Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6704
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by tr0g » 26 Jul 2018, 14:57

Almost all new construction in the city of Houston is infill townhomes. They squeeze about 6 in on a 10K lot. Shared driveway, barely a yard. Technically single family because they aren't attached.
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 26 Jul 2018, 15:39

Yeah, infill is slowly happening in an incredibly dumb way. (Not the core but close in suburbs where infill in the core is not possible due to zoning rather than density, not Trog's thing.)

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13529
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Kolohe » 27 Jul 2018, 14:10

Well, the other thing is you can't walk around naked in the backyard of your three story townhome.

(I guess you can, technically, but people will talk).
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22889
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jul 2018, 14:12

In my part of the country you can never walk around naked outside, because if the solar radiation doesn't give you instant melanoma, the various bugs will eat you alive.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13529
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Kolohe » 27 Jul 2018, 14:13

tr0g wrote:
26 Jul 2018, 14:57
Almost all new construction in the city of Houston is infill townhomes. They squeeze about 6 in on a 10K lot. Shared driveway, barely a yard. Technically single family because they aren't attached.
Which is worst than if it were attached. At least attached, you have (usually) soundproof walls, but if one house is basically in the back yard of another, you hear everything that's going on in that house. (At least this was my experience in Hawaii, where there's no insulation on nothing because most houses are neither heated nor air conditioned)
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 967
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by dead_elvis » 29 Jul 2018, 14:41

Kolohe wrote:
27 Jul 2018, 14:13
tr0g wrote:
26 Jul 2018, 14:57
Almost all new construction in the city of Houston is infill townhomes. They squeeze about 6 in on a 10K lot. Shared driveway, barely a yard. Technically single family because they aren't attached.
Which is worst than if it were attached. At least attached, you have (usually) soundproof walls, but if one house is basically in the back yard of another, you hear everything that's going on in that house. (At least this was my experience in Hawaii, where there's no insulation on nothing because most houses are neither heated nor air conditioned)
Our experience as well. At least with a shared wall they won't have an open window facing you. In our last house we were side-by-side about 10 feet apart so when the kid gets stoned and falls asleep watching TV at 2am we got to listen to whatever random movies were showing the rest of the night. We heard our neighbors' business much more than any apartment I'd lived in.
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17293
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Hugh Akston » 13 Oct 2018, 23:53

Millennials are killing America(n cheese)
Don’t rely on anecdotal evidence. The data show it, too. U.S. sales of processed cheese, including brands like Kraft Singles and Velveeta, a mainstay of delicacies such as ballpark nachos, are projected to drop 1.6 percent this year, the fourth-straight year of declines, according to Euromonitor International.

The end of the affair is also evident at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, where 500-pound barrels of cheddar -- which are used to make American cheese -- are selling at a record discount to 40-pound cheddar blocks, the cheddar that shows up on party platters. That’s because demand for the cheese in the barrels has been dwindling for years, according to Alyssa Badger, director of operations at Chicago-based HighGround Dairy.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9097
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by nicole » 13 Nov 2018, 11:10

Article and long explanatory Twitter thread on the "sex recession":

"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6264
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Dangerman » 13 Nov 2018, 14:25

According to a November 2017 Economist/YouGov poll, 17 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 now believe that a man inviting a woman out for a drink “always” or “usually” constitutes sexual harassment.
I see this in the wild now. People totally freaked out over conversing with other people in real life.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9097
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by nicole » 13 Nov 2018, 14:37

Dangerman wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 14:25
According to a November 2017 Economist/YouGov poll, 17 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 now believe that a man inviting a woman out for a drink “always” or “usually” constitutes sexual harassment.
I see this in the wild now. People totally freaked out over conversing with other people in real life.
I remember seeing those survey results when they came out around a year ago and thinking people just a bit younger than me were totally bonkers.

It sure seems like a great idea to foreclose the possibility of starting a romantic relationship with anyone you actually share a social context with. Opaque computer algorithms are the only way to go!

