why the fuck are women so dumb as to do porn? don't they

>>39638029

what is this fetish called

i need more like this

Because being a single mother bartender doesn't always cut it.

they just want to make some quick cash to maintain their lavish lifestyle

>>39638051
Is that the case??
How do you know this?? (not murican)

>>39638029
It's easy and in the grand scale of things, nobody gives a shit. Unless you become really famous in porn, you're just another dumb pretty face.

>>39638125
Yea, it's kind of thing here in america. That extraordinary babe from highschool? She's probably a single mother bartender/waitress by the time she's 25.

I think it's probably just an evolutionary adaptation.

It's pretty well understood at this point that men prefer the bodies of younger women (specifically, BMI and measurments that indicate youth and health).

So women have evolved to think short term, in terms of attracting a mate. They are just, in general, willing to think very short term, sexually. And I don't mean "a week". I mean "5 years".

Next, up, you just consider that the camera wasn't invented a long time ago. It's not like there is any real instinctive understanding of "oh, I am not showing my body to people who are relevant to me, I am showing my body to people who absolutely don't matter". And women are just exhibitionist in general, because if you have a super attractive body, that's something you want to get value out of. You want the most attractive guy in your village to know, and you want all his friends to know, so that he not only wants you, but he wants the respect gained by all his friends for managing to attract you.

So now we get why people are exhibitionist in general, and why they tend to think short term. Which were very good strategies in the past, and now are just not effective.

Next up, we have to consider this: it's really not acceptable in the west to criticize a woman's choices, so no one is allowed to just bring in an older perspective, or one from another gender. No one is allowed to tell a woman where the road is leading, or even that their actions are going to be unattractive to the kind of men that they would desire and stand a reasonable chance of attracting. No one wants to date the village bicycle, but how could any guy ever say that to any woman in person?

>>39638029
(((Digital Footprint))) is a muthafuckah. Remember y'all, the brain doesn't fully develop till about age 26. Hindsight & foresight is not considered, I guess.

>relationship prospects
I don't think any robot has to worry about a former porn star being interested in them

>>39638426
Actually, by the time they hit 30, a robot is probably the best mate a fomer porn star can get.

>>39638612
robots are a very low bar, maybe some former acid attacked girl, or a girl in a wheelchair might settle for a robot.

But not a still attractive former porn star

I watched this documentary on netflix about young girls who become porn stars. Just about all of them were from poor and sometimes rural families, and getting into porn was a way to decent money and to travel to somewhere more exciting.

Most seemed to do okay, of course a couple kinda destroyed their lives, and a few even managed to seem rather well adjusted

>>39638225

You've got an interesting perspective.

I would say that our tribal origins with the Dunbar number and all of that would mean that women's sexual forays did have reptutation consequences even in the long history of Mankind that was pre-photographical.

But the million dollar question is: How much do you agree with the progressive line of thinking that all behaviour is capable of being normalised (they reason of the basis that it is all just social convention in the first place), because if human social mores really are %100 mutable, then the village bicycle stigma CANNOT be counted upon to check female promiscuity.

If this is the case then a very small (and socially/intellectually non-contributory) section of the male population will be having all of the sex, at least all of the sex that is non-transactional (I would tend to count "beta bux" relationships as transactional).

>>39638852

Sexual forays definitely would have consequences.... but sexual exhibitionism and teasing? I suspect that was very solid strategy.

After all, guys, in my opinion and experience, really do care about what their guy friends think about their girlfriend's physical attractiveness. If your friends know your girl is hot, that has value.

It also gives a girl options. If her huband dies or becomes unsuitable, it's a lot easier to jump ship if you have been friendly with other attractive males in your surroundings while also letting them know you are hot as hell.

And I see a lot of girls teasing and exhibiting, which is at least some aspect of porn. It also seems to be where most girls start out: do what comes natural, and end up sucked into the stuff that doesn't come naturally.

As for the million dollar question, I think very little about human nature is mutable. I think society has a massive impact on behavior, but I think the people underneath are still the same people.

