Has it ever occurred to you...

 ... that social media has become, in essence, an entirely new form of subliminal pornography?

— and that, having become such, it might now very well be social media's defining characteristic?

Lolwut? Yeah, me neither. Thinking is tedious, and I can't be bothered to stop scrolling TikTok! 

Some Women: "Why do most guys not talk or make any noise during sex? It's annoying/it pisses me off."

Well, women of the internet - I'm glad you asked. It's really not that complex: it's a YOU-problem, not a them-problem.

It really boils down to a matter of one particular notion that many of the female persuasion seemingly believe shouldn't ever matter in any sexual context: guys who genuinely don't enjoy performing a given arbitrary act for its own sake miiiiiight prefer not to, ever.

... almost like there's a double standard, or something. Huh. Imagine that! On the internet, too, of all places... and regarding sexuality, of all things!

LISTEN UP:

Expression of physical (or any) experience in any socially-compatible medium—e.g. spoken words, noises, language in general—is NOT a fundamental human drive or characteristic, and it is in fact much more common and natural for humans NOT to perform ANY social or otherwise expressive behavior in any given scenario.

For many people, sex that includes ANY expectation/need for them to perform arbitrary socially-adaptive behaviors of any kind is—justifiably—uncomfortable. Due to the way modern social structures and processes have been inversely-molded by the inherently-disparate fundamental sexual dynamics between males and females in nature, that discomfort tends to be more pronounced in men than women - but it's more common than not for everyone. 

 

... do YOU enjoy being uncomfortable when you have sex? Huh. Imagine that!

Accordingly, an intuitive and/or comfortable capacity for verbal articulation/expression during sexual activity is uncommon enough in men that its absence should be an expectation to any reasonable person, not a surprise - and certainly doesn't constitute justifiable cause for criticism or disappointment, any more so than it you'd consider it justifiable for any man to expect any woman to be inherently thrilled to deepthroat, or to receive anal, or to do both in reverse order.

— "BUT WHY," you whine ask?

Because "expression" is a strictly environmentally-acquired, adaptive social behavior (and concept) - and all adaptive behaviors cause physiological stress. This happens to be the underlying psychological mechanism responsible for allowing kinkplay—a deliberate reversal of adaptive roles and/or the consensual discarding/adoption of specific performance expectations which are contrary to them—to be enjoyable under the appropriate circumstances, btw. (And in stark contrast, when you weaponize this concept in an attempt to manipulate any person into serving your own desires for only your benefit, it tends not to be received very well... nor should it be).

Think about ALL of the individual behaviors any person exhibits in the course of a day, including private ones and those they aren't even conscious of doing, and then consider how many of those correspond to a discrete simultaneous example of self-expression: virtually none!

Sex is no exception; some people have ACQUIRED expressive sexual habits, while many (if not most) have not.

Somewhat of a digression here perhaps, but it's also critically important to differentiate between the vastly-disparate concepts of (social) PERFORMANCE vs bonafide EXPRESSION; the latter can potentially be a reasonable expectation of a committed partner under clear, specific, predetermined circumstances - while any expectation of the former can only be reasonable when it is strictly elective behavior, period. In (healthy) kinkplay, for example, what might otherwise be considered a "performance" is usually or mostly fully-derived from expressive drives that have been qualified by an explicit comprehension of both the presence and clear definitions of mutual safety and consent... but that is a (rare) exception providing for an overlap between those two otherwise-contradictory behaviors - not a rule conflating them as being inherently similar or commonplace under normal circumstances. Outside the structure and context of a clear, mutually- AND EQUALLY-beneficial social contract containing an explicit performance-component, "performance" and "expression" normally have little or nothing to do with each other in actual, real, healthy life - and are much more often found to be in opposition not just to each other but also to the practice of productive interpersonal interactivity between individuals in general.

tl;dr:

Whether you're just another passive-aggressive misandrist bandwagoner on reddit or merely another normal, imperfect human being with occasionally-imperfect ego-control, it's never appropriate to expect a sexual partner—yes, ladies, even if that partner is a guy!—to merely PERFORM any arbitrary behavior during sex; the words for that specific behavioral modality are either ACTING or SLAVERY, and both involve an exchange of legal tender for a very good reason.

