• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Honest talk about the cost of being ugly

And he's a body builder. So obviously he's talking from being in the shallow end of humanity. ...

That's a pretty insulting generalization to make about posters here who train, myself included, by the way. Assuming someone lacks depth just because they have the discipline to push weights consistently is, ironically, a shallow statement.

It also misses the bigger picture of how attraction works. Interestingly, the way people behave directly impacts how beautiful others think they are. This is called the halo effect.

Now, it isn't like there is absolutely nothing to the video, but the way our minds work ought to also modify conclusions somewhat.
I mean, if we're tooting our own horns here, I ran with "competitive skill" even if not for the sake of actual competition even into my 30's, and am going to be going on runs again, myself.

Then, I tend to have low opinions of people whose bodies look obviously "sculpted". I prefer bodies to look more like Sean O'Malley than Arnold. Some people prefer Arnold. Some people prefer "Fat Albert".
 
Yea those weight lifters are vein and shallow.

Nothing like those fat decadent ice cream gulping wine swilling pot smoking couch potatoes.

I lift weights most days to stay healthy. Provides pain relief. Keeps blood sugar down.

I like watching the strong man completions. Big guys lifting and carrying ridiculous wights. It has been re framed to include women.
 
I should add also that it is INCREDIBLY condescending to men to suggest that “hot babes” will make them buy stuff. That may apply to SOME men, who are morons, but that is about it.

Dr. Z and his hero on the video have got nothing.
If it doesn't help why do they always do it??

I've seen a decent number of trade shows. It's always the most attractive woman of those present that's the point of initial contact. Models hired to be that point of contact aren't exactly unusual. Smaller outfits, ask a technical question, I've even had them apologize for being eye candy rather than actually knowing the product. It's always about getting manager types to look.
 
I should add also that it is INCREDIBLY condescending to men to suggest that “hot babes” will make them buy stuff. That may apply to SOME men, who are morons, but that is about it.

Dr. Z and his hero on the video have got nothing.
There is a very old saw which goes, "Men use things to get sex and women use sex to get things". It's an equitable transaction and at the time, both parties think it's a good deal. There's plenty of time for regrets later.

It's not a perfect system. There will always be men who think they don't have enough things and women who don't think they are sexy enough. The most efficient form of this relationship is prostitution. There's little chance for misunderstanding, once the initial negotiations are complete. Even then it can get complicated. Some prostitutes offer the GFE, which stands for Girlfriend Experience. This is something like a phone sex operator who meets the customer face to face, or however, and pretends it's more than just money to her. If an orgasm was sufficient for sexual satisfaction, the human race would have masturbated itself into extinction many eons ago.

It's judgmental to call the man a moron for this, even is he is moronic in other ways.
I only partially agree.

What you describe is very much true but doesn't cover all situations. These days, equal pairings are quite possible, not a trade of sex for things. But you still see plenty of cases where one person has things and the other is the younger, hotter person providing the sex.

I do object on the masturbation bit, though--even without the emotional side of it the real thing is better.
 
Last edited:
Yea those weight lifters are vein and shallow.

Nothing like those fat decadent ice cream gulping wine swilling pot smoking couch potatoes.

I lift weights most days to stay healthy. Provides pain relief. Keeps blood sugar down.

I like watching the strong man completions. Big guys lifting and carrying ridiculous wights. It has been re framed to include women.

Me, too. Did you get to see Hafthor Bjornsson beat his own deadlift record?
 
I should add also that it is INCREDIBLY condescending to men to suggest that “hot babes” will make them buy stuff. That may apply to SOME men, who are morons, but that is about it.

Dr. Z and his hero on the video have got nothing.
If it doesn't help why do they always do it??

