Is it that TheMotte-style rationalist are secretly puppeteering everything, that I'm just caught in their orbit because we think similarly, or that they vacuum up all the good ideas and repeat them? This is the first time I've seen the podcast, and going by titles it's just a giant list of "ideas I like and think are good and true explanations of stuff".
Finally got around to listening to this. I don't personally believe this, but how do people answer the "stereotypical feminist response", i.e. "you only think about sex because you're brainwashed by the Patriarchy", but with much more high-class words that have their basis in the large and sprawling Ph.D-industrial complex. In other words, I'm the kind of person who thinks it's obvious that men and women have different levels of sexual desire, and that the research is fairly clear on this being at least a hormonal difference, but more likely even deeper, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9xI_XhaQ64&ab_channel=TheFemsplainers , but I interact regularly with people who think that any man who desires sex, and doesn't seem to care where it comes from, is a pawn of the Patriarchy. That this man could have these desires, divorced from some specific person and a deeper connection, is obviously objectification and dehumanization of women (and their bodies), and toxic masculinity. There would also be something about how the desire for sex in itself was being caused by the societal norms and the status rewarded to sex-having men via the Patriarchy, and nothing at all about whether an opposite "desire to have kids, divorced from some specific known child or male partner" is not at all a toxic femininity.
The entire discussion takes place in the "water" of sexual desire, with only a couple of nods to the male-female difference and the a general assumption of physiological response to presence or absence of porn. I think the feminist view might include a sense of "a non-Patriarchy has never been tried, and in that utopia the porn would not exist because the society didn't cause men to desire status via sex". How would you respond to a good version of that argument?
I'm not doubting that it exists but I've personally never encountered the argument you're describing (I also wouldn't say I'm especially drowning within feminist literature). A good first step for the question you're asking would be to link to an exemplar of the argument in question.
I don't have anything specific off the top of my head, but I remember when trying to discuss the merits of PUA, my argument was more or less as described here: https://hackinglife.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/624duzlw/release/2 That you can think of PUA as a remedial level class for those who failed to pick up basic skills when they weren't given direct instruction, and that you can generalize basic social interactions and collate them into a training manual for the intelligent but inept. You'd do the same for reading and writing, or basic arithmetic, or programming. In the field of social interactions, you train salespeople and psychiatrists. There are also of course, training manuals for people who failed to pick up basic organizational skills (due to their autism or adhd) that could also be trained to behave in more effective ways, and so why not a manual for romantic or sexual encounters? The hacking (or just straight-forwardly scientific) mindset can applied to any arbitrary situation in order to try and get better results, and putting it to the current dating market as it currently exists around you is as good of a place as any.
The response was generally of two types. The first is that "nobody owes you sex", which might be expanded into "it's dehumanizing to only want this one thing from women's bodies, and not to see them as whole people beyond their genetalia". The second is "why would you even want that" which might be expanded into "it's harmful to men as well to buy into this toxic masculinity: that you can't choose to improve yourself in your own life for your own sake without having a goal of sex as an explicit win-condition. If you wanted to have better relationships that's fine, but to make the goal sex is a harmful artifact of patriarchy".
I'm mostly talking about this second part, where to me and all of your panelists it's obvious that men simply tend to have higher desire for sex, probably for biological rather than cultural reasons. Were one of the people who I argued about "hey, why is this social skills training manual considered disgusting, but not textbooks on the treatment of bipolar disorder" to listen in on your conversation, I can imagine that this almost-undiscussed assumption would be a clear signal: everyone here is suffused with patriarchal assumptions about their world and completely unable to see it.
At one point it's mentioned that jerking alone is low status and lots of sex is high status, and it briefly gets asked if that's a true generalization about how most people feel, and also asked if that seems morally correct. The next step down the feminist line would be "why would a man care to do either?". As an extreme: "it's the patriarchical culture that they live in that makes men even desire to jerk off, with or without porn, not biology", though I have no idea if any go that far. What would you say to someone who jumped in at that moment with something like that?
I wouldn't know how to respond to something like that because I'd ask to see the argument fleshed out more. You allude to another issue in your first comment, but if we also have to assume a hypothetical world where 1) men did not seek status and/or 2) where sex does not garner status, we're already describing a scenario vastly different from ours. I wouldn't know where to start.
Fair enough. It's always hard for me to properly represent what people from that side would argue, because it does sort of seem like they're having a hypothetical world so different that I don't really know where to start. I'm a little surprised that you aren't exposed to anyone that's in this sort of "ultra-feminist, culture is everything" camp, but that is also kind of the critique I'm having of this episode: that it takes place in the more male-coded rationalist sphere that seems to have a bit of a blind spot.
Pointing out our blind spot is fair criticism, and it's something we disclaimed during the episode as a potential deficiency in our coverage. I try to remain open-minded and to regularly test my beliefs, but the content boulevard is only so wide!
