In this episode, we discuss porn. Participants: Yassine, Interversity, Neophos, Xantos. Links: E016: The Banality of Catgirls (The Bailey) Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Behavioral Sciences) How Pornography Can Ruin Your Sex Life
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?
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?