I've seen a decent number of trade shows. It's always the most attractive woman of those present that's the point of initial contact. Models hired to be that point of contact aren't exactly unusual. Smaller outfits, ask a technical question, I've even had them apologize for being eye candy rather than actually knowing the product. It's always about getting manager types to look.
I exhibited at literally hundreds of outdoor industry trade shows, law enforcement procurement shows, CME conferences and EMS shows. We had some very attractive women in the crew, and they were routinely directed toward new business opportunities. But far from eye candy, they were empowered to not only open, but develop accounts and remain responsible for the maintenance and growth of those accounts. So trade shows were very very hard work for them, and there are at least two foxy ladies without whom we would not have found such success. I don’t discount their attractiveness, but their work is what paid off.
 
Yea those weight lifters are vein and shallow.

Nothing like those fat decadent ice cream gulping wine swilling pot smoking couch potatoes.

I lift weights most days to stay healthy. Provides pain relief. Keeps blood sugar down.

I like watching the strong man completions. Big guys lifting and carrying ridiculous wights. It has been re framed to include women.

Me, too. Did you get to see Hafthor Bjornsson beat his own deadlift record?
I watched a recent competition on TV. Didn't show the entire comet-ion. There were a couple of injuries.
 
When women have that luxury, (as we all do in the west
At times you claim to be a leftist, but no leftist or indeed anyone aware of inequality of opportunity in societies would say this.

There's so much black and white fallacy all over this

Nobody in the west is forced into a career they don't want just to survive. They might be forced into taking jobs they don't want. But not a career. Even the poorest in the west has options. In the west we can flounce around without a job for years. Good luck doing that in India.

That doesn't mean everyone in the west has equal opportunities. I never said that. What I did say is that people in the west have more opportunities than people in India. I'd say that's an opinion anyone on any side of the political spectrum can get behind.

Anyway... you were a dishonest debater misrepresenting what I said. Don't do it again.
It is extreme simplification and stereotyping to classify one large, diverse group of people as "the West" and another large, diverse group as "India". Indian people as a whole also have many opportunities. The way you talk about India is very derisive.
As for misrepresenting what you say, considering the contradictory things that you say in many threads it is hard to know what you are saying.
He's talking about trends, not about every single case. Why is the left so willing to scream "discrimination" when it's a politically approved victim, but so unwilling to see it when the victim is not approved? Or where a reasonable result caused by factors that aren't politically approved?
 
Of course, "looks matter". What the response generally is, is that "looks aren't all that matters". Charisma, attitude, empathy are going to come into play, much like apathy, narcissism, and vanity can as well.
You admit that looks matter, but then act as if they don't. In the long run, they mostly don't--but to get to the long run you have to start, and looks very much matter at the start.

Suppose we have an intelligence test, but if you want to take the test you have to roll under your looks on 2d20. Do you really think that won't skew the results?
 
Women like a muscular build, but not to the extreme of a body builder.
Sure. And men like athletic women, but not too athletic.
/ sarcasm
I don’t believe the palliative tropes like “there’s someone out there for everyone”, but there is no ugliness, grotesqueness (grotesquity?) or repellency that doesn’t attract at least some few people.
“People” like some weird shit.
At least you recognize that it's palliative, not an answer.

And, I actually think there is someone out there for everyone--but that if the odds of finding them are too low it doesn't matter that they exist.

(And, no, it's not really palliative, anyway. After enough pain it comes across as a let them eat cake answer.)
 
To get the biggest elephant in the room out on the floor for viewing, though, it's excrement. People seem to really get off over excrement, whether it's being peed on, pooped on, peeing on someone or pooping on someone, eating shit, watching others eat shit...

I don't really get it. I really don't. Shit isn't my thing, that I know of. But if we're talking about what people pay the big bucks for porn of, it's shitting. I'll admit to a light affinity for pee?

So from my perspective, the shit people are into is not even generally all that weird. Mostly it comes down to the "just plain normal poop-from-a-butt shit". Or excrement in general.
I suspect it's that it's something that fewer people are willing to pretend. Niche market, harder to find free. Maybe the taboo factor, also--people tend to think going to the bathroom is somehow a horrible sight. So long as you don't make a mess, why in the world should I have a problem with it?!
 
Porn?

There is bestiality online.

A lot of porn is about degrading women. Young girls and older men. Women pissed on and in the mouth.
 
