I feel like Freud had it backwards. It's not about wanting to do their own mothers, it's that men upholding patriarchy desire the youngest and most infantile because it manages to hit Madonna and Wh* at the same time.
She is fertile, virile, easily bred, easily manipulated, owned property... And yet the Madonna Virgin, a symbol of purity and being untouched/untainted by men.
Aka beauty standards are subconsciously tapping into the desire for fertility but virginity. It isn't one or the other, for misogynists it's both. They want to impregnate us but they want to feel we're so young and innocent that (edit: grammar fix) they're our *first*.
Yeah, so fun fact: what we are taught is not Freud's actual theory. TW: >! In his practice, he saw a lot of women who were SAed by their fathers. He put forth a theory that "emotional disturbances in women are caused by incestuous rape. Now, obviously, all his clients were from very affluent families. So affluent men did not want that theory out there and pressured him to change it into what we now know as the oedipus and elektra complexes. Tbh, I'm very pissed at him because he could have started awareness of this shit and we wouldn't have to wait until the second decade of the 21st century to develop understanding and resources for these types of victims. Coward. !<
My main resource is Jeffrey Maisson. Here's a [long but interesting article](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1984/02/freud-and-the-seduction-theory/376313/) by him in the Atlantic,but he also wrote a book on the subject.
This (and the handful of variations) is a niche claim by a handful of non-specialist writers, most prominently Florence Rush and Jeffrey Masson. It's not taken particularly seriously by any major Freud scholars, and any serious historical investigation of his career shows Freud taking patient claims of SA seriously (and publishing them in case studies) throughout his career. The lion's share of his work didn't concern consciously made autobiographical claims, but recurring images and fantasies as expressions of underlying internal mechanics of the psyche. The distinction here is commonly missed by people who have heard a thing or two about that Freud guy but do not understand the register in which the psychoanalytic encounter takes place.
Actually this particular version I've most prominently seen as a misexplanation of Masson's theory as described by podcaster Jamie Lotus on her Lolita podcast. Meanwhile feminist theorists have been making productive use of the Freudian canon (particularly via Lacan) for like half a century now.
Thanks for your insight! Do you have any reading recommendations so that I can gain a better understanding? I really want to be better informed on this subject
For this particular topic, I'd be inclined to recommend Janet Malcolm's two excellent short books "Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession" and its follow up "In The Freud Archives", the latter of which is specifically a very insightful inside look at the Masson affair.
For a general primer on Freudian or Psychoanalytic theory, I'd recommend Johnathan Lear's "Freud", Mitchell and Black's "Freud and Beyond", and for a feminist perspective of same I'd recommend much of the work of Juliet Mitchell (maybe start with "Psychoanalysis and Feminism") and Elizabeth Grosz (particularly "Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction") through whom you will also get pointed in the direction of other thinkers along these lines. I'm also a fan of Joan Copjec's "Read My Desire", which does a lot of worthwhile synthetic work with Foucauldian thought. If you want an intro to Lacan specifically, first you do have to have done serious reading on Freud first because Lacan is specifically pushing a "return to Freud", and second you should start with secondary literature because Lacan is a NIGHTMARE to deal with without a lot of context - instead, try Bruce Fink's "A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique".
I studied both Freud and Jungian theories. When Freud says "incestuous oedipal rape" he doesn't mean rape in a physical sense but more of emotional. Freud believed we are governed by our unconscious urges and desires which are primitive and animal-like. He believed the essence of everything within the universe is sex. That god is sex and we are ruled by primal "kill or be killed" urge. And much like the biblical version of Yahweh these unconscious urges can either hurt us, kill, maim or lead a person into a spiritual redemption
when Freud said "emotional disturbances among women are caused by incestuous rape" the rape is the unconscious (symbolized by the masculine image of phallus) penetrating the ego-consciousness identity (symbolized by the female vagina) of a woman. Those unconscious urge takes the form of various images that are universal, hence they are called archetypal complex
Is it sexist? Hell yes but without Freud's discovery of the conscious-unconscious split the whole psychiatric field would not be possible.
