Valeriannnnnn - Valerian - Laravel

Latest Posts by valeriannnnnn - Page 3

valeriannnnnn

4 months ago

“why am i dizzy” i ask myself, as if i do not simply have the Dizzy Disorder

748 notes View Post

valeriannnnnn

4 months ago

moreover, i'd like to briefly add - in an admittedly more unstructured addition - that this issue surrounding how we conceptualise masculinity as inherently malevolent also hurts queer people as well.

even if we choose to decide that we have no concerns about how this can - and does - hurt men (which, personally, is not something i can agree with), it cannot be ignored how this affects queer people by proxy.

when we assert masculinity is inherently toxic, we therefore, whether intentionally or not, implicitly assert that those who are connected to masculinity in any way are similarly toxic - or are at least, by nature of their proximity masculinity, inherently more 'dangerous.'

this is the type of essentialist logic that paints transgender women as predatory or inexorably socialised as male for no reason other than having committed the 'original sin' of being born a boy; this is the same type of essentialist logic that asserts that transgender men are, by nature of identifying with masculinity, somehow 'dangerous' to women (please, i encourage you to read the many posts discussing this transandrophobia); this is the essentialist logic that leads to bisexual women being seen as 'dirty' through this puritan lens of evaluating their attraction and love of men as somehow 'tainting' them; this is the essentialist logic that presumes butches are, by their masculine nature, 'aggressive' or 'rougher' than femmes.

it's easy to fall victim to these ideas - and it doesn't inherently make you a bad person - but it's important to critically examine and sit with our conceptualisations of masculinity, gender, and gender essentialism so that we can grow beyond them.

i’ve been thinking a lot lately about AI and its use in pornography, specifically in the seemingly gendered approach to it. Broadly speaking, there is a sort of ‘binary’ to the demographics of AI Pornography; men, typically, gravitate towards AI Images while women tend to gravitate more towards AI erotic roleplay (such as Chai and similar platforms which permit 18+ roleplay, unlike CharacterAI, generally speaking). While the gendered differences in consumption of pornography have been discussed and analysed before, I’m particularly interested in the broader implications of the intersection of AI and roleplay within pornography as I feel it differs from the traditional erotica-focused/text-focused pornography that many women gravitate towards, which I feel indicates a broader social pattern.

Particularly, what fascinates me about this is how much of this roleplay isn’t simply action-based (i.e., focused solely on sex) but rather more narrative-based (i.e., a specific dynamic - a mafia husband who’s secretly falling for you, a demon boyfriend courting his angel girlfriend, a prince smitten with a princess, and so on), which speaks to a broader desire for emotional connection.

Simply put, a cursory glance at these bots suggests that the user demographic seeks more than just sex - they seek connection.

Now, on its own this is not inherently surprising nor new - many women tend to prefer to feel ‘desired’ or ‘courted’ by their partners - but rather, I think that the broader social context that we see this interest evolving in is noteworthy. I think it is fundamentally linked to a larger social dynamic of the growing social gaps between men and women.

Over the past several years, particularly since the start of the pandemic, men in many countries have shifted towards more conservative and reactionary viewpoints; men overwhelmingly vote conservatively, many men have become far more outspoken in their misogynistic viewpoints, and many men have overwhelmingly demonstrated themselves to not be a desirable partner - be it due to politics, unequal contributions to domestic labour, disinterest in female sexual pleasure, or a litany of other factors.

Moreover, as the rate of female college graduates continues to rise - while the male rate declines - and womens’ overall growth in careers, mental health, education, income, and similar categories catches up to - or outright outpaces - mens’ performance, more and more women have seemed to developed a growing awareness that, simply put, being in a relationship with a man frankly does not offer the same benefits as it once did.

In reaction to this, many - though not all, of course - men have reacted negatively, instead doubling down on these behaviours rather than seeking to improve, which, in turn, has resulted in many women de-centering and de-prioritising men.

Concurrent to this, we’ve seen the rapid development and evolution of AI, which almost offers an escape - the ability to instead find fulfillment from an ‘AI Boyfriend’ - who’ll never leave dishes by the sink or ignore your pleasure - which I think contributes to this divide. Fundamentally, if you still desire companionship, at least in the vaguest of senses, you can satisfy it momentarily through the virtual embrace of AI.

Now, this isn’t to blame women for such a pivot - it’s wholly understandable why, given the above reasons, a woman might decide that remaining single isn’t that bad of an option - but I think it nonetheless requires discussion as we stare down the question of what happens when a large portion of the population may not end up in a relationship?

Regardless of what side of the issue an individual falls on, the question nonetheless retains its gravity. Fundamentally, whether or not we view men as wholly or in part at fault for this social trend in women choosing to remain single, we must consider how this affects men.

For example, if we take a group of 100 heterosexual men and estimate that 20% of them will not end up in a relationship, that leaves 20 men effectively isolated - particularly when we look at statistics of male friendships. Now, if we assume that 40% of them are unable to find a partner for ‘self-induced’ reasons - such as holding misogynistic views, for instance - that nonetheless leaves 12 seemingly ‘decent’ men single.

Now I’m not arguing that those 12 individuals are entitled to a relationship nor that they are obligated to be ‘given a chance,’ but rather I think we must ask ourselves: what happens to those overlooked individuals? It’s not sufficient to simply say “sucks to be you” as, ultimately, humans will still desire connection. Moreover, when we look at the systems that target these men - pipelines of radicalisation, such as the Far-Right - we fundamentally need to consider the outcomes of these circumstances.

I’m not positioning myself as a ‘defender of men’ here, but I fundamentally believe that we should not just abandon a segment of the population for no reason other than their gender. While, yes, the onus does ultimately fall on men as a whole to build up spaces and connections to combat this isolation, we nonetheless have to consider, as progressives, what will we do in response to this? Will we simply abandon these individuals, telling them to effectively ‘figure it out’ and leave them to search for communities, many of which implicitly push them out?

Fundamentally, I feel that that is an issue that pervades many progressive spaces; there is this tendency to engage in rhetoric outwardly hostile towards men and then be surprised that men are broadly disinterested in these spaces.

Now, I’m not arguing that we should placate and centre men - much of this rhetoric comes from people and groups who have understandable reasons to be distrustful of men, given the unfortunately too-common experiences of male violence - but we must nonetheless consider how we communicate this. To put it bluntly, we cannot reasonably expect men to happily sit by and be told they are fundamentally evil due to their gender; rather, we should try to find a reconcile our justifiable anger towards patriarchial violence while still offering space to men.

This doesn’t mean that we have to blindly tolerate patriarchial views and attitudes - fundamentally, I believe that everyone, regardless of who they are, should be held accountable and encouraged to grow - but instead we should open ourselves to a more intersectional perspective that considers that we are all victims of patriarchial violence.

Obviously, I’m not trying to equivocate between individual experiences of patriarchial violence and present them as all equal; instead, I’m simply positing that, in our ever-divided society, extending empathy to others is beneficial to reactionary ideology when we can.

In closing, I feel the words of Bell Hooks communicate my point much better than I ever could:

“To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved.” - Bell Hooks, “The Will To Change”

Tags

queer transgender discourse biphopia masculinity valerian.txt gender essentialism

1 note View Post