D
Deleted member 23558
God make my neurotransmitters great inc
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2022
- Posts
- 64,753
- Reputation
- 91,856
The reason why this phrase is so common is not because its true but because it is a proof of confirmation bias and wishful thinking . Imagine being a poor medeival dark skinned dalit tilling the fields in 1400 AD with t50 and you see a noble fair skinned beautiful blonde haired princess with Greco Roman ancestry making her daily procession beside your house. You go to your house and you are solemn that she will never like you, what does your mother say? "Dont worry son opposites tend to attract"
Fast forward to this century and you can see how this seemingly innocuous phrase is an equivaction for the bluepilled belief that there is someone for everyone and looks both matter. How? If opposites attract then looks become redundant as short is the opposite of tall and ugly is the opposite of beautiful, which then implies short ugly men can get beautiful women because it is a law of nature. This has helped generations of dalits cope with their shit cards and not go ER.
In fact if we assume the role of a scientist and look to see some law no matter how abstract that can help explain sexual relations better, then we cant do much better than Otto Weinenger's forumulation as such:
The law runs as follows: “For true sexual union it is necessary that there
come together a complete male (M) and a complete female (F), even
although in different cases the M and F are distributed between the two
individuals in different proportions.”
The law may be expressed otherwise as follows:
If we take μ, any individual regarded in the ordinary way as a male, and
denote his real sexual constitution as Mμ, so many parts really male, plus
Wμ, so many parts really female; if we also take ω, any individual regarded
in the ordinary way as a female, and denote her real sexual constitution as
Wω, so many parts really female, plus Mω, so many parts really male; then,
if there be complete sexual affinity, the greatest possible sexual attraction
between the two individuals, μ and ω,
(1) Mμ (the truly male part in the “male”) + Mω (the truly male part
in the “female”) will equal a constant quantity, M, the ideal male; and
(2) Wμ + Wω (the ideal female parts in respectively the “male” and
the “female”) will equal a second constant quantity, W, the ideal
female.
This statement must not be misunderstood. Both formulas refer to one
case, to a single sexual relation, the second following directly from the first
and adding nothing to it, as I set out from the point of view of an individualpossessing just as much femaleness as he lacks of maleness. Were he
completely male, his requisite complement would be a complete female,
and vice versâ. If, however, he is composed of a definite inheritance of
maleness, and also an inheritance of femaleness (which must not be
neglected), then, to complete the individual, his maleness must be
completed to make a unit; but so also must his femaleness be completed.
If, for instance, an individual be composed thus:
μ{
3
⁄
4
M
and
1
⁄
4
W,
then the best sexual complement of that individual will be another
compound as follows:ω{
1
⁄
4
M
and
3
⁄
4
W.
It can be seen at once that this view is wider in its reach than the common
statement of the case. That male and female, as sexual types, attract each
other is only one instance of my general law, an instance in which an
imaginary individual,
χ{
1 M
0 W
,
finds its complement in an equally imaginary individual,
γ{ 0 M
1 W.
There can be no hesitation in admitting the existence of definite,
individual sexual preferences, and such an admission carries with it
approval of the necessity of investigating the laws of the preference, and its
relation to the rest of the bodily and mental characters of an individual. The
law, as I have stated it, can encounter no initial sense of impossibility, and is
contrary neither to scientific nor common experience. But it is not self
evident. It might be that the law, which cannot yet be regarded as fully
worked out, might run as follows:
Mμ - Mω = a constant;
that is to say, it may be the difference between the degrees of masculinity
and not the sum of the degrees of masculinity that is a constant quality, so
that the most masculine man would stand just as far removed from his
complement (who in this case would lie nearly midway between
masculinity and femininity) as the most feminine man would be removed
from his complement who would be near the extreme of femininity.
Although, as I have said, this is conceivable, it is not borne out by
experience. Recognising that we have to do here with an empirical law, and
trying to observe a wise scientific restraint, we shall do well to avoidspeaking as if there were any “force” pulling the two individuals together as
if they were puppets; the law is no more than the statement that an identical
relation can be made out in each case of maximum sexual attraction. We are
dealing, in fact, with what Ostwald termed an “invariant” and Avenarius a
“multiponible”; and this is the constant sum formed by the total masculinity
and the total femininity in all cases where a pair of living beings come
together with the maximum sexual attraction.
In this matter we may neglect altogether the so-called æsthetic factor, the
stimulus of beauty. For does it not frequently happen that one man is
completely captivated by a particular woman and raves about her beauty,
whilst another, who is not the sexual complement of the woman in question,
cannot imagine what his friend sees in her to admire. Without discussing
the laws of æsthetics or attempting to gather together examples of relative
values, it may readily be admitted that a man may consider a woman
beautiful who, from the æsthetic standpoint, is not merely indifferent but
actually ugly, that in fact pure æsthetics deal not with absolute beauty, but
merely with conceptions of beauty from which the sexual factor has been
eliminated.