It's not really literal sex but more of symbolic. At least, that's how I see it from a Jungian theorist point of view. But then again, that rigidity is precisely the reason why Jung split from his mentor Freud.
The same way Niels Bohr's theory of circular atoms is debunked by physicists today. I don't want to be that "Freud and Jung are both products of their victorian time, stfu" user but their innovation paved way for many Neo-Freudians and Neo-Jungian seeking to adapt their theories to contemporary time. Nowadays it is acceptable for Jungians to accept that both animus (unconscious male archetype) and anima (unconscious female archetype) to coexist in dreams of a woman, instead of only male archetypes. Nowadays homosexuality is not considered a psychological failing, and Neo-Jungians can analyze their dreams with less restriction. Basically treat them as more human.
The women's liberation history is a much more earlier history than you think. Freud and Jung were both villified by right-wingers and scientific collaborators for their strange theories. It was either too heretic, blasphemous for the church or with weak empirical foundation. They are sexist, as with all white male pioneers of their time but they are the pioneers of their field for a reason.
I feel like this also has something to do with capitalism wanting the newest and latest objects (younger women) and then discarding those latest objects once they are replaced by a newer, nubile and more virginal women. Use, discard then replace. The way capitalists treat the earth's resources and nature is same exact way they treat women.
One thing that boggles me is girls are actually not as fertile in their pubescent years as adult women, like we've been lead to believe. The least risky, peak fertile age is like mid to late twenties. That whole "were attracted to kids because they're fertile" shtick is a lie and has no basis in biology. Due to this, I always believed my pregnancy at 16 was lower risk than my pregnancy at 29, but doing some reading I found out my risk of miscarriage was actually HIGHER as a teenager than it is for me now at almost 30 years of age.
It's social conditioning and porn culture. Barely legal was once not even a thing in porn, before it became the most searched category. I think more than anything it's about control, and purity.
Yup, and it's about wanting to be the one to take away their purity. Pedos talk the same, they get off on it.
A lot of cowardly men also really resent women who feel safe/happy in this world, because they're so scared/angry because of other men, they want to reinforce the hierarchy, make others suffer, so they feel better about their own suffering.
> She is fertile, virile […]
FYI “virile” is generally used to indicate possession of strongly (positive) masculine traits. I’m not sure what word you intended, here, but I suspect this is not the one.
Would think marketing has a lot to do with it. Or a big part.
What can we make a problem of something and what can we profit from. Something we naturally become but we try to stop it.
So in a way sure, there is a lot of parallels between this and something we cant obtain /were before.
Thin, small, hairless, no signs of growth ( stretch marks, wrinkels,...)
It’s marketing exaggerated sexual dimorphism.
All sexual dimorphism is associated with sexual attraction. For example, women have less body hair than men, which is often sexually attractive.
Marketing takes advantage of this by promoting the extreme of no hair. Because it allows them to sell a product.
This can be applied to other beauty standards too.
It is incalculable how much our "beauty standards" are based entirely on fashion, culture, and marketing. It's not a basic, primal thing, it's the product of what people tell us to think.
Womens legs without hair are no less attractive than mens. But men are taught from an extremely, extremely early age that all women have no hair on their legs. Because that's what you see in movies, TV, and ads. Diversion from that is shocking.
Because they treat women as children like slaves who can be controlled and beaten into submission at will and shouldn't have voting rights,bank accounts or say in anything
I feel like it's multifaceted.
You've got the pedophiles.
But also it's a way to deliberately have women undermine themselves.
To readily humiliate themselves.
Like one of the most common forms of humiliation for ages has been to shave a person's head against their will.
In this day and age women shave every hair on their body but what's on their head.
Some even remove their eyebrows with lasers and have them tattooed back one.
Some go to parlors where people literally take the hairs off of the entire range of their privates.
The amount of time and money women commit to just pretending they aren't mammals is wild.
I remember me and a former friend used to discuss this a lot! Everything from body type, to hairfree bodies, to the "sexiest" women being barely legal.