I should add also that it is INCREDIBLY condescending to men to suggest that “hot babes” will make them buy stuff. That may apply to SOME men, who are morons, but that is about it.

Dr. Z and his hero on the video have got nothing.
There is a very old saw which goes, "Men use things to get sex and women use sex to get things". It's an equitable transaction and at the time, both parties think it's a good deal. There's plenty of time for regrets later.

It's not a perfect system. There will always be men who think they don't have enough things and women who don't think they are sexy enough. The most efficient form of this relationship is prostitution. There's little chance for misunderstanding, once the initial negotiations are complete. Even then it can get complicated. Some prostitutes offer the GFE, which stands for Girlfriend Experience. This is something like a phone sex operator who meets the customer face to face, or however, and pretends it's more than just money to her. If an orgasm was sufficient for sexual satisfaction, the human race would have masturbated itself into extinction many eons ago.

It's judgmental to call the man a moron for this, even is he is moronic in other ways.
I only partially agree.

What you describe is very much true but doesn't cover all situations. These days, equal pairings are quite possible, not a trade of sex for things. But you still see plenty of cases where one person has things and the other is the younger, hotter person providing the sex.

I do object on the masturbation bit, though--even without the emotional side of it the real thing is better.
If both are satisfied with the trade, it is an equal pairing. A marriage with an age gap is not necessarily unequal. Modern economics have created a middle class where most marriage partners are the same age. This is fairly new. Both my grandmothers were married at age 16 to a man 10 to 20 years older than her. This was a time when a man did not expect to take a wife until he was "able to support her in the manner to which she was accustomed." This meant her standard of living had to be at least equal to the home where she grew up. For my grandfathers, this meant farming successfully for at least 10 or more years before thinking about a wife.

As for the masturbation bit, that's what I said.
 
Porn?

There is bestiality online.

A lot of porn is about degrading women. Young girls and older men. Women pissed on and in the mouth.
You sure seem to know a lot about what's out there. :cautious:
I looked at it, not anymore.

When you see it for whit is you have to make a decision on what you think is right or wrong.

Or chose to be amoral.

The argument sometimes goes like this.

One guy says porn is fine because it is consenting adults.

Another says what if you saw a video of your consenting 18 year old daughter being abused sexual;y by 10 older men?

From reporting organized crime is behind the major porn sites, and not all the women are consenting, Sex trafficking. Ownership of some sites trace back to organized crime in Eastern Europe. Easy money
.
 
Apparently, somebody needs an education regarding the differences between male and female brains. Anyone who is curious about our brains would know about these differences, but I will at least provide some information for those who are ignorant regarding this topic.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different/

There is a lot more info in the link, and there are multiple sources, that one can easily find, that provide similar information. Male and female brains our different. That's a fact. Plus there's that hormonal thing that also influences us.


I'm just curious. Who in this thread do you think would disagree with this? The few queer theory pomo fans we have on the forum haven't been active in this thread. I have the same views as you. Which should obvious from my posts.
You! The following line is a direct quote from one of your previous posts.

Good luck finding a quote that back that up

The brain in all its intricate shapes... the same. Identical

You are the one that claimed that male and female brains are identical, when nothing could be further from the truth.

All human brains brains do have all the same intricate shapes. The same folds in the same places.

AND

men and women have different behaviours.

These two statements are not in contradiction.
 
And he's a body builder. So obviously he's talking from being in the shallow end of humanity. ...

That's a pretty insulting generalization to make about posters here who train, myself included, by the way. Assuming someone lacks depth just because they have the discipline to push weights consistently is, ironically, a shallow statement.

Wow... you are sensitive about this. I think it's cute how you place yourself in the category of bodybuilder, just becuse you train. Do you have a pro bodybuilder card? Or even trying to get one? I'm going to guess... not?

Also... why is it shameful to be shallow? That doesn't mean he's only shallow. But people who care about how they look, need to be shallow to some extent. I'm certainly guilty of that. Why is that sensitive for you? I find your reaction baffling.


It also misses the bigger picture of how attraction works. Interestingly, the way people behave directly impacts how beautiful others think they are. This is called the halo effect.

