People who mourn ‘the death of the music business’ must also think that if all the prostitutes disappeared, no one would ever have good sex again.
Those people mistake the music industry for the music itself.
Music is math. Music is art. Music is invisible waves of air. Music doesn’t naturally fit into any business model. If you want to make money off yet another simple human pleasure, you have to make it fit.
If you wanna pimp it out, it’s up to you to lure the starry-eyed amateurs, tell them they’re special, sweet talk them into running away with you (because only you can offer them protection), coerce them into hitting the roads to make you money, then break their legs if they disobey you. And it’s up to you to tell the lonely johns that your shit is the only the good shit in town so they will be duped into buying from you.
The music business complaining about its lost revenue is like Facebook complaining when you hang out with your real life friends. Honey, you didn’t invent friendship, you didn’t make it better, & there is a valid argument that suggests you might have made it worse.
Adding financial incentive to art has the same effect as adding sugar to food. It ends up making the product more addictive, because more consumption equals more money. But like food weaponized with sugar, or friendship weaponized with likes, music weaponized with capitalism doesn’t intrinsically make better music.
Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma, & Big Social Media are made by big crooks who don’t care about health or humanity or friendship or you or even the quality of their own product. The only thing the Bigs care about is how much of their stuff they can trick you into repeatedly buying so they can show quarterly profits to their partners in Big Business.
Big Music is no exception.
Radio didn’t kill the music business. Neither did video or cassette or the internet or piracy or streaming.
We’re all just slowly waking up & realizing how absurd the music business was to begin with.
The people you have casual sex with are real people.
When I’m having casual sex with someone, it’s important to me that we treat each other with care and respect and basic human kindness.
Just because we’re casually having sex doesn’t mean we should stop treating each other like real people with real lives. So whether your human litterbug approach is due to simple disregard for other people who aren’t you or whether it’s some kind of mental game, it’s toxic, and I can’t have it in my life.
Some people have terrible time management and/or decision-making skills. Sometimes I myself can’t decide whether to put an ‘and’ or an ‘or’ as a qualifier, or both. But these are skills that can be learned. You’re not schedulistically-challenged. You just choose to treat other people like they’re not real people.
Some people have too much going on. I’m a huge fan of mistakes and imperfect people. In fact, people with pet peeves are my pet peeve. But there’s a difference between a mistake and a pattern, and if a mistake turns into a pattern, it ceases to be a mistake. You’re not chronically overbooked. You just choose to treat other people like they’re not real people.
Some people think casual sex is a form of disrespecting someone. It goes without saying (which are my favorite kinds of sayings) that this is nothing more than a form of thinly-disguised self-hatred. (Unless you genuinely hate the opposite gender, on which I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don’t.)
If you catch yourself thinking, I’ve lost my respect for her/him now that I’ve fucked them, the real person here that has lost your respect is yourself. You’re not a victim of your culture and upbringing. You just choose to treat other people like they’re not real people.
Don’t fuck cardboard cutouts. Fuck real people.
How to Program a Sex Robot: List-Based vs Open World
There are two ways to approach the programming of sexuality & sexual functions into a sex robot.
Sex can be envisioned as a set of serialized, goal-oriented tasks that must be accomplished in a given order by the bot. Or sex can be explored as an open world experience with side missions available that allow the bot to deviate from the primary objective in order to aggregate more experience/pleasure/adventure points.
In the list-based model, the bot is programmed with a number of checkpoints it must reach with its human partner. These may include items such as Comfort, Attraction, Consent, Arousal, Physical Stimulation, Climax, and finally Auto-Climax (if the bot’s reward system is programmed to include some kind of auto-climax function).
These checkpoints may not need to be reached in a strict chronological order: Consent, for instance, may come before or after Comfort. Certain thresholds would, however, have to be reached before others: Consent would need to come before Physical Stimulation, and Arousal would usually come before Climax.
A list-based model gives the bot a clear set of goals which may be reached by performing a varied but limited set of tasks. This simple, straightforward model avoids confusing the bot and ensures that a safe, acceptable-minimum level of pleasure is guaranteed to the human partner.
The open world model may still include many of the same primary objectives, but these are accompanied by a layer of secondary objectives which can be more open-ended. These secondary objectives can be treated as side missions which may or may not directly contribute to the primary sexual objectives, but which may be based on an alternative reward system made to emulate in some ways the human sense of adventure.
