisis point (though another way of looking at this is men actually coming into services more). 

Men don't have mental health problems, the general commentary is they barely even think or have emotions, they are just bad people, alcoholics mainly or angry soon-to-have-a-heart-attack personality a-types.  Getting older now i've known many a female friend that has said yeah, so what, women have had it worse, and they are correct, but now they have sons and when they have problems they realise very quickly that we are in different time and different place to some degree, and no amount of comparison to historical sexism is going stop their son committing suicide, going off the rails or having a breakdown.

It's difficult.  I've had years of training listening to people who may well be telling me terrible things (may even by my personal estimation not a very nice person person) and being able to listen non-judgementally.  It's quite a liberating yet exhausting skill in someways.  These lads you describe whilst their behaviour is bad it seems obvious they are unhappy, insecure and probably quite vulnerable (whether they except it or not) people display their inner pain in lots of different ways.  Whilst we don't excuse their behaviour (it is never ok of of course victims concerns also), we don't dehumanise their being either, this really does feed into the wider pot of sexism.

Men are fucked up emotional creatures just like women, they just learn very early on that emotions are dangerous things that will ultimately get you know where and you shouldn't have them anyway so get rid of them somehow - this of course if you know even basic psychology has massive consequences - i think we are finally starting to see some changes though at least in service approach which is largely being driven by the high rates of suicide in men and also the scary levels of expulsions of boys from mainstream schools which is very much the dumping of boys under the label of bad (again a modern day victorianism of deserving and non-deserving).  Trust me when you read the case report for a lot of these kids you will think fucksake i'm surprised this lad is still alive.  I have no doubt in my mind I could put any CABBER infront of the some of the LADS i've worked with, they'll tell exactly the behaviours they used to do that you'll be familiar with and then they'll tell you why and what happen to them before and you will be in tears quite shortly after.   

Of course these people, just the same with women (especially the poor and what are societally deemed unattractive women) just get airbrushed out.  We need to have safe villains to distract us. That is generally the relationship the public has with these things, because its safe and all the preoccupation of things can continue, these people were just undeserving and look! here are some bad behaviours so you don't have to worry about anything more morally - and please PLEASE don't ever ask how they came to be that way because then we would have to start talking about class, generational poverty and all that, much safer to have a culture war of some sort.

I've spoken a lot about men there but equally there are loads of impoverished women that get written off and made to feel they have no value (obvious recent cases exemplify), they behave badly also, they kick off and they get detained, have their kids taken off them and and told they are bad mothers despite also having horrendous backstories that lead to bad decisions and bad behaviours - this is by no means a one way street, it's just we have got a marginally better grip on women's mental health in someways than mens at the moment (in fact men have a lot to thanks from a largely women lead movement in mental health for better service provision that doesn't just medicalise or criminalise abnormal behaviour).