Overall the no-socializing-with-strangers-in-public thing seems like the worst of the trends discussed in the article.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22791
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by JasonL » 13 Nov 2018, 15:29

This is another of several datapoints in a series titled "things that most people talk about as local culture but surprise are happening all over the globe for some reason". Nativism, retreat from trade, later employment starts, middle aged men in particular bailing on the workforce early, limited household formation, social reclusiveness including intimacy. 95% of spilled electrons on these subjects attack them from local cultural things or trump or US education or whatever, but they are happening with alarming consistency in Japan, EU, Korea - was that China article about men being trained to be manly part of the same thing?

I'm unnerved by the breadth of this stuff without having a decent story that connects the trends across cultures. Instincts broken by wealth effects is my pet theory but ugh thats not a pretty story.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22889
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 13 Nov 2018, 18:06

[Googles to make sure I'm not mis-remembering something] Cracked had an article some time ago which I think does relate to this a bit: "& Reasons the 21st Century is making you miserable." I think the first four items on the list have much to do with the supposed sex deficit (Note: I am NOT presenting this from the Luddite perspective "Everything today sucks worse than Ye Olde Days," at worst, you could say this is a matter of trade-offs -- every silver lining has its cloud.)

http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7- ... rable.html
#1. We don't have enough annoying strangers in our lives.

That's not sarcasm. Annoyance is something you build up a tolerance to, like alcohol or a bad smell. The more we're able to edit the annoyance out of our lives, the less we're able to handle it.

The problem is we've built an awesome, sprawling web of technology meant purely to let us avoid annoying people. Do all your Christmas shopping online and avoid the fat lady ramming her cart into you at Target. Spend $5,000 on a home theater system so you can see movies on a big screen without a toddler kicking the back of your seat. Hell, rent the DVD's from Netflix and you don't even have to spend the 30 seconds with the confused kid working the register at Blockbuster.

Get stuck in the waiting room at the doctor? No way we're striking up a conversation with the smelly old man in the next seat. We'll plug the iPod into our ears and have a text conversation with a friend or play our DS. Filter that annoyance right out of our world.

Now that would be awesome if it were actually possible to keep all of the irritating shit out of your life. But, it's not. It never will be. As long as you have needs, you'll have to deal with people you can't stand from time to time. We're losing that skill, the one that lets us deal with strangers and tolerate their shrill voices and clunky senses of humor and body odor and squeaky shoes. So, what encounters you do have with the outside world, the world you can't control, make you want to go on a screaming crotch-punching spree.

#2. We don't have enough annoying friends, either.

Lots of us were born into towns full of people we couldn't stand. As a kid, maybe you found yourself in an elementary school classroom, packed in with two dozen kids you did not choose and who shared none of your tastes or interests. Maybe you got beat up a lot.

But, you've grown up. And if you're, say, a huge DragonForce fan, you can go find their forum and meet a dozen people just like you. Or even better, start a private room with your favorite few and lock everybody else out. Say goodbye to the tedious, awkward, painful process of dealing with somebody who's truly different. That's another Old World inconvenience, like having to wash your clothes in a creek or wait for a raccoon to wander by the outhouse so you can wipe your ass with it.

The problem is that peacefully dealing with incompatible people is crucial to living in a society. In fact, if you think about it, peacefully dealing with people you can't stand is society. Just people with opposite tastes and conflicting personalities sharing space and cooperating, often through gritted teeth.

Fifty years ago, you had to sit in a crowded room to see a movie. You didn't get to choose; you either did that or you missed the movie. When you got a new car, everyone on the block came and stood in your yard to look it over. You can bet that some of those people were assholes.

Yet, on the whole, people back then were apparently happier in their jobs and more satisfied with their lives. And get this: They had more friends.

That's right. Even though they had almost no ability to filter their peers according to common interests (hell, often you were just friends with the guy who happened to live next door), they still came up with more close friends than we have now-people they could trust.