Having sex under the stars, for instance, may actually detract from the primary objectives of Arousal and Climax due to temperature or comfort factors. As such it would have no place in the list-based sexual model.
In the open world model, however, the bot is programmed to see value beyond its rote set of basic tasks, and perhaps even to recognize the uncommon as a kind of value in itself (within certain limitations). It is thus driven to seek experiences and adventures that deviate from the fundamental elements of its sexual functions.
This can then become a sort of ‘Let’s Try This…’ subroutine which can be inserted as an IF-THEN initiative loop to be presented to the human partner for final approval during any given sexual encounter.
Trying out new sexual functions, activities, locations, velocities, and angles may be added to the bot’s reward system as an expansion pack to ensure the bot’s programming continues to evolve as it learns new things, as well as to avoid monotony for the human partner. The bot’s primary objectives would, of course, still remain as overarching principles running in the background, gently guiding the side missions, and available to be completed whenever desired by the human partner.
I didn’t give up my seat on the bus today to the tired, heavyset woman standing beside me.
What exactly is it that offends you about this?
If we are two organisms jostling around on a rock in a vacuum, I would say I think the arc of the moral universe is indifferent towards me keeping my seat. At this long term level of morality, you being offended makes no sense.
If it’s polite for a man to give his seat to a woman, I would say I think you’re a misogynist.
If the stronger should protect and care for the weaker, I would say I think this is the specific level of morality where you have the strongest argument. As the more capable being, I have a moral obligation toward beings less capable than myself, and to keep my seat would be the moral equivalent of a conquistador annihilating a tribe or an extraterrestrial annihilating the human race. If you look at the situation through a morally-nearsighted lens, I have a moral imperative to bequeath the poor soul my seat. At this short term level of morality, the high ground belongs to you.
If sitting is the new smoking, however, I would say I think my moral imperative would be to keep my secondhand smoke to myself. If sedentary lifestyles kill in the medium term, then I am doing this woman a favor by keeping her on her feet. I exercise a lot more than she does and am therefore more capable of assuming on my shoulders the considerable risks involved in sitting. She may or may not even literally tell her friends that she doesn’t need the gym because she gets her exercise standing on the bus every day for an hour.
If diminishing pain and maximizing pleasure is your morality, the minutes of discomfort she may have to endure today will save her from a world of pain in the future.
If by sitting in her stead, I can prolong her life for even a mere hour – by keeping her heart rate up, her muscles flexed, and her blood circulating, which in turn will increase her organs’ lifespan, her physical capability, and her quality of life – do I not owe it to her to snatch that seat away, to remove the danger that lies in her path? Am I not sacrificing my own wellbeing for hers?
Should not we all grab the seats for ourselves, laying down our lives on the altar for humanity? Or is humanity under the perpetual curse of an instinctively narrow purview of morality that prevents us from seeing into even the medium term much less the long term?
Men who are unhappy with their sex lives find solutions.
We buy porn and hire prostitutes. We invest in our sex lives because they matter that much to us.
Women who are unhappy with their sex lives… complain about it to their friends?
You rarely hear a man whining about how his wife can’t find his glans. If you aren’t doing something right in bed, we won’t fake an orgasm and go to sleep, we’ll show you how to do it right. And if you can’t learn, by God, we’ll find someone else who will, even if we have to pay them for it.
That’s how much of a shit we give.
It’s telling that the disparity between people who complain about their sex lives and people who spend money on their sex lives is divided about equally across gender lines (estimated 25% of women regularly fake orgasms, & estimated 20% of men hire prostitutes). If I only drive cars that arrive on my doorstep for free, I would be a pretty shitty person if I complained about the condition of those cars.
And as they say, don’t look a gift cock in the mouth.
If you’re a woman and you complain about your sex life, tell me when’s the last time you demonstrated how much it mattered to you by spending money on it?
If you think porn is disgusting and way too male-oriented, tell me when’s the last time you paid for some you liked?
If your partner doesn’t do what you like in bed, tell me when’s the last time you hired someone who would?
Sex, like any other industry, follows the money.
So put your dirty money where your mouth is.
(This week I didn’t write a SexyLittleIdeas article because I was finishing my thesis for the Music Business course I’m taking from Vanderbilt University. This is what I came up with, in case you’re interested.)