Non-consensual PvP in Gaming: a Sure Path to Long-Term Underperformance

Most people frame their analysis of PvP vs PvE in games based on a common major error in reasoning: that any particular example of a "risk vs. reward" scenario is either uniquely or particularly special, meaningful, or even unusual. In fact, in all cases... it is none of those things, ever.

Gaming (or any form of entertainment), on its own, is ALWAYS an inherent risk vs. reward interaction at all times; you are always wagering your TIME against the possibility that you can find a justifiably-valuable degree of enjoyment in doing so; if you do not enjoy that investment, you outright lose it then and there - and if you continue to invest at that point, well... you know how sunk-cost fallacies work, right? Simply changing this dynamic's degree or appearance or venue does not—and cannot—significantly influence the already-fundamentally-binary reality of its possible outcomes, i.e. "it's either enough fun, or it's not."

THAT right there is the meat and potatoes of reasoned argument against—in general, regardless of source or bias—any form of PvP that is not explicitly opt-in at all times. Accordingly, the only correct way to quantify that sort of interaction in an entertainment context would be to refer to it as one with an "arbitrarily-inflated risk requirement, regardless of outcome."

Please, consider, the following:

A) most enjoyment from any form of entertainment, including gaming, effectively boils down to its various constituent analogs to otherwise real-life psychological processes;
B) in real life, while consent is OFTEN missing from many interpersonal interactions, in such cases it is (almost universally) not only missing but in fact ACTIVELY MISSED - with the realization of that absence being a potential—and likely—source of almost every possible negative and/or harmful human emotion/experience imagineable.

The human brain's reactions to this mechanic over time are, in fact, at the root of the origins of most if not all environmentally-precipitated antisocial behavior, i.e. "crime."

In short, people overwhelmingly dislike being taken unfair advantage of by other people, regardless of format or context - and no matter how effectively such proceedings might be obscured behind the fourth-wall.

Just as there exists a relatively small—but widely impactful—demographic of devoted criminals in real life who will reliably target the most-vulnerable members of society within whatever environment is most advantageous for such a pursuit, there are a roughly-equivalent proportion of individuals who will actively seek to exercise that same pathological aspect of their psychology in any (interactive) fantasy environment that can offer a greater inherent advantage to them; non-consensual pvp is then one of the most obvious choices of outlet for these individuals in a gaming context, specifically.

Not surprisingly, MOST people with an active desire to partake in such antisocial behavior are exactly the sort that are also the MOST harmful to any gaming community over time, and—biscuits to baskets, at the end of the day—the amount of enjoyment inherent in participation within a game's community is what ultimately makes or breaks its long-term prospects.

Shrewd, forward-thinking developers know all of these things, and THAT fact—that wisdom-driven desire to safeguard the possibility of a long-lasting healthy community by cultivating the lowest-possible concentration of pathologically-antisocial and/or otherwise toxic individuals within it—is the ACTUAL reason that open/free/unrestricted/non-consensual (inflated risk) PVP is as rare as it is in (successful) games...

... and it's the reason it should absolutely always stay that way in any game that hopes to be successful in the long term.

Just chewin' the Americud

As proud capitalists, we must never neglect to totally-non-ironically pay homage to the three worst and most popular on-the-dl scams (in no particular order) in modern human civilization, without which our glorious way of life would simply not exist:

• Insurance.
• Credit (not just consumer credit but also stocks and loans of state, etc).
• Democracy.

In combination, the insurance and credit industries are almost solely responsible for inflating the cost of (everything) so absurdly high that both are now required to be able to "afford" anything. Each of them is a giant economic ouroboros constantly swallowing up people's livelihoods, shitting out the impoverished husks, and then feeding on those perpetual-debt-turds in turn - and growing larger and hungrier with every single bite. Mmmmmmmm. Freedom!

As far as democracy goes, there are only two kinds of people in the world: those folks who are intelligent enough to have studied a modicum of history and who have thus learned better... and those who fail to see that they're the reason it can never succeed.