It turns out, apparently, that after you get over that first irritation, after you shed your shell of "they listen to different music because they wouldn't understand mine" superiority, there's a sort of comfort in needing other people and being needed on a level beyond common interests. It turns out humans are social animals after all. And that ability to suffer fools, to tolerate annoyance, that's literally the one single thing that allows you to function in a world populated by other people who aren't you. Otherwise, you turn emo. Science has proven it.

#3. Texting is a shitty way to communicate.

I have this friend who uses the expression "No, thank you," in a sarcastic way. It means, "I'd rather be shot in the face." He puts a little ironic lilt on the last two words that lets you know. You ask, "Want to go see that new Rob Schneider movie?" And, he'll say, "No, thank you."

So one day we had this exchange via text:

Me: "Hey, do you want me to bring over that leftover chili I made?"

Him: "No, thank you"

That pissed me off. I'm proud of my chili. It takes four days to make it. I grind up the dried peppers myself; the meat is expensive, hand-tortured veal. And, now my offer to give him some is dismissed with his bitchy catchphrase?

I didn't speak to him for six months. He sent me a letter, I mailed it back, unread, with a dead rat packed inside.

It was my wife who finally ran into him and realized that the "No, thank you" he replied with was not meant to be sarcastic, but was a literal, "No, but thank you for offering." He had no room in his freezer, it turns out.

So did we really need a study to tell us that more than 40 percent of what you say in an e-mail is misunderstood? Well, they did one anyway.

How many of your friends have you only spoken with online? If 40 percent of your personality has gotten lost in the text transition, do these people even really know you? The people who dislike you via text, on message boards or chatrooms or whatever, is it because you're really incompatible? Or, is it because of the misunderstood 40 percent? And, what about the ones who like you?

Many of us try to make up that difference in sheer numbers, piling up six dozen friends on MySpace. But here's the problem ...

#4. Online company only makes us lonelier.

When someone speaks to you face-to-face, what percentage of the meaning is actually in the words, as opposed to the body language and tone of voice? Take a guess.

It's 7 percent. The other 93 percent is nonverbal, according to studies. No, I don't know how they arrived at that exact number. They have a machine or something. But we didn't need it. I mean, come on. Most of our humor is sarcasm, and sarcasm is just mismatching the words with the tone. Like my friend's "No, thank you."

You don't wait for a girl to verbally tell you she likes you. It's the sparkle in her eyes, her posture, the way she grabs your head and shoves your face into her boobs.

That's the crux of the problem. That human ability to absorb the moods of others through that kind of subconscious osmosis is crucial. Kids born without it are considered mentally handicapped. People who have lots of it are called "charismatic" and become movie stars and politicians. It's not what they say; it's this energy they put off that makes us feel good about ourselves.

When we're living in Text World, all that is stripped away. There's a weird side effect to it, too: absent a sense of the other person's mood, every line we read gets filtered through our own mood instead. The reason I read my friend's chili message as sarcastic was because I was in an irritable mood. In that state of mind, I was eager to be offended.

And worse, if I do enough of my communicating this way, my mood never changes. After all, people keep saying nasty things to me! Of course I'm depressed! It's me against the world!

No, what I need is somebody to shake me by the shoulders and snap me out of it. Which leads us to No. 5 ...
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17293
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Hugh Akston » 13 Nov 2018, 18:39

nicole wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 14:37
Dangerman wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 14:25
According to a November 2017 Economist/YouGov poll, 17 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 now believe that a man inviting a woman out for a drink “always” or “usually” constitutes sexual harassment.
I see this in the wild now. People totally freaked out over conversing with other people in real life.
I remember seeing those survey results when they came out around a year ago and thinking people just a bit younger than me were totally bonkers.

It sure seems like a great idea to foreclose the possibility of starting a romantic relationship with anyone you actually share a social context with. Opaque computer algorithms are the only way to go!