I'd say that's what the video is about. That people who didn't win the genetic lottery need to make it up with other means. He's acknowleding the extra work the less attractive need to put in, to be in the social game.


Now, it isn't like there is absolutely nothing to the video, but the way our minds work ought to also modify conclusions somewhat.

I'll reiterate, the attacks on the video in this thread have been exclusively shallow. If you have any depth in there, how about proving it by engaging with what the video is actually about? Instead of knee-jerk shallow responses.
 
Porn?

There is bestiality online.

A lot of porn is about degrading women. Young girls and older men. Women pissed on and in the mouth.

Here's a story about when Internet first came. Back in the early 90'ies there was a movement to create feminist porn. Lars von Trier created a film company exclusively to produce them. Films made by women for women. The feminist critiques of porn was based on asking women why they didn't like mainstream porn and what they wanted to see instead. It was based on works by feminist gender studies. Their findings were that women didn't like degrading porn. They wanted better acting and higher production values. So Lars von Trier produced such films. They got a lot of attention. I went to the first movie premier. It got a lot of coverage in the media.

And Berlin at this time was roiling and bubbling with creative energy. It became a magnet for radical feminist porn producers.

But they had trouble selling these films. People weren't buying. They were aimed at women. And they weren't interested.

Then Internet was invented. Suddenly every woman got a private and free porn machine right to her home (this was before mobiles).

Porn producers could track exactly what every porn consumer wanted, with extreme precision.

It turned out that women wanted slightly different, but just as violent and degrading porn as men. Arguably more violent and degrading then what men like. They were more demanding on having young, skinny and hot girls than men. And if you go to any porn site this is pretty obvious. About 25% of viewing time by viewer of online porn are women. And the available porn reflect this. They cater to women. Even the stuff that degrades women.

And now with mobile phones we know even more accurately what women want from porn.

The only reason I know all this is because I've all my life known people who work in the porn industry. Producers and actors. People in the queer and feminist world. I know loads of gender queer radical feminists making porn in Berlin. Here's an example. These are friends of mine. NOT SAFE FOR WORK


Porn made by and for lesbians is typically quite extreme. No men are involved at any part from production to consumption. It's stil degrading for women.

So what went wrong when the feminists conducted the studies in the early 90'ies? There's obviously a mismatch between what women say they want in studies, and what they show they want in porn consumption. The problem was how the studies were done. There's strong social pressure on women to say they don't like violent or degrading porn, even when they do.

So why does anyone like violent and degrading porn? Well... that's something for psychologists and sociologists to figure out. I don't think there's an easy answer.
 
Last edited:
Z

I know all the arguments. In the day John Holmes was a well known porn star. There was debate over whether his dick was natural or not. One of his porn characters was a detective Johnny Wadd. Some porn moves actually had a plot and dialogue.

'Women produce and direct porn movies ' was always one of the defenses of the porn industry,. Organized crime was always part of the pom industry. Before Internet video tape distribution.

I remember all of it. Nothing you can do or say will make me blush.

There was a battle over censorship. Harry Reems who payed in Deep Throat was hounded for obscenity.

Actor Harry Reems (born Herbert Streicher) made history in 1976 when he became the first American actor ever convicted of federal obscenity charges for his role in the 1972 adult film Deep Throat. His legal battle became a landmark First Amendment issue that defined the era's censorship wars.

In our liberal western democracies with wide latitude in speech and behavior you are free to make and watch porn, even physical abuse of women. Almost any fantasy you want o get your little pecker up.

It is your choice. My views have changed over time.
 
Z

I know all the arguments. In the day John Holmes was a well known porn star. There was debate over whether his dick was natural or not. One of his porn characters was a detective Johnny Wadd. Some porn moves actually had a plot and dialogue.

'Women produce and direct porn movies ' was always one of the defenses of the porn industry,. Organized crime was always part of the pom industry. Before Internet video tape distribution.

I remember all of it. Nothing you can do or say will make me blush.

There was a battle over censorship. Harry Reems who payed in Deep Throat was hounded for obscenity.

