"Our culture is sex-positive, so how come sex is so bad/hard/impossible?"

The truth is that sex-positivity, in the sense of talking about the positive aspects of good sex, is incredibly rare. Modern culture(s) is overwhelmingly sex-negative.
Conservatives are sex negative. They talk about sex as something corrupting, dangerous, sinful. Just try to talk to someone who goes on about "family values" about the importance for marriage of good, hot sex, let alone kinky one.
Progressives are sex negative. They talk about sex as harassment, grooming, exploitation. They only distinction they care about is consensual/non-consensual, but "consent" isn't close to covering the entirety of ethics surrounding sex, let alone actual eroticism.
Politicians in general are sex negative. All they know is to regulate and to outlaw (and to have unethical sex scandals). To them, sex is something you can throw people in jail for. People's private joy is not a political tool they can use. reason.com/2021/04/08/dec…
PUAs are sex negative. They learn dumb tricks to sleep with desperate women who pretend to fall for them, neither partner having any respect for the other let alone the connection and intimacy that is required for sex to be really good and not merely the scratching of an itch.
Incels of course are sex negative. They are entirely out of touch with the pleasure and meaning of sex, both their own and women's. To them, it's merely an identity marker, all sex counting the same if it puts you in the non-celibate group.
Consumerism is sex negative. When "sex sells" it sells fuckability, not fucking. A million things can be sold to you promising to make you more attractive, but great sex between people who really connect can't be branded, commoditized, marketed, purchased.
Tinder is sex negative. It makes people fungible. Most men get nothing, most women chasing a few top men, and these men have little reason to invest in making sex good. Ultimately even the top men are unhappy — how can any man be happy surrounded by so many unhappy women?
The media is sex negative. A woman having a terrible sexual experience with Aziz Ansari is front page for weeks. If he was an attentive and skilled lover who left the woman ecstatic and uplifted even after a casual fling, we would never have heard about it.
Sex negative culture perpetuates itself. People internalize that sex is bad, and opt out of dating altogether. If they do date, they feel no impulse to invest in being good lovers for the sake of their partners or even in exploring how great sex really can be for themselves.
Anyone talking about sex that's mutually pleasurable, spiritually uplifting, and that meaningfully connects people is seen as contrarian or subversive. Sex positivity, throughout most of history and equally in 2021, is counter-cultural.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Putanumonit Jacob

Putanumonit Jacob Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @yashkaf

25 Mar
Things I'm tempted to block people for as I get ever further from the perfect number of followers (3000). A thread that I'm afraid will be ongoing:
Block people who reply "no" or "you're wrong" with no further comment.
Block people who reply to a Twitter poll with something that boils down to "why didn't you have a fifth option?"
Read 10 tweets
13 Mar
Imagine a classic fantasy setting. Warriors start out formidable but their ceiling is limited. Wizards spend years in a tower or academy just to catch up. But the strongest wizards are much stronger than any warrior, so the strongest wizards rule the land.
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.…
Twist: it turns out that the wizard's magic depends on popular belief in their abilities. If everyone knows a wizard can cast a fireball, it explodes in a blaze. If too many people doubt it, it fizzles out in a puff of smoke. Suddenly, the people begin to doubt the wizards.
As magic begins to weaken, the wizards spend more and more years in the academies with fewer visible results. The more they fail the more people doubt. And so the mightiest wizards on the ruling council devise a strategy: they must eliminate the people's doubt to retain power.
Read 6 tweets
12 Mar
So we mock and shame guys who say they WON'T defend women and now we've also decided to mock and shame guys who say they WILL defend women so... uh... I'm sure this Twitter meme is making women more safe in some complex way my limited guy brain can't comprehend yet.
So if I actually shared some stories of me and my friends stopping "our mates" from harassing girls I'll have a bunch of men telling me I'm a white knight simp and a bunch of women telling me I'm a lying keyboard-warrior hypocrite. So I won't. And my friends won't.
And then everyone wonders why it's not a common norm that men should be responsible for policing their fellows, when any men who says anything at all publicly on the subject get shit from all sides.
Read 7 tweets
29 Jan
I got three smart friends on a call to try and make sense of the $GME situation. This thread is my current best model.

TL;DR: The longs are playing the short game, the shorts are playing the long game.
Who's long GME? Some combination of WSBers, FOMOists, and hedge funds. The WSBers have no fear and will sell at $0.01 or on the moon when the shorts are gone. FOMOists may panic if GME slides but they're probably a small fraction. Funds will try to get on top and may have hedges.
The interesting Q is who's short. Someone who's short for 50% of their bankroll is vulnerable to a squeeze, but at 2% they can hold on forever. Current borrowing fee is 31% APR, or 0.1% a day. It's not that bad. So if the shorts are distributed they can wait it out.
Read 10 tweets
28 Jan
On 12/31 the short interest on GME was 71M shares (out of 69M outstanding 🤷‍♂️). In January a billion (!) shares of GME have been traded, Melvin and Citron closed their positions, and the short interest is... still 71M.

(Yes, this is a Fintwit account now)
Does it still count as a short squeeze if the original shorts got squeezed out but then millions of new short-sellers ran in to take their place on the battlefront? Has this ever happened?
This is not about two small funds caught in a trap anymore, it's an all-out war of attrition with $20B staked on either side. My guess is that most of it is institution $, WSB being a small part of the longs. When the line breaks, the big boys will dump faster that the Redditors.
Read 4 tweets
27 Jan
I expect a strong resistance line for $GME at $420.69, there's no way every WSB-tard didn't put a sell order there so they could post a screenshot 😂🤣
Another fun thing is that as $GME's price 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱, cheap out of the money puts two weeks from now (which yours truly may have dabbled in) became 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 expensive. The market says that the higher it soars the faster it will fall. Image
Yep. If you have a giant short you need to set an alert for your target being mentioned on Reddit that would automatically trigger buying enough far-out call options to protect you. If Melvin was too slow or greedy to do this they deserve what happened.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!