And, to your last point... no. The men who women want ARE the men who contribute socially, or intellectually. They want men who have climed the male dominance heirarchy, which is done by demonstrating competence, diligence, intelligence, and otherwise contributing to society in ways men and women respect.

So yes, 80% of women are going for the same 20% of men, but it's not men who do not contribute, and furthermore, if they were well advised by older, related females, they would get advise to lock down a long term partner quite early, correcting for the pareto principle instinct.

Why do people work at McDonalds? It's far more degrading than working in the pornography industry. I mean, fuck, it takes one whole month to make what you make in an hour of doing porn if you're a female. If you're a male you could probably make just as much as you could working fast food jobs for work that is far more pleasurable. Who would ever want to spend their days getting yelled at by some nasty woman in her late 40s whose dreams died long ago when they could just fuck on camera instead?

Also why should people seeing you naked or fucking "ruin your life?" When I was younger I used to be scared about these things. The older I got the less I cared. I am 28 and if ever someone found a picture of my penis on the internet and showed it to me or confronted me about it somehow I would just laugh. I wouldn't even give a fuck if they sent it to my family members. If anyone asked I'd be like yeah, I sexted with females like every other normal person, you haven't? What are you, some kind of freak? I'd look deep into their eyes and start to wonder if they're the sort of person that comes here. I would wonder if they're like you OP.

>>39638029
Normies don't care about anyone outside their current circle of friends all of whom are also vapid sluts who would do the same thing and actually consider her lucky for having the chance

Also women are retarded they're like a drunk person 24/7. You tell them 10,000 dollars and they just do whatever and think about the consequence later. What's one more facial load when you've been taking them since you were 14?

why the fuck are men so dumb as to become NEET's? don't they realise they are practically destroying their entire future careers and relationship prospects?

>>39639327
I was a NEET for almost 10 years. I have a job and I'm engaged. I'll be married really soon. Honestly being a NEET is better. If I didn't really love this girl I wouldn't bother with any of this shit.

>>39639105


>"male dominance hierarchy"

BAM. Its a Jordan Peterson reader.

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy as well. But his focus on Jungian archetypes (like the knight bringing back gold from the dragon of chaos) has him convinced that the different kinds of dominance are all unified by abstract sets into the overarching Dominance Hierarchy.

That unification is, to use a favourite derogatory phrase of Peterson's "not obvious."

I get that women can abstract value over different kinds of men with different kinds of capabilities, otherwise they would be incapable of choosing between, say, the rich man and the stud.

However many theories (such as r/K selection theory) deal with the trading-off of two separate selection critieria, and the notion that everything should be unified in the one blackbox concept of 'dominance' is shaky (not to mention nearly impossible to substantiate).

Consider that the forms of attraction we can have to different kinds of people are qualitatively different. There is attraction that is mostly sex based, there is attraction that is romantic (Romeo and Juliet type stuff) or sympathetic, intellectual, based on common experiences, common attributes etc.

And we behave differently towards these different forms of attraction.

Big titted slutty club girls with lots of makeup and a lascivious look in their eye will elicit a different reaction in you than the qt library-fu with the pencil dress and wired framed glasses.

The problem I was outlining was that if the social constructivists are right, then women's SHORT TERM sexual decisions are the things that will no longer be checked, and their SHORT TERM decisions do NOT favour men who exhibit ALL the different kinds of 'dominance' in Peterson's highly generalised Dominance Hierarchy.

The one's who will suddenly be having a lot more sex will have genetic/physical 'strengths' as well as aggressive of courtship behaviour. Chads, dudebros and Tyrone. Female porn searches even confirm this.

File: 15eb8968d5980e392ba09085e4181a9b.jpg (15KB, 316x421px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 316x421px

>>39639105
still, though, regardless of my objections, another great post. And I concede the first bit about the difference between exhibitionism (which is evolutionarily incentivised) and actual promiscuity (which, at least in vaguely monogamous societies with high emphasis on parental behaviours and pair-bonding, is punished).