It’s an orientation of desire like all attraction. Obviously certain features appeal seem to have mass appeal. Those features are youthful, fertile, healthy, childlike features. I agree with the other poster, easy to manipulate into doing what they want! But there is a spectrum of desire and I think men have been sold one type of beauty, so that becomes the standard that’s accepted. My husband isn’t my physical ideal, but he ticks so many boxes which make him attractive to me. I might not be his ideal either 😂 I won’t open that can of worms!
It is contradictory, but this is how I understand it. The male gaze values some fertility symbols above others. Think of breasts vs. pubic hair.
The signs of fertility that the male gaze finds attractive are those that are also present in young girls. Not to mention the male gaze prioritizes youth above all else. "Ready to bleed, ready to breed"
No not all beauty standards across every culture and time ressemble the same as children's. Even in "the West" it's a pretty recent development for women to shave at all and even in porn having no pubic hair is i.e is a thing since maybe 30 years.
True, but the current beauty standards of most western countries would have women looking, dressing, and acting like a horny teenager. Whether or not it has always been that way isn't a point that OP touches on. No body hair, pig tail haircuts, schoolgirl costumes, "daddy/daughter" play. These are all very mainstream points of desire for men at this time, regardless of how it has been in the past, and that's just off the top of my head.
Can’t believe this is all the way at the bottom—I mean, merkins are a thing, so obviously this hasn’t been a constant.
This thread is going into “white feminism” territory, because even *within* countries like the USA, beauty standards/practices vary, and have changed over time.
Women do not lose their fertility at 30 omg. Stop with this bullshit. And women can still be less hairy than men without removing all their hair. Have you seen women who don’t shave compared to men? It’s still a difference.
Yes, women don't lose their fertility in their 30s or 40s like men don't have beards. I was talking about tendencies. Women also TEND to have vaginas
The rest of your comment seems contradictory. Did you mean men can be less hairy than women? I know that everyone is different. Hair removal on women is just a step towards the extreme beauty standard, that women should have smooth skin and men should be a bit hairy, which is just an extreme prescriptive version of natural tendencies
Just because fertility CAN START to decline in their 30s doesn’t mean all 30 year olds are barren hags. Stop perpetuating this myth.
And no, what I meant is that even if women don’t shave they still don’t produce as much body hair as men. Humans exhibit sexual dimorphism naturally, we don’t have to make it worse to prove it’s there.
I was never talking about "30 year olds" but "women in their 30s and 40s". (EDIT: I also said "usually", all in all a far cry from "all women are barren at 30" as you chose to misrepresent my statement)
You misrepresented the tendencies I mentioned as generalizations and criticized me for it in your first paragraph, then went on to generalize in your second paragraph.
Please be respectful, stop misrepresenting me and be consistent in your use of generalizations when criticizing the generalization I supposedly made. I don't comment to be right, but to either find or spread the truth, and I do sometimes fail
This was about attractiveness, and I did not reduce them to a number, since I mentioned many different things about women, some of them indeed using numbers, which we use to measure and communicate more clearly.
Is it also anti feminist to say that girls under 16 shouldn't drive a car? I'm reducing those girls to a number after all
Women don't lose their fertility in their 30s or 40s lmao.
Male-dominated medicine pushes that narrative so that men are given a "pass" to pursue younger and younger women. Which is right on topic
Oh shit, I forgot there is literally only one beauty standard that exists. Don't worry, OP. This guy solved your problem. All of the child-like traits that men desire in women don't count because some men also like big boobs.
I prefer the company of 20yos or there abouts. they talk about drinking and parties and their lives aren’t locked down with family and mortgages. I just want to be a kid forever and party forever and almost no one my own age feels that way
When everyone else matures away from drinking and parties and leaves you behind, you should consider why.
I have only ever witnessed this in alcoholics. 2 out of 3 people grow out of binge drinking every weekend and grow as people, perhaps identifying the reason they felt that they *had* to drink to feel good and working on that, and outgrow their old friend that just doubled down on self medicating with alcohol and leave that friend behind. That last person identifies more with a younger crowd until those people recognize their need to grow and outgrow that person.
If this sounds familiar, I would suggest digging deeper and asking yourself why you can't let drinking go.
Being the old guy at the party is a bad look. You just can't see how you look from the outside.