Actor Harry Reems (born Herbert Streicher) made history in 1976 when he became the first American actor ever convicted of federal obscenity charges for his role in the 1972 adult film Deep Throat. His legal battle became a landmark First Amendment issue that defined the era's censorship wars.

But this is a separate discussion. And this has more to do with cultural propriety and what women are socially allowed to do. Or rather... how much other women, socially punish women for doing porn. I think women are much meaner to porn actresses than men are. I don't have research to back that up though.

But the short history of graphic porn (porn in writing was as old as writing).

1) 1850'ies. First it was prostitutes who made commissioned jobs for clients. Much like they'd previously sat for painters. How forced these women were by pimps is anyone's guess. Probably a mix. But being a prostitute was often the only available option for lesbians who wanted to be indipendent. These pictures eventually ended up being mass produced and sold globaly.

2) 1896. Porn films come. Same story

3) 1953 Playboy is published, tip toeing around the obsessenity laws. That's why it looked like it did. All power was in the hand of the publisher. And women were handsomely rewarded for it. Being a porn model became an elite activity and these women became both socially shunned, as well as stars.

4) 1957 both USA and the UK passes obsenity laws clamping down on porn. The rest of western Europe goes in the exact opposite direction. Porn becomes increasingly arty on the European continent.

5) 1967 Denmark removes all censorship for porn. Sweden is close behind. We get an explosion of especially Scandinavian porn. I once listended to a lecture by one of those early pioneering directors in Denmark. Porn becomes both a feminist counter-cultural free art expression as well as patriarchal opressive exploitation of women. At the same time. Basically, shit directors start getting problems attracting actresses and they get pushed out of business. Leaving only the guys who treat the women well. Which is nice. A few of the porn film directors are women.

6) 1970's porn becomes mainstream and socially acceptable to watch by normal people. We get porn films with a-list Hollywood actresses. People like Marylin Chambers. We get a lot of everything. Both good and bad.

7) 1980's everyone is on drugs and AIDS comes. Maffia move in on the distribution. Women with their shit together get out and find other paths in life. People like Annie Sprinkle. The women still in the business are increasingly mentally unstable. It gets really sad and seedy.

8) 1990'ies, with Madonna's Sex we get a re-awoken interst in porn and an attempt to re-create the joy and creative environment of the 1970'ies. The stigma from doing porn has now largely vanished. This was when I was young and in the cool arty Stockholm queer scene.

9) 1996. With the Internet the money from porn largely evaporated. There was so many women who loved working in porn, there were too many producers chasing too few buyers. So it was reduced to largely a hobby business for enthusiasts. The porn industry is still huge. So there's loads of money. But the chances of a porn star making a living off it is miniscule. The good news is that it completely removed the maffia from the porn industry. Becuase there's barely any money in it. Most porn is made by a woman with a camera doing low budget shoots with her friends.

10) 2023... Now AI porn has come and it will now be even less money for porn producers.

Sorry for the long reply. I wasn't sure of some of this myself, so I had to do some research. ChatGPT helped a lot. I just enjoyed studing so much I wrote this largely for my own amusement. Sorry about the self indulgance.




In our liberal western democracies with wide latitude in speech and behavior you are free to make and watch porn, even physical abuse of women. Almost any fantasy you want o get your little pecker up.

It is your choice. My views have changed over time.

If a masochist gets consensually beaten on camera where's the victim? Who's being abused?

In Sweden (and a bit later Denmark) masochism was a mental diagnosis until 2010. Then it was reclassified as a perfectly healthy sexual interest. Whether or not it was abuse comes down to other factors rather than just simply someone getting beaten and degraded on camera.

I just think it comes down to that we have a Christian heritage in the west. So we're all trained by the culture to be uncomfortable about sex and be encouraged not to explore our own sexuality. That makes the western disconnect between what people like to watch and what they're publicly open about enjoying, such a discrepancy.

It is interesting that BDSM porn is controversial. While watching a boxing match on TV is not. I don't think these activities are all that different for the participants.
 
Back
Top Bottom