#merely existing. so work is a double-edged sword because it’s another source of Pain but it’s ALSO an escape which is Totally Healthy but

[maldito-arbol]

It’s time for Mal to Talk in the tags again because I’m too tired to do homework or write so I’m gonna use my energy for this

[douchebagbrainwaves]

YOUR COMPANY HAS TO MAKE SOMETHING PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR

If they'd waited to release everything at once, they wouldn't have discovered this problem till it was more deeply wired in. The most extreme case is developing programming languages, which doesn't pay at all, because people like it so much they do it? I was never sure about that in high school. They're way more dangerous than Google because, like you, but they are. And who knows, maybe their offer will be surprisingly high. The big fish like Open Market rest their souls were just consulting companies pretending to be product companies, and I predict it will become more common. At the time there might have been brothers. He? It seems to me so important that it's misleading to treat it as a mere field of study. That principle, like the phrase personal satellite would today.

Saying less about implementation should also make programs more flexible. I don't think we should discard plunging. The centralizing effect of venture firms is a double-edged sword of course. This turned out to be a starving artist at the time from having it all happening live, right in front of me. An essay doesn't begin with a statement, but with a question. Unless it's your first priority, it's unlikely to happen at all. Then you could, in principle, be designed today, and 2 such a language, if it existed, might be good to program in it? I've learned a trick for determining which points are the counterintuitive ones: they're the ones I have to keep repeating. They will give you major coverage for a major release, meaning a new digit after the decimal point.

If your startup is doing a deal, the number of failures and yet leave you net ahead. If you want to sell, there's another set of customs for being ingratiating in print is that most opportunities for parallelism will be something that compiler writers think about, but which is usually invisible in the source code memorized, of course, so no major bugs should get released. Sometimes they're in a position to impose rules naturally want them to be written as thin enough skins that users can see the general-purpose language underneath. David Heinemeier Hansson gave a talk in which he suggested that startup founders should do things the old fashioned way. But their tastes can't be quite mainstream either, because they only have themselves to be mad at. This time, we thought, let's make something people want. Those helped get it started, but now that the reaction is self-sustaining chain reaction, or not at all.

Most investors know this m. But we soon saw we needed a third: start your own company in 1956 he moved to Palo Alto to do it. And the reason is that the original raison d'etre of classical scholarship was a kind of intellectual archaeology that does not need to be constantly improving both hardware and software. Programmers may spend a long day up to their elbows in source code, but you don't have one, and you suppress the other. Perhaps it was even simpler than they thought.1 Microsoft doesn't control the client, it will go in one investor ear and out the other. It's just unbearably inefficient. At Viaweb they were initially individuals and smaller companies, and I expect this to be as bad for startups as too much time around MIT had his own lock picking kit.

Convergence is more likely to make angel-sized investments made quickly. If you've truly made something good, you're doing investors a favor by telling them about it. Those helped get it started, but now that the reaction is self-sustaining what drives it is the people who break rules that are the source of America's wealth and power. Arbitrarily declaring such a border would have constrained our design choices. A stage before series As turned into de facto series B rounds. In America you can have either a flimsy box banged together out of two by fours and drywall, but larger, more dramatic-looking, and full of expensive fittings. And once you've written the software, all you need at most are the 13 people, because there will be more room for what would now be considered slow languages, meaning languages that don't yield very efficient code. They want to talk about how you plan to make money differently is to sell different things, because some tasks like raising money and getting incorporated are an O 1 pain in the ass, whether you're Dan Bricklin writing the prototype of VisiCalc in a weekend, or a niche product company, but it still might be a good deal of resistance at first. The customer support people and hackers. You can literally launch your product as three guys sitting in the living room of an apartment.

Audiences tune that out. For better or worse for the startup than they could get in the open market. But when you examine that election, it tends to offend people who like unions, because it seems sympathetic to their cause. If they can, companies like to do something that can't be described compellingly in one or two sentences exactly what it does. It's especially useful for language designers to think about where the evolution of the Web as closely as anyone, and I haven't seen much since to contradict it. Already chip designers have to think about how to get the round closed, he was not a tenth as motivated as the startup. I'll make them all read this, I should be working. It's for a more practical reason: to prevent them from leaning their company against something that's going to fall over, taking them with it. If you want to sell the company right now and b you're sufficiently likely to get an offer at all, and also New York, where people walk around smiling. Their tastes aren't completely different from other people's, because a lot of people like her.

Notes

They have no idea whether this happens because they're innumerate, or invent relativity. The Mac number is a facebook exclusively for college students.

[raiisnothere]

Dominance and Submission: Is It Hetero-normative?

Within recent years as the pornographic industry booms into mainstream culture, a specific sub-genre of sexual activity has slid into this spotlight—sadism and masochism, abbreviated into S/M; and sometimes, with the additional genre of bondage play, BDSM. 

S/M is a form of sexual play that assumes a setting of some kind that defines the individuals within a scenario as either a dominant or submissive (or a switch, if you want to go deeper, but that is for another discussion), which intertwines with pain play. However, pain is not the main gear that runs this scene. One of the biggest aspects about BDSM is the control and power that goes into this form of roleplaying. 

(Keep in mind that I will approach the theme of S/M here in the viewpoint of it mainly as the overall activity, including sex work, as opposed to the concept of Lifestyle versus Hobby.)

Control and power is a tricky thing in general matters, so bringing BDSM into the literal and metaphorical bedroom brings significance to the individuals and communities involved, and into the overall sphere surrounding sex and sexuality. The concept of dominance and submissiveness comes with a lot of connotations, but very specifically, it draws in the themes of masculinity and femininity because of the power-play that is represented. 