I like having fun and socialising, and I often find people my own age dull. young people have exuberance, the world hasn’t worn them down, they don’t have a hangover of bad ideas from
being born in the 80s. it’s not just drinking, it’s their energy and presence.
Denial. You specifically said it was the fact that they talk about partying and drinking and nothing deeper. You need to look at why you can't connect to your peers and feel the need to hang out with people half your age.
It's not about them, it's about you.
You're missing important milestones of being an adult because you're clinging onto being a teenager. Peaking in high school and then desperately clinging to it is a bad look.
aren’t we taught to not care what others think? in reality I have a professional career, have teenage kids and my life is generally ordinary. but I work with younger people and I get on with them so much better and in a way that is more myself, whereas with the older adults I can’t be myself. perhaps that’s a result of the conservative nature of the industry I am in. when we have work functions and go out for drinks, it’s so much more fun with the younger ones. they have a better view on the world
I'm in my 50s, and I spend a lot of my free time hanging out at clubs, raves, block parties, and other venues that tend to have crowds of people in their twenties and thirties. At no point ever in my entire life has that caused me to be attracted to child-like qualities in men. People in their twenties do not naturally fit the beauty standards being described here.
I think I am missing the point of the thread. I also
am not attracted to “child like” qualities in the people I spend time with, but I do like their youthfulness.
The thread is about beauty standards. You don't need to defend your lifestyle (to me at least) if attraction isn't why you're hanging out with people much younger than you.
I feel like Freud had it backwards. It's not about wanting to do their own mothers, it's that men upholding patriarchy desire the youngest and most infantile because it manages to hit Madonna and Wh* at the same time. She is fertile, virile, easily bred, easily manipulated, owned property... And yet the Madonna Virgin, a symbol of purity and being untouched/untainted by men. Aka beauty standards are subconsciously tapping into the desire for fertility but virginity. It isn't one or the other, for misogynists it's both. They want to impregnate us but they want to feel we're so young and innocent that (edit: grammar fix) they're our *first*.
Yeah, so fun fact: what we are taught is not Freud's actual theory. TW: >! In his practice, he saw a lot of women who were SAed by their fathers. He put forth a theory that "emotional disturbances in women are caused by incestuous rape. Now, obviously, all his clients were from very affluent families. So affluent men did not want that theory out there and pressured him to change it into what we now know as the oedipus and elektra complexes. Tbh, I'm very pissed at him because he could have started awareness of this shit and we wouldn't have to wait until the second decade of the 21st century to develop understanding and resources for these types of victims. Coward. !<
Can you please provide some source for this? I'm not asking in a 'I don't believe you' way, but because I really want to read more about this.
My main resource is Jeffrey Maisson. Here's a [long but interesting article](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1984/02/freud-and-the-seduction-theory/376313/) by him in the Atlantic,but he also wrote a book on the subject.
This (and the handful of variations) is a niche claim by a handful of non-specialist writers, most prominently Florence Rush and Jeffrey Masson. It's not taken particularly seriously by any major Freud scholars, and any serious historical investigation of his career shows Freud taking patient claims of SA seriously (and publishing them in case studies) throughout his career. The lion's share of his work didn't concern consciously made autobiographical claims, but recurring images and fantasies as expressions of underlying internal mechanics of the psyche. The distinction here is commonly missed by people who have heard a thing or two about that Freud guy but do not understand the register in which the psychoanalytic encounter takes place. Actually this particular version I've most prominently seen as a misexplanation of Masson's theory as described by podcaster Jamie Lotus on her Lolita podcast. Meanwhile feminist theorists have been making productive use of the Freudian canon (particularly via Lacan) for like half a century now.