I have myself worked out the law in, at the lowest, many hundred cases,
and I have found that the exceptions were only apparent. Almost every
couple one meets in the street furnishes a new proof.
Fast forward to this century and you can see how this seemingly innocuous phrase is an equivaction for the bluepilled belief that there is someone for everyone and looks both matter. How? If opposites attract then looks become redundant as short is the opposite of tall and ugly is the opposite of beautiful, which then implies short ugly men can get beautiful women because it is a law of nature. This has helped generations of dalits cope with their shit cards and not go ER.
In fact if we assume the role of a scientist and look to see some law no matter how abstract that can help explain sexual relations better, then we cant do much better than Otto Weinenger's forumulation as such:
The law runs as follows: “For true sexual union it is necessary that there
come together a complete male (M) and a complete female (F), even
although in different cases the M and F are distributed between the two
individuals in different proportions.”
The law may be expressed otherwise as follows:
If we take μ, any individual regarded in the ordinary way as a male, and
denote his real sexual constitution as Mμ, so many parts really male, plus
Wμ, so many parts really female; if we also take ω, any individual regarded
in the ordinary way as a female, and denote her real sexual constitution as
Wω, so many parts really female, plus Mω, so many parts really male; then,
if there be complete sexual affinity, the greatest possible sexual attraction
between the two individuals, μ and ω,
(1) Mμ (the truly male part in the “male”) + Mω (the truly male part
in the “female”) will equal a constant quantity, M, the ideal male; and
(2) Wμ + Wω (the ideal female parts in respectively the “male” and
the “female”) will equal a second constant quantity, W, the ideal
female.
This statement must not be misunderstood. Both formulas refer to one
case, to a single sexual relation, the second following directly from the first
and adding nothing to it, as I set out from the point of view of an individualpossessing just as much femaleness as he lacks of maleness. Were he
completely male, his requisite complement would be a complete female,
and vice versâ. If, however, he is composed of a definite inheritance of
maleness, and also an inheritance of femaleness (which must not be
neglected), then, to complete the individual, his maleness must be
completed to make a unit; but so also must his femaleness be completed.
If, for instance, an individual be composed thus:
μ{
3
⁄
4
M
and
1
⁄
4
W,
then the best sexual complement of that individual will be another
compound as follows:ω{
1
⁄
4
M
and
3
⁄
4
W.
It can be seen at once that this view is wider in its reach than the common
statement of the case. That male and female, as sexual types, attract each
other is only one instance of my general law, an instance in which an
imaginary individual,
χ{
1 M
0 W
,
finds its complement in an equally imaginary individual,
γ{ 0 M
1 W.
There can be no hesitation in admitting the existence of definite,
individual sexual preferences, and such an admission carries with it
approval of the necessity of investigating the laws of the preference, and its
relation to the rest of the bodily and mental characters of an individual. The
law, as I have stated it, can encounter no initial sense of impossibility, and is
contrary neither to scientific nor common experience. But it is not self
evident. It might be that the law, which cannot yet be regarded as fully
worked out, might run as follows:
Mμ - Mω = a constant;
that is to say, it may be the difference between the degrees of masculinity
and not the sum of the degrees of masculinity that is a constant quality, so
that the most masculine man would stand just as far removed from his
complement (who in this case would lie nearly midway between
masculinity and femininity) as the most feminine man would be removed
from his complement who would be near the extreme of femininity.
Although, as I have said, this is conceivable, it is not borne out by
experience. Recognising that we have to do here with an empirical law, and
trying to observe a wise scientific restraint, we shall do well to avoidspeaking as if there were any “force” pulling the two individuals together as
if they were puppets; the law is no more than the statement that an identical
relation can be made out in each case of maximum sexual attraction. We are
dealing, in fact, with what Ostwald termed an “invariant” and Avenarius a
“multiponible”; and this is the constant sum formed by the total masculinity
and the total femininity in all cases where a pair of living beings come
together with the maximum sexual attraction.
In this matter we may neglect altogether the so-called æsthetic factor, the
stimulus of beauty. For does it not frequently happen that one man is
completely captivated by a particular woman and raves about her beauty,
whilst another, who is not the sexual complement of the woman in question,
cannot imagine what his friend sees in her to admire. Without discussing
the laws of æsthetics or attempting to gather together examples of relative
values, it may readily be admitted that a man may consider a woman
beautiful who, from the æsthetic standpoint, is not merely indifferent but
actually ugly, that in fact pure æsthetics deal not with absolute beauty, but
merely with conceptions of beauty from which the sexual factor has been
eliminated.
I have myself worked out the law in, at the lowest, many hundred cases,
and I have found that the exceptions were only apparent. Almost every
couple one meets in the street furnishes a new proof.
