Studying antis on social media - Collages to support Disgust Theory

[Bookshelf]

if a real recording of rape and a fictional depiction of it illicits the same reaction, your displeasure of the idea of rape is only due to feeling icky and gross at the images themselves like identical shadows on the wall, and not at the documented *reality*

This comment in particular is good, I think. The fact that so many people have identical reactions towards fictional CP as they do real CP or AMSC is pretty solid evidence that much of it is "ew icky" as opposed to concern about any children.

If an average person were to watch a video of a real murder, they'd naturally be uncomfortable. They wouldn't have great reactions, obviously, because murder is bad and we all know it's bad without needing to be convinced. Watching someone get murdered would not feel great. However, we're able to separate reality from fiction, and boot up a game like GTA and go on killing sprees; we can consume fiction where murder is written as serious or comedic, and everything in between. We can do this with just about any crime, except AMSC for some reason.

People obviously aren't worried about fictional CP because it's "depicting real immoral acts that hurt real people", otherwise the Call of Duty franchise wouldn't be one of the best selling franchises in video game history. There's obviously something else going on, and I think this disgust theory idea addresses that.

[zarkle]

*note to readers 24+ hours have past since I last checked the thread, so things could have even more likes*

Evidence that the masses do not think rational when it comes to degrees of sexual harm. All sex crimes are treated the same regardless of severity, as if a flick on the ear and a mortal stabbing wound were viewed as equal. The reason why is because crimes involving sexuality invoke Haidt's concept of purity, and violations of it cause black and white thinking and severe disgust

Hello, Zarkle here. Today I would like to show off drama on X with you all. I'll be guiding you through the confusion of this thread.

https://x.com/c0ckballs42069/status/2080336274603352560

Several things are going on

1) The original poster named "a woman" posted a graphic illustration about the severity of rape and different types of rape arguing for a spectrum of harm.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G41gJkzW4AA ... ame=medium
For example she separated lying to a partner to get sex from brutal force rape, so they are not in the same category of crime. On this spectrum she put teenage with adult sex in the middle of the harm spectrum and that's what triggered this episode with many out ratio comments, an Out ratio comment is when a reply or retweet gets more likes then the original post.

2) A user named "Sebasorova" chimes in months later, quotes user "a woman's" rape spectrum graphic and tries to argue consensual sex between 16 and 26 is just as bad as violent aggressive rape. 900+ people like his comment in agreement. Not an out ratio but few people in the comments try to reason that there is a nuance of harm and its not the same. They only get a few likes.

Below in the comments we see a rando saying "yes. any rape should be treated equally and considered equally severe."

3) The user Tamlya quoted the entire thread argues that lying about concealing a trans identity is not deceptive. Tamlya expresses moral outrage that anyone dare say concealing trans identity is rape, and rebukes the illustration as harmful to rape survivors. She also blatantly appeals to disgust reflexes by calling it gross.

4) The original poster "a woman" did not make that graphic I believe, (researchers did) and she herself admitted in the comments she was a victim of rape that fell on 60% scale of the chart. (Likely drunk assault)
https://x.com/TouchOfAWoman/status/1985778489228943524

https://x.com/alevsobe/status/1985841522680705414
Like 60s I guess (she is implying she was raped at a 60% on that scale.



We also have some approved comments I agree with to counter the all rape is equal narrative like

"All violence is bad, so being stabbed in the jugular is the same as being flicked on the ear."

-

But we also see countering popular comment far succeeding here arguing the dominate incorrect narrative , that rape is all equal.
https://x.com/TheRealFanger/status/1985771262871028096 With out ratio comment saying "This is extremely offensive to anyone who's ever been raped, with 8k upvotes, when the original post by "a woman" only had 5k.

*update I found this comment a day later*
and this 24k outratio comment saying all rape is rape and 16-26 dating is pedophilia
https://x.com/vmp1r3b1t3s/status/2080710962987119090

This spectrum is bullshit sorry. Not only is that rape its also pedophilia 24k likes

So for the most part in the eyes of the public the simple narrative that a willing 16 year old having sex with a 26 year old is just as bad as violent kicking and screaming forceful sexual assault remains dominate. The masses see no difference and they are outraged that anyone dare frame rape as a gradiance/spectrum, they are insisting on black and white thinking. I will cash in my opinion on this by saying this is where scientist/disgust researcher Paul Rozin's Law of contagion kicks in. As I have stated before sexual crimes are the most likely crimes to evoke disgust, and sexual crimes involving things labeled "pure" by culture make it even worse and more punitive.

So understand sex crimes like prostitution will always trigger disgust, but sex crimes with children are even worse because they evoke Jonathan Haidt's concept of Purity vs Degradation to a very high degree. Children are seen as purity corrupted by degradation. This may also explain why in previous 18th century cultures women be punished for prostitution instead of the buyer/John because they were seen as unpure, that I believe is the same evolutionary hardwiring to reject impure sexual things, just following a different set of cultural rules

Zarkle's main point: Sexual crimes are more likely to be viewed as black and white because of how morally disgusting things evoke the contagion principle

I believe there is evidence to suggest that moral disgust promotes black and white thinking over nuance, just as taste/smell/ingestion based disgust does. For Example research of Paul Rozin said a single tiny drop of sewage in water ruins it, there is zero tolerance for very mild contamination of drinking water regarding sewage in it. No matter how tiny the drop. The sewage always ruins it.