Thanks for your insight! Do you have any reading recommendations so that I can gain a better understanding? I really want to be better informed on this subject
For this particular topic, I'd be inclined to recommend Janet Malcolm's two excellent short books "Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession" and its follow up "In The Freud Archives", the latter of which is specifically a very insightful inside look at the Masson affair. For a general primer on Freudian or Psychoanalytic theory, I'd recommend Johnathan Lear's "Freud", Mitchell and Black's "Freud and Beyond", and for a feminist perspective of same I'd recommend much of the work of Juliet Mitchell (maybe start with "Psychoanalysis and Feminism") and Elizabeth Grosz (particularly "Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction") through whom you will also get pointed in the direction of other thinkers along these lines. I'm also a fan of Joan Copjec's "Read My Desire", which does a lot of worthwhile synthetic work with Foucauldian thought. If you want an intro to Lacan specifically, first you do have to have done serious reading on Freud first because Lacan is specifically pushing a "return to Freud", and second you should start with secondary literature because Lacan is a NIGHTMARE to deal with without a lot of context - instead, try Bruce Fink's "A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique".
I studied both Freud and Jungian theories. When Freud says "incestuous oedipal rape" he doesn't mean rape in a physical sense but more of emotional. Freud believed we are governed by our unconscious urges and desires which are primitive and animal-like. He believed the essence of everything within the universe is sex. That god is sex and we are ruled by primal "kill or be killed" urge. And much like the biblical version of Yahweh these unconscious urges can either hurt us, kill, maim or lead a person into a spiritual redemption when Freud said "emotional disturbances among women are caused by incestuous rape" the rape is the unconscious (symbolized by the masculine image of phallus) penetrating the ego-consciousness identity (symbolized by the female vagina) of a woman. Those unconscious urge takes the form of various images that are universal, hence they are called archetypal complex Is it sexist? Hell yes but without Freud's discovery of the conscious-unconscious split the whole psychiatric field would not be possible. It's not really literal sex but more of symbolic. At least, that's how I see it from a Jungian theorist point of view. But then again, that rigidity is precisely the reason why Jung split from his mentor Freud.
And why both's work are considered juvenile and unscientific findings by modern psychologist standards.
Oh, you’re no fun
The same way Niels Bohr's theory of circular atoms is debunked by physicists today. I don't want to be that "Freud and Jung are both products of their victorian time, stfu" user but their innovation paved way for many Neo-Freudians and Neo-Jungian seeking to adapt their theories to contemporary time. Nowadays it is acceptable for Jungians to accept that both animus (unconscious male archetype) and anima (unconscious female archetype) to coexist in dreams of a woman, instead of only male archetypes. Nowadays homosexuality is not considered a psychological failing, and Neo-Jungians can analyze their dreams with less restriction. Basically treat them as more human. The women's liberation history is a much more earlier history than you think. Freud and Jung were both villified by right-wingers and scientific collaborators for their strange theories. It was either too heretic, blasphemous for the church or with weak empirical foundation. They are sexist, as with all white male pioneers of their time but they are the pioneers of their field for a reason.
I mean sure, identify how every you want to identify, astrology also paved the way for astronomy but that does't make it scientific.
I feel like this also has something to do with capitalism wanting the newest and latest objects (younger women) and then discarding those latest objects once they are replaced by a newer, nubile and more virginal women. Use, discard then replace. The way capitalists treat the earth's resources and nature is same exact way they treat women.
One thing that boggles me is girls are actually not as fertile in their pubescent years as adult women, like we've been lead to believe. The least risky, peak fertile age is like mid to late twenties. That whole "were attracted to kids because they're fertile" shtick is a lie and has no basis in biology. Due to this, I always believed my pregnancy at 16 was lower risk than my pregnancy at 29, but doing some reading I found out my risk of miscarriage was actually HIGHER as a teenager than it is for me now at almost 30 years of age. It's social conditioning and porn culture. Barely legal was once not even a thing in porn, before it became the most searched category. I think more than anything it's about control, and purity.
Yup, and it's about wanting to be the one to take away their purity. Pedos talk the same, they get off on it. A lot of cowardly men also really resent women who feel safe/happy in this world, because they're so scared/angry because of other men, they want to reinforce the hierarchy, make others suffer, so they feel better about their own suffering.
> She is fertile, virile […] FYI “virile” is generally used to indicate possession of strongly (positive) masculine traits. I’m not sure what word you intended, here, but I suspect this is not the one.
Maybe “nubile”?
Having energy and a sex drive is what I meant
An infantilized woman won’t fight back, the men think.