Is it that TheMotte-style rationalist are secretly puppeteering everything, that I'm just caught in their orbit because we think similarly, or that they vacuum up all the good ideas and repeat them? This is the first time I've seen the podcast, and going by titles it's just a giant list of "ideas I like and think are good and true explanations of stuff".
🎶"We do, we do!"🎶
Finally got around to listening to this. I don't personally believe this, but how do people answer the "stereotypical feminist response", i.e. "you only think about sex because you're brainwashed by the Patriarchy", but with much more high-class words that have their basis in the large and sprawling Ph.D-industrial complex. In other words, I'm the kind of person who thinks it's obvious that men and women have different levels of sexual desire, and that the research is fairly clear on this being at least a hormonal difference, but more likely even deeper, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9xI_XhaQ64&ab_channel=TheFemsplainers , but I interact regularly with people who think that any man who desires sex, and doesn't seem to care where it comes from, is a pawn of the Patriarchy. That this man could have these desires, divorced from some specific person and a deeper connection, is obviously objectification and dehumanization of women (and their bodies), and toxic masculinity. There would also be something about how the desire for sex in itself was being caused by the societal norms and the status rewarded to sex-having men via the Patriarchy, and nothing at all about whether an opposite "desire to have kids, divorced from some specific known child or male partner" is not at all a toxic femininity.
The entire discussion takes place in the "water" of sexual desire, with only a couple of nods to the male-female difference and the a general assumption of physiological response to presence or absence of porn. I think the feminist view might include a sense of "a non-Patriarchy has never been tried, and in that utopia the porn would not exist because the society didn't cause men to desire status via sex". How would you respond to a good version of that argument?
I'm not doubting that it exists but I've personally never encountered the argument you're describing (I also wouldn't say I'm especially drowning within feminist literature). A good first step for the question you're asking would be to link to an exemplar of the argument in question.
I don't have anything specific off the top of my head, but I remember when trying to discuss the merits of PUA, my argument was more or less as described here: https://hackinglife.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/624duzlw/release/2 That you can think of PUA as a remedial level class for those who failed to pick up basic skills when they weren't given direct instruction, and that you can generalize basic social interactions and collate them into a training manual for the intelligent but inept. You'd do the same for reading and writing, or basic arithmetic, or programming. In the field of social interactions, you train salespeople and psychiatrists. There are also of course, training manuals for people who failed to pick up basic organizational skills (due to their autism or adhd) that could also be trained to behave in more effective ways, and so why not a manual for romantic or sexual encounters? The hacking (or just straight-forwardly scientific) mindset can applied to any arbitrary situation in order to try and get better results, and putting it to the current dating market as it currently exists around you is as good of a place as any.
The response was generally of two types. The first is that "nobody owes you sex", which might be expanded into "it's dehumanizing to only want this one thing from women's bodies, and not to see them as whole people beyond their genetalia". The second is "why would you even want that" which might be expanded into "it's harmful to men as well to buy into this toxic masculinity: that you can't choose to improve yourself in your own life for your own sake without having a goal of sex as an explicit win-condition. If you wanted to have better relationships that's fine, but to make the goal sex is a harmful artifact of patriarchy".
I'm mostly talking about this second part, where to me and all of your panelists it's obvious that men simply tend to have higher desire for sex, probably for biological rather than cultural reasons. Were one of the people who I argued about "hey, why is this social skills training manual considered disgusting, but not textbooks on the treatment of bipolar disorder" to listen in on your conversation, I can imagine that this almost-undiscussed assumption would be a clear signal: everyone here is suffused with patriarchal assumptions about their world and completely unable to see it.
At one point it's mentioned that jerking alone is low status and lots of sex is high status, and it briefly gets asked if that's a true generalization about how most people feel, and also asked if that seems morally correct. The next step down the feminist line would be "why would a man care to do either?". As an extreme: "it's the patriarchical culture that they live in that makes men even desire to jerk off, with or without porn, not biology", though I have no idea if any go that far. What would you say to someone who jumped in at that moment with something like that?
I wouldn't know how to respond to something like that because I'd ask to see the argument fleshed out more. You allude to another issue in your first comment, but if we also have to assume a hypothetical world where 1) men did not seek status and/or 2) where sex does not garner status, we're already describing a scenario vastly different from ours. I wouldn't know where to start.
Fair enough. It's always hard for me to properly represent what people from that side would argue, because it does sort of seem like they're having a hypothetical world so different that I don't really know where to start. I'm a little surprised that you aren't exposed to anyone that's in this sort of "ultra-feminist, culture is everything" camp, but that is also kind of the critique I'm having of this episode: that it takes place in the more male-coded rationalist sphere that seems to have a bit of a blind spot.
Pointing out our blind spot is fair criticism, and it's something we disclaimed during the episode as a potential deficiency in our coverage. I try to remain open-minded and to regularly test my beliefs, but the content boulevard is only so wide!