Overall the no-socializing-with-strangers-in-public thing seems like the worst of the trends discussed in the article.
Worst trend as in "this is a bad thing that is happening" or worst as in "there are a finite number of pixels in the universe and this is not a worthwhile application for them"? Because if you knew five people in that demographic you would have to remove one of their arms surgically to come up with 17%.

If it's the former, it's not clear how willingness to solicit randos on the street is preferable to the alternative.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22889
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 13 Nov 2018, 18:53

Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 18:39
If it's the former, it's not clear how willingness to solicit randos on the street is preferable to the alternative.
I'd guess that, for people worrywarting about modern trends, the preferred alternative (or "old way of doing things") was not soliciting randos on the street, but meeting people in ordinary (real-life, not online) social situations or community groups.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12538
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Nov 2018, 19:47

Reading David Wong reminds me that

1) I find his writing style incredibly sanctimonious and unlikeable. He somehow jumps over all my buttons that make me think an article is snotty bullshit tossed off to meet a deadline. I tended not to like his articles, even back when Cracked was good.
2) I clearly don't do enough to avoid annoying people, since I run into about as many of them as I did back in the nineties.

Going back to the other article...

One odd detail: just a few years back, I remember a lot of Millennial writers going on about how oral sex was so huge in their generation. And yet, supposedly not? Weird.
JasonL wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 15:29
I'm unnerved by the breadth of this stuff without having a decent story that connects the trends across cultures. Instincts broken by wealth effects is my pet theory but ugh thats not a pretty story.
We've been breaking our instincts since we stopped hunting and gathering. We've many times since then had to shift our expectations and strategies as we've shifted lifestyles.

My reaction to this sort of thing is, "Well, that looks like a shift." Lacking other information, I don't know whether it's temporary, permanent, good, bad, or indifferent.

(Which may be why I avoid most near-future science fiction; I can no longer keep a straight face at the "take this social trend I've just heard of, then extrapolate it crudely and linearly until madness and dystopia result" story approach. I imagine there's another spurt of "any concern over sexual harassment leads to nobody having sex and then humanity dying off" stories going on in the science fiction magazines, like there was back after the Thomas hearings.)

When sex and other hot-button subjects come up, societies all over the world (and pointedly not just prudish old America) have massive social issues about them, and so any shift is inherently uncomfortable and gets looked at through lenses of insecurity, bias, etc. Note how this article, focuses at different points on men masturbating a lot, even to the point of supposedly having less sex with women, and then women not enjoying sexual encounters with men and thus losing interest in sexual encounters. The article doesn't even bother to mention any changes or lack thereof in female masturbation habits, treating masturbation as damn near an inherently male activity, even when talking about lonely female virgins. More importantly, though, the writer doesn't even connect the dots between those two phenomena and ponder whether the first might reflect the men in question not actually finding the sex they're having any more satisfying than a wank. It's kinda textbook about how American society views male and female sexuality, particularly in putting all the agency and the responsibility for pleasure on the male.

...Huh, I just noticed how completely, despite the title, the article is about the idea that young men are less socially, romantically, and sexually adept and considerate than older men, coupled with the premise that young men today aren't sexually available or aggressive enough. None of this is actually about Millennial women, except that they have poor body images and a reluctance toward receiving oral sex (which certainly isn't a Millennial innovation).
Last edited by Eric the .5b on 13 Nov 2018, 19:49, edited 1 time in total.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17293
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Hugh Akston » 13 Nov 2018, 19:48

Jennifer wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 18:53
Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 18:39
If it's the former, it's not clear how willingness to solicit randos on the street is preferable to the alternative.
I'd guess that, for people worrywarting about modern trends, the preferred alternative (or "old way of doing things") was not soliciting randos on the street, but meeting people in ordinary (real-life, not online) social situations or community groups.
But those aren't romantic contexts any more than street randos. Why would anyone think it's appropriate to hit on people at work or a conference or on the train or in a class or in the elevator?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22889
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 13 Nov 2018, 19:53

Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 19:48
Jennifer wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 18:53
Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 18:39
If it's the former, it's not clear how willingness to solicit randos on the street is preferable to the alternative.
I'd guess that, for people worrywarting about modern trends, the preferred alternative (or "old way of doing things") was not soliciting randos on the street, but meeting people in ordinary (real-life, not online) social situations or community groups.
But those aren't romantic contexts any more than street randos. Why would anyone think it's appropriate to hit on people at work or a conference or on the train or in a class or in the elevator?
There's a difference between "hitting on " someone versus "getting to know them over time and then, eventually, asking if they would like to go out to dinner or something." When I was in college and grad school, for example, I sure as hell wouldn't have accepted a date invitation from a guy I literally just met (first day of class or something), but did accept invitations from various men I'd gotten to know in class, or at the Student Center, or whatever.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9097
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by nicole » 13 Nov 2018, 19:54

Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 18:39
nicole wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 14:37
Dangerman wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 14:25
According to a November 2017 Economist/YouGov poll, 17 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 now believe that a man inviting a woman out for a drink “always” or “usually” constitutes sexual harassment.
I see this in the wild now. People totally freaked out over conversing with other people in real life.
I remember seeing those survey results when they came out around a year ago and thinking people just a bit younger than me were totally bonkers.

It sure seems like a great idea to foreclose the possibility of starting a romantic relationship with anyone you actually share a social context with. Opaque computer algorithms are the only way to go!

Overall the no-socializing-with-strangers-in-public thing seems like the worst of the trends discussed in the article.
Worst trend as in "this is a bad thing that is happening" or worst as in "there are a finite number of pixels in the universe and this is not a worthwhile application for them"? Because if you knew five people in that demographic you would have to remove one of their arms surgically to come up with 17%.

If it's the former, it's not clear how willingness to solicit randos on the street is preferable to the alternative.
I don’t know whether it’s really the case that kids these days are having a hard time getting together, but if they are, that’s the bad thing to me. And I do see a lot of people talk about these kinds of dating woes and it does seem shitty.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3756
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Painboy » 13 Nov 2018, 19:59

JasonL wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 15:29
This is another of several datapoints in a series titled "things that most people talk about as local culture but surprise are happening all over the globe for some reason". Nativism, retreat from trade, later employment starts, middle aged men in particular bailing on the workforce early, limited household formation, social reclusiveness including intimacy. 95% of spilled electrons on these subjects attack them from local cultural things or trump or US education or whatever, but they are happening with alarming consistency in Japan, EU, Korea - was that China article about men being trained to be manly part of the same thing?

I'm unnerved by the breadth of this stuff without having a decent story that connects the trends across cultures. Instincts broken by wealth effects is my pet theory but ugh thats not a pretty story.
What I've been wondering about is if much of this is due to an easy access to surrogates. Want to meet people you can just hang at home and text. Can't find someone to have sex with, load up pornhub. Want to accomplish something play a video game.

Of course your brain seems to know the difference between these activities and more "real" ones. It might provide a transient satisfaction, but it leaves one a bit hollow. I may sound a bit like a stereotypical old school dad but because these are easy things there is often little opportunity to build character by overcoming unforeseen obstacles. I think the "maker" movement is a reaction to that to some extent. The desire to have a physical result of your effort and

For the elites or the self-motivated this isn't really an issue. They want that "real" stuff and have a drive to get it. But certain parts of the population are likely more susceptible to surrogates. I was originally going to use the word vulnerable but I don't think that's quite right. It also makes it sound bad which often isn't true. It's like eating nothing but sugar. Fine to a point, but if that's all you ever eat it's likely going to become a problem at some point. Not to mention missing out on all the other kinds of food out there.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12538
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Nov 2018, 20:12

I'll throw in two caveats to my post above.

1) I'm skeptical whether the trend actually exists. Taking online dating companies at their word that young people aren't dating and fucking enough seems more than a little naive, and publicity-seeking sex therapists have always been about the interesting new dysfunctions supposedly sweeping the nation. And young people with bad love-/sex- lives have never, ever been in short supply to interview.