Since we know for a fact moral disgust and food based disgust involve the same parts of the brain, they both promote black and white thinking. It is a black and white issue if sewage in water contaminating it. Even if it is just one tiny tiny drop. It is also black and white issue for all sex crimes involving minors. That is why 17 and 25 dating cause some normies to freak out just as much as a 5 year old being forcefully kidnapped. The cultural purity violation triggers a sense of irredeemable contamination regardless of severity. There is no gradiance of harm, just black or white.

So to establish this case clear and convincingly to the best of faith we have that my title claim holds.

1) The X thread showing normies do not distinguish between severe and mild sex crimes.

2) Robert Sapolsky's research showing the insular cortex does both distaste disgust and moral disgust
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJXUkq3j5h8

3) Jonathan Hadit's Purity vs Degradation claim in Moral Foundation Theory
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/articl ... divides_us

4) Paul Rozin's claim of the "law of contagion" and how a tiny drop of sewage water indefinitely ruins a drink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_contagion
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/journa ... 4117a.html

4) and I zarkle tying it back to argue that even the mildest sex crimes trigger extreme norm violations, for the same reason a drop of sewage in water does

and don't even get me started out how general public responses to sex offender registrants are tied to the same parts of the brain that deal with contagious food. So there we have it. I am not suggesting we drink contaminated water, lol. But seriously I hope I made myself clear and convincing feel free to leave feed back and yes I know many more likes exist by now as I wrote this 24 hours ago and I'm too lazy to recheck X

[zarkle]

Look at this below. These mainstream leftist are clueless. They blame everything on "internalized homophobia" "internalized misogyny" and other left wing buzz words ignoring the science of disgust and human sexuality intersecting. Making it where they don't stand a chance of understanding the truth. Unless they reject dogma and open up a science text book- and we can do this while still supporting LGBT+ rights.

First let's zoom into this twitter thread


https://x.com/king_of_bob/status/2083401113869447355

@king_of_bob
A huge number of the replies to this are people saying "I'm not homophobic" while also spewing some of the most ignorant, homophobic shit.
Quoting:

@gatx_negrx
Yall need to be much more clear. You don’t want to date a man that has had sex with other men because you think - for some reason - that sex between men is disgusting and dirty and gross etc.

That is homophobic. And there’s some internalized misogyny in there but I digress


--end thread--

To inform everyone, I am sympathetic towards @king_of_bob's comment opposing anti lgbt attitudes, but @gatx_negrx needs some basic science education, this thread allegedly says its homophobic for biological females to not want to date biological males who have sex with men, in simple terms biological females avoiding casual sex with bisexual males is the topic, and both the replyer and quoter are condemning bisexual discrimination. But they fail to understand the science of disgust, that explains the technical side of what is going on.


I zarkle make the case that this anti bisexual prejudice, it has its partial roots in nature. Quoting the start of disgust researcher Charmaine Borg's 2017 paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Arousal


Mating is a double-edged sword. It can have great
adaptive benefits, but also high costs, depending on the mate.
Disgust is an avoidance reaction that serves the function of
discouraging costly mating decisions, for example if the risk
of pathogen transmission is high. It should, however, be tem-
porarily inhibited in order to enable potentially adaptive mat-
ing.


This quote is saying, disgust is a biological hardwired mechanism to reject unwanted sexual partners. Disgust is simply how one rejects a mate and it works like a firewall, arousal is the guard down bypass. Disgust is the response to any unwanted sexual stimuli.

Leftist questioning why the female brain views bisexual men as unwanted sexual partners is a valid question, but that should be the starting point instead of saying silly things like "internalized homophobia" "internalized misogyny" I'm saying its good they figured out bias against bisexual males but we need to dig deeper and not act immature about something partially wired into many female brains.

We can tie this into Val Curtis's talks about how disgust is meant to avoid sexual STDs and risky mates, and speculate due to historical representation of gay men with STDs/AIDS. This could be a contributing factor why western women find bisexual men disgusting. This historical association of gay men with STDs in culture is an example of cultural social factors influencing evolved functions of sexual disgust. Culture and Nature being a two way intersecting street influencing each other.

Here is the source on AIDs possibly influencing disgust:
Disgust sensitivity relates to attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women across 31 nations
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 2211067151

How should we interpret the relation between disgust sensitivity and antigay attitudes? One possibility is that gay men might now be associated with infectious disease because the HIV/AIDS epidemic has hit the gay community particularly hard since the 1980s (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Kurzban & Leary, 2001). However, antigay prejudice long predates the 20th-century HIV epidemic (Pickett, 2018). Hence, if pathogen-avoidance motivations partially underlie long-standing and cross-culturally robust antigay sentiments, then they likely do not do so only because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

As we can see the researchers show skepticism of AIDs alone as do I.

Quoting disgust researcher Val Curtis from a study:
https://www.healio.com/news/infectious- ... -infection

Women, who made up 66% of respondents, rated all six categories of disease stimuli more disgusting than men In particular, they were disgusted by risky sexual behavior and diseased animals

“Whilst women and men are mostly similar in their disgust, there is about a 12% difference that is significant,” Curtis said. “That may be because in the evolutionary past, women passed on more genes by being extra disgusted to protect themselves and their children. Men are known to take more risks, because on average they end up with more offspring that way.”

She's saying in normie terms that chicks are more disgust sensitive then dudes, and sexual things and dead animals do it.

I zarkle will also add that because from a biological perspective females have semen deposited into their vagina, and that the vagina is much much wider then the tiny peehole opening of the penis, risking infection that natural selection gave females a stronger sense of disgust to keep their vaginas clean.


I hope this helps clarify, I am NOT advocating for bi-phobia. I have a lot more to say on this topic so expect me to come back later in a revisit. I'm still studying. I have a lot more to say soon!