If we tie music or anything at all in life, inextricably to money, in terms of worth, it changes the essence of that thing.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, and I’m not here to solve all the problems of capitalism in one essay. But when I think of the worth of music, in terms of monetary value, my relationship with music becomes less like a love affair and more like a rich guy wondering if he has any true friends.
Adding money to anything removes some of its truth.
Money + sex = prostitution.
Money + love = gold digging.
Money + happiness = misery.
Money + family = evil stepmother.
If we want to think about music as something that belongs in the same commodity-driven sentences as: cars, mining, petroleum, lead, cotton – then we should think about its worth primarily in terms of money. But if we want to continue to think about music as something that belongs in the same sentences as: joy, love, creativity, family, friendship, happiness – then we need to define its worth differently.
or A Short Study on Weapons Legislation vs Crazy People
I think the gun control issue is a question of percentages. We have to weigh acceptable Weapons Legislation against the percentage of Crazy People with a Chance of Going on Killing Sprees. If the latter was exceptionally high, say around 50% of the population, we might only legalize the possession of exceptionally mild weapons such as swords or slingshots. If we had 0% Crazy People, we might be able to legalize nuclear bombs and light sabers.
To decide where you are as a rational person on the issue of gun control, you have to decide how many people you are comfortable with putting at risk of dying, say each year, in Crazy Person Killing Sprees.
In a nation of 320 million people, you have to assume that there will be some Crazy People and that some of them will go on Killing Sprees for whatever Crazy Reason. If all they have is slingshots or their bare hands, they will be able to kill very few people, maybe one or two per incident. If they have nuclear bombs, they will be able to kill maybe 100,000 per incident.
Weapons Legislation usually looks at weapons and victim numbers somewhere inbetween those two extremes.
or 5 Important Differences Between Sex Blogs and Sex Politics Blogs
Sex politics blogs come with an ulterior motive – an agenda that sneaks around the corner behind every word, staining those words, for better or worse, in its own colors.
That agenda may be to promote:
Male rights activism
Here are 5 crucial differences between sex blogs and sex politics blogs:
or How to Create an Asshole
Beautiful people, both men and women, always seem to have a complicated relationship with reality.
There is a common misconception, however, that beautiful men are equally as spoiled as beautiful women, or:
Really Attractive Men = Really Attractive Woman
This idea is categorically incorrect, and I can prove it scientifically.
First we have to accept one simple assumption, that I think will be easy to agree with. This assumption is that, all other things being equal, the amount of adoring attention you receive is directly tied to the amount of asshole you become. Or, in mathematical terms, where X represents the Amount:
(X)Attention = (X)Asshole
This is human nature:
If you are constantly being told how amazing you are, you will begin to feel very entitled.
If you occasionally get told how amazing you are, you will feel less entitled.
If you rarely get told that you are amazing, you will probably not feel very entitled at all.
Can we agree on that?
Boring Science Box:
There are many studies about the effects of perceived physical beauty upon human psychology that seem to back this up. This series of five studies by Neale and Belmi from the Stanford Graduate School of Business indicated that physically attractive people (to a much greater degree than people with perceived power, self-esteem, empathy, or even integrity) believed they belonged in higher social classes, which in turn motivated them to have increased support for inequality, such as toward minorities.
This is a graph sourced by OkCupid that illustrates the stark difference between the attention attractive women receive and the attention attractive men receive. It shows messages received per day plotted against attractiveness based on user ratings. ‘Women’ are in dark blue; ‘Men’ are in light blue. (This graph was made from analytics of 600,000 messages to 64,000 profiles voted on by 1.5 million users. Here are two articles with more in-depth analysis of the OkCupid study.)
As you can see, even a man at the highest end of attractiveness barely receives the number of messages that almost all women get, every day. Very attractive women, on the other hand, receive much, much, much, insanely much, more attention.
So (perhaps due to an evolutionary flaw in the balance of human predatory reproductive instincts between the genders) beautiful men max out the attention they receive around the same level at which average women are just getting started. In real life (on a scale of how much an Asshole a person becomes due to the Attention they receive based on how Attractive they are) this translates to:
Really Attractive Men = Average Women
Really Attractive Men receive about as much attention as Average Women. This infers that Really Attractive Men feel just about as entitled/spoiled as any Average Women. Because of the approximate parity between the amount of attention they both receive, Really Attractive Men are therefore about the same amount of jerk and the same amount of nice as Average Women.
