One possible reading of it is that the bear trap is alt-right pipeline, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, toxic stuff like that, and the trapped guinea pig is a probably cisgender, probably straight, probably white young man. They fall into the trap because it’s actually designed perfectly for them. I took it as the moral of the story being to be mindful of pushing away people who may be suffering and also experiencing relative privilege within this soul-crushing capitalistic system.
And like, yeah, unironically, poor cis-het white guys. I’ve seen plenty of men and boys I care about struggle under the pressures of hegemonic masculinity (a particular form of “manhood” that one must adhere to to be afforded the privilege of being a Man ™). My best friend used to say that in an alternate timeline, he could’ve seen himself becoming an angry, edgy incel, if not for the influence of some friends who supported, and, where necessary, laughed at him.
I don’t think that’s controversial. People who fall into traps should be helped, even if they don’t think they need your help before they fall in (and hell, even while they’re trapped, they may still not realise it).
However, there’s a limit to what can reasonably be expected to be done to “bring people over” to the other side. If I’m trying to build community and solidarity than more often than not, I wanna be prioritising the wellbeing and voices of people experiencing structural oppression, over coddling the ego of someone who’s relatively privileged. And yeah, that sucks, and it’s uncomfortable to reflect on how privilege doesn’t mean you’re exempt from suffering, and how that privilege can even serve to isolate you if you’re surrounded by voices saying that men don’t suffer under the patriarchy and if you are suffering, it must be your fault for doing the masculinity wrong.
I’m marginalised along some axes, immensely privileged in many others. In some ways, being marginalised is more comfortable, because I know where I stand: it’s me, and others like me, against an unjust system. Righteous anger, baby. It gets uncomfortable when I look back at my privilege. It doesn’t negate my suffering, but I can’t pretend it doesn’t exist; part of the solidarity and striving for a better world is tearing out the old structures that I, and others like me, have benefitted from, unjustly.
In recent years, I’ve gotten quite good at sitting with my discomfort, which is good, because whenever I think I’m on top of it all, I find something else that makes me feel profoundly uncomfortable about the world. That’s good though, because that means it’s working, I hope. I’m in a trap of my own, you see, and there are countless good people working to free me from this, I just need to stop flailing and let them help me; it’s not reasonable to expect people to put their wellbeing at risk to help someone who seems determined to go down struggling and take others with them.
A book you’d probably enjoy is “Elements of Eloquence”, by Mark Forsythe. It covers this kind of stuff in a fun, accessible format. Like how John F Kennedy’s “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate” is an example of chiasmus, the symmetrical repetition of structure or wording; or how the Fight Club rules thing is an example of epizeuxis.
The audiobook version is pretty fun to listen to, that’s how I first encountered the book - a friend who needs something to listen to as they sleep put it on and I enjoyed it.
Well I think you’re wrong, fuck you and your opinion /s
I actually don’t know to what extent I agree with you, but your theory certainly feels plausible to me. It reminds me of the internet adage about how the best way to get a right answer to your question is to be wrong. I can’t remember what it’s called.
You may feel silly, but this little exchange is part of what I love about the internet. This time, I got the joke, but there have been some many times when I have been the person saying “I don’t get it”, or being relieved to see someone else expressing the sentiment, because that leads to explanations. So many jokes fly over my head, so it always makes me happy to see mini conversations like this
With all due respect, have you read the article? Attributing this to prudishness misses a lot of what’s actually being said: that shoe-horning in romance or sex for no reason is the problem, as well as lack of attention being given to developing platonic relationships. Exploring non-romantic or sexual relationships better doesn’t necessarily mean cutting out sex and romance, and imo, would likely lead to better sex and romance in TV and movies.
But I agree with you also, that gratuitous sex and nudity can be used to great effect. Another user lemmy.world/comment/4888355 (don’t know how to link comments, hopefully this will work) posted a link to the article “Everyone is beautiful, no-one is horny” above, and this really highlights the problem on this side of things, in my view