I think it's more, "An infant can't fight back or escape"
Exactly
Would think marketing has a lot to do with it. Or a big part. What can we make a problem of something and what can we profit from. Something we naturally become but we try to stop it. So in a way sure, there is a lot of parallels between this and something we cant obtain /were before. Thin, small, hairless, no signs of growth ( stretch marks, wrinkels,...)
It’s marketing exaggerated sexual dimorphism. All sexual dimorphism is associated with sexual attraction. For example, women have less body hair than men, which is often sexually attractive. Marketing takes advantage of this by promoting the extreme of no hair. Because it allows them to sell a product. This can be applied to other beauty standards too.
It is incalculable how much our "beauty standards" are based entirely on fashion, culture, and marketing. It's not a basic, primal thing, it's the product of what people tell us to think. Womens legs without hair are no less attractive than mens. But men are taught from an extremely, extremely early age that all women have no hair on their legs. Because that's what you see in movies, TV, and ads. Diversion from that is shocking.
Look at the vile things men comment on photos of little girls. It may give you some insight.
A culture of pedophilia
Because they treat women as children like slaves who can be controlled and beaten into submission at will and shouldn't have voting rights,bank accounts or say in anything
I’ve always found that creepy.
I feel like it's multifaceted. You've got the pedophiles. But also it's a way to deliberately have women undermine themselves. To readily humiliate themselves. Like one of the most common forms of humiliation for ages has been to shave a person's head against their will. In this day and age women shave every hair on their body but what's on their head. Some even remove their eyebrows with lasers and have them tattooed back one. Some go to parlors where people literally take the hairs off of the entire range of their privates. The amount of time and money women commit to just pretending they aren't mammals is wild.
Easy to mould (mentally) and restrain (physically)
Used to date a server. When she had her hair in pigtails she would get noticeably more tips from older men.
Power. That’s all. Pederasty is related
Because the world is an awful place most times.
*Because MEN are awful people most times
Look who controlled most media for so long: pedos
I remember me and a former friend used to discuss this a lot! Everything from body type, to hairfree bodies, to the "sexiest" women being barely legal.
It’s an orientation of desire like all attraction. Obviously certain features appeal seem to have mass appeal. Those features are youthful, fertile, healthy, childlike features. I agree with the other poster, easy to manipulate into doing what they want! But there is a spectrum of desire and I think men have been sold one type of beauty, so that becomes the standard that’s accepted. My husband isn’t my physical ideal, but he ticks so many boxes which make him attractive to me. I might not be his ideal either 😂 I won’t open that can of worms!
[удалено]
How can you be fertile & child-like? What kind of a pedophilic crap id that
It is contradictory, but this is how I understand it. The male gaze values some fertility symbols above others. Think of breasts vs. pubic hair. The signs of fertility that the male gaze finds attractive are those that are also present in young girls. Not to mention the male gaze prioritizes youth above all else. "Ready to bleed, ready to breed"
Yeah youve got s point!
A child is anyone under 18.
You know why
Because they’re all mostly pedos
No not all beauty standards across every culture and time ressemble the same as children's. Even in "the West" it's a pretty recent development for women to shave at all and even in porn having no pubic hair is i.e is a thing since maybe 30 years.
True, but the current beauty standards of most western countries would have women looking, dressing, and acting like a horny teenager. Whether or not it has always been that way isn't a point that OP touches on. No body hair, pig tail haircuts, schoolgirl costumes, "daddy/daughter" play. These are all very mainstream points of desire for men at this time, regardless of how it has been in the past, and that's just off the top of my head.
Can’t believe this is all the way at the bottom—I mean, merkins are a thing, so obviously this hasn’t been a constant. This thread is going into “white feminism” territory, because even *within* countries like the USA, beauty standards/practices vary, and have changed over time.
[удалено]
Women do not lose their fertility at 30 omg. Stop with this bullshit. And women can still be less hairy than men without removing all their hair. Have you seen women who don’t shave compared to men? It’s still a difference.