Really Attractive Women, on the other hand – according to the science – are off the charts in both attention and entitlement. Really Attractive Women receive around 4 – 5 times more attention than both Average Women and Really Attractive Men. Really Attractive Women, it follows, are therefore that much more bratty.
Some studies (such as those on the Halo Effect) indicate that perceived physical attractiveness translates to increased wealth and life opportunities as well as the many social benefits. This OkCupid graph charting job interview requests plotted against attractiveness shows similar trends.
Boring Science Box 2:
Yep, there are also schools of research that back up this correlation between specifically attractive women – not men – and increased entitlement. This study by Evolutionary Psychology professor David Buss from the University of Texas indicated that attractive women calibrated their standards based on their own desirability (more desirable = higher standards), while simultaneously indicating that men’s standards did not correlate with their perceived physical attractiveness.
If you are an Average Man, an Average Woman, or a Really Attractive Man, this idea probably resonates with you.
If you are a Really Attractive Woman, you’re probably thinking right now that I am totally wrong and being a complete dick.
The Beauty Bubble (That Only Time Can Pop)
To you Really Attractive Women I would like to say this: YOU’RE VERY SPECIAL AND WE ALL LOVE YOU!
To the rest of you I would like to say this: DON’T SAY ANYTHING TO UPSET HER, YOU CANNOT FATHOM HOW MUCH OF A BUBBLE SHE IS LIVING IN!
or Men Oversexualize Women, and That Might Not Be a Bad Thing
The survival of the human race depends on men sexualizing women.
Male sexuality is fragile. It’s more easily distracted and more easily discouraged than you might imagine. It can be worried to death or stressed to death or laughed to death or even just bored to death. And while these same dangers apply to female sexuality, if it happens to men, well, there goes the future of the human race.
The survival of Homo sapiens as a species depends on men and our fragile sexuality for two main things: erections and orgasms. Erections are needed for vaginal penetration (erections being the most fragile part of male sexuality). After an erection is achieved and maintained, orgasms are needed for insemination (her orgasm is nice, his orgasm is crucial).
The survival of Homo sapiens as a species depends on women for just one thing: lying there. Reproductively speaking, women have to literally just lie there and receive. She doesn’t have to be turned on, not even a little bit, and she definitely doesn’t have to climax.
Women sexualize men to a far lesser degree than men sexualize women. Let’s take a look at female sexuality to see how that’s working out for them. According to Elizabeth Lloyd’s comprehensive analysis of 33 studies over 80 years, 75% of women don’t always orgasm during sex; about half the women studied have orgasms about half the time; and about 1/3 rarely or never have an orgasm during intercourse. A further 5%-10% of women have never achieved orgasm at all, ever. And as Lloyd says, “To further complicate matters, there remains a lack of complete agreement on what constitutes female orgasm.”
Fortunately for the human race, reproductively speaking, none of that really matters.
But imagine if men suffered from these problems and, consequently, the conception rate, the birth rate, and the growth rate of the entire human species were all proportionately affected. If Homo sapiens in its puppy stages had had its expansion rate cut by 30% to 70%, we might have never made it out of the Stone Age. Sentient giraffes or caring squid might be the dominant intelligent species on this planet.
Once again, fortunately for all of us, men found a way to make sure they were able to consistently perform sexually by:
- whistling at women who pass by construction sites
- staring at women’s asses
- calling their secretaries ‘Sugartits’
- never leaving a lone woman alone
- always being the one to approach and buy her drinks
- being giant sleazeballs
- and generally acting disgusting and making women uncomfortable by consistently sexualizing them to extreme levels.
It’s a dirty job, but someone had do it.
If you’re thinking, “Yeah, but what about artificial insemination? Women don’t even need men anymore!” I want you to really think about what you’re thinking. Reality is no movie or hard sci-fi novel.
Only recently has science been able to even begin thinking about bypassing the sex act to jumpstart life (although even that still requires a, possibly autosexual, male orgasm). Trying to keep up the human population using only artificial insemination would be an unspeakably mammoth (pun intended), expensive, and completely unfeasible undertaking. In lieu of the sudden death of every male human on the planet, actual sex is still by far the cheaper, more efficient, and more ecologically-friendly option.
So the survival of the human race, even today, still depends on men sexualizing women. For better or worse, it’s the age-old Darwinian saga of the survival of the filthiest.
That’s why he won’t stop staring.