2) The bad porn sex thing is weird and off-putting. (Hell, it's weird and off-putting stuff in the source material, when I've come across it. The practice of money shots go back further than I do, and the idea was always weird, but I suppose people fetishizing it was inevitable. And that weirdness isn't anything compared to the more recent WTFery of choking.)
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17293
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Hugh Akston » 13 Nov 2018, 20:17

nicole wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 19:54
I don’t know whether it’s really the case that kids these days are having a hard time getting together, but if they are, that’s the bad thing to me. And I do see a lot of people talk about these kinds of dating woes and it does seem shitty.
I wonder to what extent 'dating sucks' is a real cultural change vs something people just talk about more than they used to. It seems like the pursuit of romantic relationships has always been an exercise fraught with different limitations, disappointments, and expectations depending on the cultural context. Marriage data from the past don't exactly tell the whole story about the the whys and whats of decisions to pair off or not. Maybe what we're witnessing is the painful (i.e. anxiety- and depression-inducing) escape from the normativity of something that is genuinely not worth the effort for some people given the proliferation of perfectly cromulent alternatives.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12538
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Eric the .5b » 13 Nov 2018, 20:34

Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 20:17
I wonder to what extent 'dating sucks' is a real cultural change vs something people just talk about more than they used to.
I wonder this about so many things.

A lot of the sexual issues in particular (women having painful and injurious intercouse, men expecting penetrative sex to be sufficient for orgasm, women uncomfortable with a partner going "down there", etc.) are stuff I've seen written about since the 1950s and 60s. But people never talked about it, then. So, when people talk about it now, it's new and so must be recent.

Like the man said, every generation thinks they invented sex; it would be weird and hilarious (if horrible) if instead the Millennials thought they invented sexual dysfunction.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9097
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by nicole » 13 Nov 2018, 20:51

Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 20:17
nicole wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 19:54
I don’t know whether it’s really the case that kids these days are having a hard time getting together, but if they are, that’s the bad thing to me. And I do see a lot of people talk about these kinds of dating woes and it does seem shitty.
I wonder to what extent 'dating sucks' is a real cultural change vs something people just talk about more than they used to. It seems like the pursuit of romantic relationships has always been an exercise fraught with different limitations, disappointments, and expectations depending on the cultural context. Marriage data from the past don't exactly tell the whole story about the the whys and whats of decisions to pair off or not. Maybe what we're witnessing is the painful (i.e. anxiety- and depression-inducing) escape from the normativity of something that is genuinely not worth the effort for some people given the proliferation of perfectly cromulent alternatives.
Yeah, I’m just skeptical that that’s true, considering how much more fun sex is than most other stuff people do.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17293
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Hugh Akston » 13 Nov 2018, 21:40

nicole wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 20:51
Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 20:17
nicole wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 19:54
I don’t know whether it’s really the case that kids these days are having a hard time getting together, but if they are, that’s the bad thing to me. And I do see a lot of people talk about these kinds of dating woes and it does seem shitty.
I wonder to what extent 'dating sucks' is a real cultural change vs something people just talk about more than they used to. It seems like the pursuit of romantic relationships has always been an exercise fraught with different limitations, disappointments, and expectations depending on the cultural context. Marriage data from the past don't exactly tell the whole story about the the whys and whats of decisions to pair off or not. Maybe what we're witnessing is the painful (i.e. anxiety- and depression-inducing) escape from the normativity of something that is genuinely not worth the effort for some people given the proliferation of perfectly cromulent alternatives.
Yeah, I’m just skeptical that that’s true, considering how much more fun sex is than most other stuff people do.
Fun for you. Other people have different experiences, some of which are highlighted in the article you linked to.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6267
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Andrew » 13 Nov 2018, 22:08

I see only one brief mention in that massive article of the huge drop in average testosterone in the last few decades. That seems somewhat important and doesn't rely upon questionable social surveys for data.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

The sun only shines when a woman is being sexually abused. - Warren

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Painboy and 5 guests