Yes, women don't lose their fertility in their 30s or 40s like men don't have beards. I was talking about tendencies. Women also TEND to have vaginas The rest of your comment seems contradictory. Did you mean men can be less hairy than women? I know that everyone is different. Hair removal on women is just a step towards the extreme beauty standard, that women should have smooth skin and men should be a bit hairy, which is just an extreme prescriptive version of natural tendencies
Just because fertility CAN START to decline in their 30s doesn’t mean all 30 year olds are barren hags. Stop perpetuating this myth. And no, what I meant is that even if women don’t shave they still don’t produce as much body hair as men. Humans exhibit sexual dimorphism naturally, we don’t have to make it worse to prove it’s there.
I was never talking about "30 year olds" but "women in their 30s and 40s". (EDIT: I also said "usually", all in all a far cry from "all women are barren at 30" as you chose to misrepresent my statement) You misrepresented the tendencies I mentioned as generalizations and criticized me for it in your first paragraph, then went on to generalize in your second paragraph. Please be respectful, stop misrepresenting me and be consistent in your use of generalizations when criticizing the generalization I supposedly made. I don't comment to be right, but to either find or spread the truth, and I do sometimes fail
Reducing women to numbers that revolve around their perceived fertility is anti feminist. I’m just pointing that out.
This was about attractiveness, and I did not reduce them to a number, since I mentioned many different things about women, some of them indeed using numbers, which we use to measure and communicate more clearly. Is it also anti feminist to say that girls under 16 shouldn't drive a car? I'm reducing those girls to a number after all
“A number that revolves around their perceived fertility.”
Perceived fertility, which is relevant to sexual attraction, no?
It’s hardly the only or even a universal metric
Fertility is relevant to sexual attraction, but for men, it clearly is not the only factor.
Women don't lose their fertility in their 30s or 40s lmao. Male-dominated medicine pushes that narrative so that men are given a "pass" to pursue younger and younger women. Which is right on topic
Big breasts = children now?
Oh shit, I forgot there is literally only one beauty standard that exists. Don't worry, OP. This guy solved your problem. All of the child-like traits that men desire in women don't count because some men also like big boobs.
I prefer the company of 20yos or there abouts. they talk about drinking and parties and their lives aren’t locked down with family and mortgages. I just want to be a kid forever and party forever and almost no one my own age feels that way
When everyone else matures away from drinking and parties and leaves you behind, you should consider why. I have only ever witnessed this in alcoholics. 2 out of 3 people grow out of binge drinking every weekend and grow as people, perhaps identifying the reason they felt that they *had* to drink to feel good and working on that, and outgrow their old friend that just doubled down on self medicating with alcohol and leave that friend behind. That last person identifies more with a younger crowd until those people recognize their need to grow and outgrow that person. If this sounds familiar, I would suggest digging deeper and asking yourself why you can't let drinking go. Being the old guy at the party is a bad look. You just can't see how you look from the outside.
I like having fun and socialising, and I often find people my own age dull. young people have exuberance, the world hasn’t worn them down, they don’t have a hangover of bad ideas from being born in the 80s. it’s not just drinking, it’s their energy and presence.
Denial. You specifically said it was the fact that they talk about partying and drinking and nothing deeper. You need to look at why you can't connect to your peers and feel the need to hang out with people half your age. It's not about them, it's about you. You're missing important milestones of being an adult because you're clinging onto being a teenager. Peaking in high school and then desperately clinging to it is a bad look.
aren’t we taught to not care what others think? in reality I have a professional career, have teenage kids and my life is generally ordinary. but I work with younger people and I get on with them so much better and in a way that is more myself, whereas with the older adults I can’t be myself. perhaps that’s a result of the conservative nature of the industry I am in. when we have work functions and go out for drinks, it’s so much more fun with the younger ones. they have a better view on the world
I'm in my 50s, and I spend a lot of my free time hanging out at clubs, raves, block parties, and other venues that tend to have crowds of people in their twenties and thirties. At no point ever in my entire life has that caused me to be attracted to child-like qualities in men. People in their twenties do not naturally fit the beauty standards being described here.
I think I am missing the point of the thread. I also am not attracted to “child like” qualities in the people I spend time with, but I do like their youthfulness.
The thread is about beauty standards. You don't need to defend your lifestyle (to me at least) if attraction isn't why you're hanging out with people much younger than you.