Interesting about how the porn girls are gently led into the industry through less full-on softcore shoots etc. But i think, to be honest, that a lot of their de-sensitisation to stigma and their burgeoning self-identification as sluts comes way before porn. That's always their story, that they "loved sex" from an early age, but their parents didn't care/understand, so fuck them etc.

>haha I kind of hate how much time i've spent empathising with porn stars, reading/watching their interviews etc, trying to find out why they do what they do and how they really feel about it. But these are the big questions of our era, in a way.

>why the fuck are women so dumb as to do porn? don't they realise they are practically destroying their entire future careers and relationship prospects?

This is entirely false, though. Being a porn actress has limited impact on your future career. Most of society is very accepting of it. It opens up many possibilites, and much of the time a woman can be hired for a job before they find anything out, and then she'd have a wrongful termination suit, etc. These women are hot enough to know they will still have millions of men willing to marry them.

Besides who are we to judge, as consumers of porn? Really?

>>39639481

>hurr durr sex is just sex

>>39639354

If the term offends you, sub out another. The male "competence" heirarchy, or the male "demonstrated achievement" heirarchy.

A heirarchy is just an ordered list. Which has to exist, for preference and choice to even mean anything. Obviously, male is essential, for a heterosexual woman.

So the only word you don't like is dominance. Which is fine, it's a bit of a loaded term.

But women clearly prefer men who either have respected, valuable positions in society, or which have the prospects to gain them, or to give their children the genes which allow them to gain them in the future.

That's all I mean by male dominance heirarchy. Men who have the respect and admiration of other men (and women).

I have listened to jordan peterson, but this in no way requires all types of respect to be organized into a single heirarchy. It merely requires for women to have a common selection criteria (which is obvious, given how much women outsource their decision making to other women, by allowing social proof to alter their own evaluation), and it requires the recognition that women prefer men who contribute to society in some way and are rewarded for doing so. A guy who inherits a lot of money is MUCH less desirable than a guy who has earned the same amount.

>>39639525

I'm not saying that. I'm a KHV Wizard and want to remain one. I'm saying - the idea that she's practically an untouchable is ridiculous now. That footage of her working at Twin Peaks shows her working in an environment where she'd meet hundreds of men every week many of whom would be more than willing to go out of their way to assist her in her career, most would happily date her (most men are willing to date women who've had sex before, is porn any worse than this??)

>>39639438

Could be. I don't know. I have always wondered how much of women's professed desires are either strategic decisions rather than personally held beliefs. When I get rare insight into these issues, I get the impression a lot of the time, it's the former rather than the latter (pretend to be into casual sex in the hope of converting to a long term relationship, for example).

And for porn, I think there is probably a lot of industry pressure to not say you don't like your job, because guys are being sold the fantasy that the girl they are watching would be interested in them if they were present, but also because the industry needs to protect itself against claims that they are hurting women.

Obviously, if you are a pornographer, you would be well advised to immediately stop working with any girl that claims she is being harmed by the work.... after all, to continue to work with her could even be criminal negligence, let alone the obvious ethical dubiousness. So the girls, would be well advised to pretend to find the work amenable.

File: 1491183193942.jpg (62KB, 462x630px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 462x630px

>>39638029
Remy LaCroix and Lexi Belle are both happily retired post wall roasties married to Chad millionaires with multiple children now. Sasha Grey is a published author and accepted into liberal elite high art societies. Erica Campbell is a born again Christian living on a farm in Montana with 10 children and a loving Christian husband.

I don't understand how you can spend any amount of time on /r9k/ and still think that there are actually consequences or negative side effects to your actions if you are a woman. Women live life on god mode, they can do literally whatever they want, whenever they want, and there will always be a natural safety net to guarantee their comfort and happiness no matter what bad decisions they make. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, that's just how life works.