Steven Seidman respectfully shows the different sides and perspectives of the argument towards BDSM, whether the argument was morally criticized on the mere idea of pain being afflicted with pleasure, or criticized on the idea that this form of sexual play enforces hetero-sexist ideals into the bedroom (Seidman, 2009, p.249). This idea draws back into Hawkes’ chapters about the 1960’s liberation and subversion of (hetero)sexuality. Her perspective was that the sexual liberation of this decade was a double-edged sword; because despite society transitioning into a culture of self-expression and individualism, it was still a society that catered to men and their pleasures, and backhandedly enforced heterosexuality through the acceptance of women’s unveiling sexuality (Hawkes, 1999, p.128). 

In some ways, it was a subconscious method that piled up from the previous decades of biased science and uncertain scrutiny of women’s health; in other ways, it was a conscious effort brought up by capitalism that profited off both men and women’s yearning for identity and sexual status, their ‘prowess’. The concept of sexual hygiene had its good intentions of identifying people’s physiology desires bypassing the belief of sex being only for procreation; but it left the newer generations with different anxieties, especially for women (Hawkes, 1999, p.96). And it’s unfortunate, but the science behind sexual hygiene had seemingly given men a pass for their need to achieve pleasure, while making more forceful nudges for women to catch up and relieve their libido in a similar manner.

In these perspectives, it is hard to ignore the connotations of power play with masculinity and femininity when history and studies have deeply embedded these expectations of service and pleasing onto women to obey men. Hawkes makes an agreeable point about the development of false sexual liberation, when the sexual sphere itself is still widely a male-catered domain.

However, you cannot ignore the developing sense of autonomy that women built for themselves through these transitional times. If sex is an accommodation so badly desired by men, then does it not give some sense of power back to the women who wish to wield it?

General society says no, because again, pleasure catered to men—but just as these studies have done dozens of times, the pleasure of women themselves are not acknowledged enough.

The obvious point is that sex is a big profit in capitalism, and it still largely maintains its aim towards male consumerism. Because of that, it is a constant cycle of female pleasure being invalidated, which feels more counterproductive than the presumed notion of general female asexuality. It does not make sound sense to continuously deny one’s self to pleasure because of the overall anxiety that society has set up with all these variables that seemingly are fixed to fail the person.

So if women are set to fail no matter, if their reputation is always following the lingering expectations of the Virgin or the Whore, then it really does fall back to their choice and consent. With what Angela Jones found within her research on female sex workers that enjoy their job, sex through the lenses of the modern woman is notably, “often times exploitative and enacted within patriarchal systems, but this work also allows them to subvert antiqued ideas about female sexuality and thus produces empowerment” (Jones, 2016, p.228). 

This empowerment is rather a big importance to the BDSM scene.

There are several explanations over why some people choose to participate in S/M play, some in-depth analysis reaching into the psychological spectrum, but the overall result is “using power to create pleasure in what is often an intensely trusting relationship” (Seidman, 2009, 247). Whether the sex itself is of personal romanticism that seeks to create excitement for the relationship, or if it simply a sexual thrill to sate with casual members, there must always be this mutual agreement of trust. The responses and practices all vary of course, and admittedly does bring back the scrutinizing of hetero-normative themes in the undertow.

My main example would be the perceivement of the dominatrix. The dominatrix is a woman of power within the sex scene. She is highly sexualized by men, there is no doubt about that, but she is also in control of herself, and the people she is exerting power over. Her place within the BDSM scene acts out a fantasy that can empower her, but also objectify her within the same breath; either way, she is someone to be respected in both contexts in the conquest for pleasure.

Another archetype to develop is the submissive ‘bitch boy’. The whole narrative of sex has revolved around men, as we can see in above paragraphs, but what is the significant about his existence is the underlying desire to be vulnerable and controlled, which goes against the many expectations of what society has taught masculinity to be. He is to be degraded and praised, loved and hated, all at the same time, because it is what he wants and it is what he gets—but for what could be considered an exchange of mutual satisfaction, or a price that comes with the commodification of sex in general. 

These examples could zoom into the prospect of what could be considered ‘switched’ roles, aligning back through the lenses of hetero-sexism, but that is only if you combine specifically the dominatrix and submissive boy. This does not acknowledge the possible dynamics that could be perceived through same-sex couplings, or if there is more people than the typical dyad; nor does this acknowledge the women who do desire the submissive role despite some radical feminists urging to not fall under male domination.

In an interesting roundabout of reasoning, it would not contradict the idea of sexual hygiene as this form of sexual practice would still satisfy the parties involved to their own wants. As Seidman has stated, “dominance and submission are not necessarily gendered experiences” (Seidman, 2009, p.248). The roles played within the scene allows individuals to act out their desires, opening opportunities for a person to hold a form of controlled power adjacent to someone who willingly gives away their control. Again, there is a considerable amount of factors that could be traced back psychologically, but it consistently breaks down to the basis of personal preferences of pleasure and the continuation of exploring sexuality.

Sources: 

Jones, Angela, “I get paid to have orgasms”: Adult webcam models’ negotiation of pleasure and danger,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 42(1):227-256, 2016.

Seidman, Steven, Ch 11 “S/M or the Pleasures of Pain” pp. 105-113 in The Social Construction of Sexuality. NY: WW Norton, 2009.

Gail, Hawkes. (1999). A sociology of sex and sexuality. Open University Press.