u/NeurogenesisWizard

Its at the tip of my tongue, but I cannot find it.
The concept that you ought part with a world you developed at some point, or characters near and dear to you once a fic or book is complete or such. I do not know this feeling, but I am decent at logic/conceptualization. Just it seems subjective, and relative to the work one is producing.

So I want to know how it is for you and what your thoughts are on it? Maybe its not that big a deal. Or, maybe it should be a big deal, idk. If our creations are a part of us, or do we sometimes get in their way? How do you cherish it yet let go without disrespecting it? Should you let go, or, should you revisit? Its relative and subjective yeah just, making inquiry.

Modern gender theory is all about personalization and validation and shit, not deconstruction.

So they don't necessarily all individually have the tools to give proper criticism or observations because its not fine-detail enough. So their groups still have sex expectation problems just due to the nature of the scope limits of their terminology.

But its still a bigger issue for conservatism daters who are inexperienced.

Now to clarify what I mean. 'A real man [gender expectation]' 'A real woman [gender expectation]'. Gender expectations are composed of assumptions of roles in society, and are relative to the nature of the individual and how they can differ. Like 'don't all men drink beer and watch football with their friends?' This is in a social circle right, social expectation.

There are the implicit qualities that are unspoken. Emotionally invested into a technical combat simulation sport, emotionally invested into tribalism, beer is normal.

When people have sex the reason why age matters in consent is not because of some objective moral principle, its because you are getting your esteem shorted like a scam, and because of motivating neurochemicals this can pull the wind out of your future sails. Akin to spiritual premature ejaculation.

The micro expectations and future expectations are a complex emergent system that influence each other, akin to how a formula can be tweaked in a small way and the resulting function can look entirely different.

So people with more experience having intercourse with those of less experience are the pushers of bad expectations. They don't necessarily profit from esteem tho, like a hooker gives their 'surplus value' to the pimp.

So who benefits? In a sense this is like a scam from propaganda causing misdirection of future expectation. Essentially sex is political. If you see a story about a teacher marrying their male student who 'just turned 18' or whatever, sometimes arrangements are not bad for the individual themself, but are bad for their future socialization group should it have not happened. So in a sense, time can get stolen not just money. And not just time but future potential social energy.

One might argue that some situations are mutually advantageous despite being underage. But because the male student in the example is trapped by their past decision this is not necessarily true. The scam comes from locking in an answer, then the reliability can benefit some systems and disfavor others.

So when we consider other countries having different age of consent laws, like Japan you might expect that their social system is just adapted to younger sex. But if you check their suicide rate (extremely high) you know that its not that simple. So I assert that the surplus esteem gets stolen from comprehension gap regardless. Also Japan is more carried by their fish diet than anything else tbh.

And this is why the upper educated often find it more difficult to reproduce. Because consent is actually difficult to establish properly and they have more knowledge of this. Also some 'use it or lose it' and inexperience perhaps but knowledge is not just attained by first person experience. You can look up how to finger a woman to orgasm quite easily.

So essentially sex and social momentum are beholden to Marxist theory as well. And the way to differentiate is by examining sub-attributes assumed of gender or sex in culture. Which gender studies I don't think really tackles, they are for specific categorization. This is more a humanist philosophy than a gender one, because it involves examining individuals more accurately.

Like gender studies acknowledges expectation failure, but it doesn't address the fine details of how it relates to culture in an unbiased or formal way. I suggest its a failure of terminology. Because wordy things like this post don't necessarily get communicated concisely but terminology does.

Plus expression culture for non-conformists who are gender focused have their own gender expectation biases. Sometimes trans people are sexist intersocially and don't realize it.

But the terminology might differ too much to be useful (wow, 90 sub-genders! /s). The issue is in categorization bias. Like a form of scientism they are beholden to. We don't need a whole phylogenetic categorization system for everyone to memorize a billion words. We just need the word Attribute added. Then it enables proper political or social examination.

I suppose I ought define it.

Gender Attributes are presumed or existing gender qualities within a culture. Gender Attribute Expectation is how one accurately or inaccurately presumes the characteristics of individuals in a culture relative to their gender.

Alright have fun.