Women don't care about porn destroying their future because they know porn won't destroy their future. You may not accept an ex porn star as a wife, but millions of other much more attractive men will.

>>39639675

>Remy LaCroix and Lexi Belle are both happily retired post wall roasties married to Chad millionaires with multiple children now.

Post photos of this, please.

>>39639354

Yes. The current society does favor men who exhibit short term desirability.... that's already happened. But it has limits. It's so incredibly destructive from an evolutionary perspective, that it dies out of the population in very few generations. And groups which are resistant to these values (conservative and fundamentalists), basically, replace them with large families and ignore all this "sexual positivity" messaging.

Seriously, go talk to a filipino immigrant (my area probably has filipinos as the most popular ethnicity for immigrants), and you will find them VASTLY more conservative than western natives. And they absolutely police long term destructive behavior in their own women. They also have much larger families, I believe, though I am not familiar with the data on that.

File: 16.jpg (73KB, 600x342px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x342px

>>39639573

No, its not a question of terminology.
Its a question of whether the hierarchy is conceptually unified (ie under the ontologically blank relational practice of 'dominance', a concept which Peterson holds to be effectively the same between two men playing chess and two gorillas fighting over mating rights) or whether such general terms are in fact nothing MORE than surface-level verbal generalisations (like the way we generalise magnetism and love as forms of 'attraction' without remotely supposing that they have the same mechanical bases). In the latter case, what we would be dealing with, is a number of different forms of attractiveness (intellectual, physical etc) that can't be unified in any other way than to be traded off against one another based on the agent's strategic needs at the time.

The Dominance Hierarchy attempts to barter superficial conceptual resemblance between different forms of contest into an overarching unified system of endeavour with a single point of optimum (listen to Peterson speak about the set of all possible games, in his justification for morality).

This is the 'non-obvious' leap he makes, and its super important.

But I've got to go now and you seem genuinely interesting as a psychological thinker. I have a throwaway email:

[email protected]

Its a hard question to start answering, and I certainly believe that women have a common, group sourced criteria, in fact I would go further and say that it is dimly introspectively available to men as well, but that doesn't mean that it subscribes to a single unified norm, as opposed to multiple situational norms. And the real life behavioural implications for that distinction are massive.

File: zack the ripper.jpg (45KB, 477x597px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 477x597px

>>39639695
This is Remy's husband and newborn, from her instagram. Ironically, it was super difficult for me to find this because Googling "Remy LaCroix husband" just pulls up porn stuff kek.

File: 17t47p1qn6ex8jpg.jpg (75KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 636x358px

>>39639621
>>39639658
>>39639714

In case I was responding to the wrong person, also feel free to email my throwaway:

[email protected]

You guys seem cool too, but I've got to leave my house right now and I'll only be back to check on this thread late tonight. Shame, coz it seems like good discussion so far.

Cheers

>>39639857

Why do you want us to email you?

>>39639814

Why are you even talking about Peterson? What the hell does he have to do with this discussion? The only reason you brought him up is because I used the term "male dominance heirarchy", which I am clearly, by my prior post, not attached to. I just don't care about jung's opinion on stuff, or your opinion on jung, or frankly, your opinion on peterson. I read the guy, I don't agree with, or even frankly, think very deeply about some of the things he says.

Here is why there's a single, unified heirarchy of female choice that is accepted by both men and women.

First, because there is an evolved shared preference amongst women for specific attributes. They want the same things. This builds the core.

Secondly, because women use the first point to save effort evaluating men: they want what other women want, because it's a safe assumption that what other women want is something they should want too. So any attribute women decide to want will be accepted into the core, simply by women using other women's mate evaluation data by proxy.

And thirdly, men admire and respect men who have accomplished what they themselves aspire to, and what basically all men who are still in the gene pool aspire to, is attracting desirable women. So if any other evaluation criteria emerged amongst women, men would ALSO immediately accept it into a single unified structure to follow.

So even if another attribute emerged which women desired, it would immediately be adopted by a single, unified "desirability structure, because men want to be desired, women don't have time to personally evaluate each and every potential mate, and so everyone would just adopt the new trait as desirable and respectable.

This has absolutely nothing to do with jungian anything, and frankly, I find that dry and boring as a discussion topic. I will not be discussing dead authors here. It just is a recognition that the guys who do not care about attracting women are extinct.

>>39639918
To continue conversation on an interesting topic for the purpose of mutual clarification. Also because some stuff isn't easy boil down pithy 4chan back-n-forth.

People post emails all the time, what's the problem?

I'm not trying to LONDON a bunch of random robots, if that's what you're saying. I'm straight and male, so its just the discussion i'm after. Sorry for disappointing anyone with that.

>>39640053

Meh, don't worry about him (I authored two of the posts you referenced, presumably he was the third). I got your meaning, and it was appreciated.

Sorry, I don't really maintain any throwaways, and this stuff is already too politically incorrect to email you from my own email account.

Best regards, and have a good night!

Vast majority of all women in porn are white.

I wonder why that is? Because they are all whores addicted to black cock. I challenge each and every person here to post a white woman that DOESN'T have porn or nudes of herself.

This thread has probably been the most intellectual thing that has ever existed in r9k.

Also check em.

File: 8c69cacc428d215334f1f3d7ebc044e91439267c_hq.jpg (48KB, 900x810px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 900x810px

I think its mostly because most of them don't understand the extent of porn and how much it will follow you throughout your life. But also ask yourself, what would you do without porn? Or without these naive women? you might have to go get a girlfriend or something.

>>39640007

>First
All that suggests is that women can model eachother's basis for attraction, not that the attraction basis itself is unified, which is the important issue.

>Thirdly
>Anything which helps attract women is desirable for men as a quality they want to have.
Right, but why would that imply that it goes into a unified structure?
Why wouldn't there be a forked structure, as in the sexy son hypothesis, where women in the high fertility part of their cycle want men with more masculine attributes (scent, musculature, height, skin tone, beard growth, aggressiveness etc) and in the less fertile part of their cycle (when their body assumes they are taking care of, rather than conceiving children) they desire more feminised and parental kinds of men, with less of the above listed characteristics?

And its also a competition. Men are born with certain traits and need to maximise their desirability, same with women. So emphasising the benefits of a parentally oriented mate over pump-n-dump strongmen has always been priority for a fair majority of males in the tribe, leading to the emergence of monogamy.

I spose it doesn't matter if you're cribbing Peterson or not, I just thought mutual texts were a good bedrock for conversation.

g2g

>>39640085
Shame, but fair enough. Cheers

>>39640235

I think it's unified by because women, over their evolutionary window, shared a similar set of capabilities and challenges. The ones that desired things that were helpful survived.

Sure, I can imagine there being several strands (like, say, dark triad traits) which are not equally valued by all women, but I think their is absolutely a unified common core, and that the way women outsource their decision making encourages those strands to bleed together. It's just not practical for a woman, with very limited historical mating windows, to personally evaluate every guy. And where decision making by proxy happens, preferences converge.

Intelligent, symmetrical features, healthy, physically larger than average, at the very least, are universally desirable.

As for the second point, women WANT to exhibit different choices at different points, but what the genes care about is being in the next generation. Sure, women may pick a guy with good genes because of the sexy son hypothesis, but that makes the(genetic) father of those sons more respected by other men (in a way that is uniform enough to be thought of as a single heirarchy), but also, the guy who is being used to raise another man's child, is reviled by society (the term is cuckold).

It's behavior that does happen, but the end result is simply that guys care about their genes being in the next generation, because that's what their ancestors did, and they have a unified respect for other men who succeed, and contempt for those who fail.

And I get the wanting to talk about Peterson, I just don't have it as a common text (haven't read most of his source material), and really find a lot of his stuff a bit dry. I really do not WANT to read the gulag archipelago. It's not on my reading list. So I can't talk in an educated manner about him now, and won't be able to in the future.