Monday assorted links


1. Feels like a two-step from the left to me. First, unmitigated libertinism, to erode traditional foundations. Then, neo-puritanism, to build up a new moral foundation more to their tastes.

Maybe the problem is the Christians didn't disappear in step one as planned.

I think it's more like a bunch of contextual rationalization based on political expedience. Just like we see people on the right suddenly finding reasons why free trade is bad, people on the left found reasons to believe that having lots of oral sex in the oval office was perfectly normal and a sign of vigor. We humans are predisposed to see patterns in stuff that is essentially random and has no actual logic behind it.

Political expedience makes no sense Hazel.

We’re talking activist movements, which are by definition outside of the mainstream. Donohue’s conspiratorial mindset is also obviously wrong.

This wasn’t a long term plan to “down the patriarchy” but it also is not a random walk of ideological word salad.

This is all fallout of one of the greatest gains in Liberty in human history: widespread oral hormonal contraception and legalization of abortion. The feminist movement is defined now by its relationship to freedom and its consequences. Women can now live in accordance with their revealed preferences. Win!

No one knows where this ends, but as someone who cherishes freedom I say damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.

This is all fallout of one of the greatest gains in Liberty in human history: widespread oral hormonal contraception and legalization of abortion.

On in the minds of the grotesquely perverse is slaughtering the young a 'gain in human liberty'.

Thanks so much for defending me!

You're welcome. One would have thought that giving voice to the voiceless would be something that feminists would embrace, but apparently not.

Now do me, I want a voice too!

excellent observation. but may imply too much of a grand plan. how about this version:

step 1 of losing god = sense of liberation

step 2 = disoriented quest to fill the void

Maybe it is just a generation growing up. Feminists from a certain era were in the prime of their youth later grew up to become mothers. There's your two step.

Hard to tell what Yglesias's point was. Twitter is an awful medium for any form of serious discussion. And, by extension, that Twitter commentators aren't trying to be serious.

It's Matt Yglesias.

He's "trying" to be serious, but he's terrible at it.

Don't assume Yglesias is has anything serious to say.

It is far simpler than that. The assumptions about what post secondary education was supposed to accomplish is being challenged. It has turned into essentially a very expensive day care operation where kids are sent into a safe place to supposedly change from children to adults.

It has been for a long time the assumption that young men and women would go to college and experience sexuality in every guise and flavor. Not unexpected; you put a few thousand 20'ish people together for a few years and things are going to happen. It was an expected institutional process, encouraged in the institutions and by parents.

It hasn't worked out quite the way people wish. Young women have levels of depression and eating disorders in that environment that is quite alarming. As a result you get the various movements where sexual assault is redefined, the idea that young people need clear and often written permission from each other in ridiculous ways. The idea of rape culture. It feels like that to these overgrown children put into a sexual hothouse environment.

So both institutions and parents push for some kind of dampening down of the overheated sexual environment, and of course it gets crazy. Then it spills into the workplaces who have for years tried to emulate the college experience for their immature workers.

If the grievance studies had some intellectual rigor they might have something enlightening to say about this, but they don't. So they fall back on the preposterous nonsense of Dworkin. Remember that she and her ilk define rape as when a man penetrates a woman during intercourse. Barking mad.

The sexual revolution was about defining sex as simply a source of pleasure, and that any restraint is unnecessary. It obviously is far more than that. The most interesting thing is that a couple of generations with no restraint ends up not doing it very much. Who would have thought that the rigid sexual morals were a societal basis for vigorous horniness? I doubt that any religious person would be surprised by that finding.

Remember that the media today in all it's guises are the secular priesthood that pronounce what is right and wrong in these matters. They are as fucked up as the celibate priesthood, equally unqualified to blather on about these things. Their catechism is the ridiculous education they received from a bunch of anti-intellectual professors. You have a bunch of institutions floundering around taking on extraordinary power to screw people over based on the daily changing morays.

The most interesting thing is that the upper middle class largely lives a life of chastity, honor and faithfulness because it works very well. And it does, but no one dares say so.


Though on the last point I will point out the the UMC adapted to this environment with reduced marriage and fertility rates (which protected them from divorce or single motherhood, but at the expense of sterility).

Has there been a major increase in sterility- which means people are unable to conceive a child even if they want to? Or just a decrease in unwanted pregnancies and, per re entvsrats, in promiscuous sex? If the latter how is this not a good thing?

Well said, derek.

1. Keyboard diarrhea.

Comment if the Month. Bonus, it has universal internet application. Mental masturbation also works. My knee-jerk response to the crisis of feminism: "Eff them!"

Athony Burgess once said, upon describing the life of Gerard Manley Hopkins: There was no compromise in his religion either. His family was heartbroken when he left Anglicanism and turned Roman Catholic. His fellow Jesuits didn't understand him. He knew the dark night of the soul."


"THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God. It will flame out, like shining from shook foil; It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil: Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod? [...]"

Bless those that curse you. Love those that hate you. ETC. Luke 6:27-38.

+1. I have been reading some versions of Yglesias's analysis that go all the way back to the mid 70s, when feminism split between pro-porn (often calling themselves "sex-positive") and anti-porn feminists. The latter thought the sexual crudeness of the 60s Sexual Revolution mostly benefitted men, and mostly existed as an underground phenomenon in the 1980s that made some uneasy alliances with the then-ascendant Religious Right and spouted some loony "all sex is rape" theory that sounds a bit like the way people talked about Aziz Ansari's metoo moment. Camille Paglia got super famous around 1991 as a libertine/libertarian feminist by arguing that feminist complaints about sexual harassment, objectification, campus date rape were a kind of bourgeois neo-puritanism.

Matt Y., a deep original thinker and legend in his own mind.

#1 Feminism is - to paraphrase H.L. Mencken - the philosophy that women know exactly what they want, and deserve to get is good and hard. Wake me up when 6th wave feminism collapses.

#2 山高皇帝远. "The Mountains are High and the Emperor is Far Away"

#5 This whole 'millennials sex-drought' should really be viewed through the lens of ever-increasingly complex layers of what people feel are 'proper' social interactions...i.e. the levers and boxes that must be checked (in order) to go from 'breaking ice' to intercourse. It is no surprise to me that Japan is on the leading edge of this considering the highly formalistic and high-context rules already culturally established for social interaction there.

We are seeing the (ever day it seems) the same kind of increase in the West of these unwritten and implied social rules, a violation of anyone, destroying the entire process.

Coming at the issue from the other side is the 'tyranny of choice'. Online dating has effectively opened the entire world to both an individual woman and man's potential options. The effect being that so many are in fact not deciding at all by waiting for 'perfect' to appear.

"“Ten thousand women marched through the streets shouting, 'We will not be dictated to,' and went off and became stenographers."

G.K. Chesterton

Feminism stopped being about 'equality' with universal suffrage, and it became a lifestyle marketing gimmick designed and intended (and successfully so) to control the market choices of half the US population. This is because the half (men) with traditionally more market power are A) highly skeptical perhaps cynical of direct marketing action and B) incredibly difficult to capture or predict (i.e. the coveted 18-34 demo) and C) typically less ignorant or more self-educated regarding specific economic choices and D) not accustomed to 'being led' to begin with while simultaneously more used to questioning any 'appeal to authority' in the first place.

I repeat, feminism hasn't been about equality in 100 years. It has been about controlling women and their choices, but don't tell feminists that....

I would agree with the last paragraph if you replaced 100 years by, may be, 15-20 years.

I really think it goes back further than that. I break modern feminism into 3 eras/phases.

1) Suffrage.

2) The Prohibition/temperance movement, of which suffrage was very closely linked (aka control of men's 'economic choices'). 'Prohibition feminism' is the feminism of the USA roughly from Prohibition to the end of WWII. This feminism was not entirely crafted by women...the war and female employment during it being one of the principle drivers...

...for 3) "The Problem That Has No Name" feminism. Post WWII feminism. ALL current feminism, 'waves', etc. is derived from this era. 'The problem that has no name' feminism is 'power' feminism. The 'problem' has 'no name' because it never actually existed, and was in fact conjured by select women (and likely some men) to sell an 'empowerment' lifestyle that provides a good deal about feeling 'empowered' without actually providing most women any empowerment.

'Empowerment' feminism is secretly 'control' feminism, and it has made the vast majority of women exceedingly unhappy.

Well, it seems we are all talking about the US, so I believe you're right about the dates. I was thinking of examples all coming from France.

In France, there were many legal discrimination against women much more recently. They got the right of vote in 1944 only,
they right to work without the consent of their husband only after 1965; before 1980 only the father had authority over the children of a couple, the mother had none. Also, Simone de Beauvoir wrote "the second sex" in 1948 and I wouldn't call her "power feminism" in any way.


Your demarcation line there is the pill/abortion.

A paragraph about feminism without mention ....

I agree, but all it does is change the benchmark from 100 to 50 years ago.

#5 Maybe the Japanese are pathetic.

#1: I do not really see modern feminists as standing up to any sort of "raunch culture." That seems like fudging facts to fit narratives. Who is doing this? Where? How? Going after R. Kelly for his various misdeeds with underage girls is not the same as going after 2 Live Crew (or their contemporaries) for raunchy song lyrics like Tipper Gore did 25 years ago. Yglesias is assigning a lot more consistency and coherence to these ideologues (on both sides) than they deserve.

Per my comment below, there is not even really just one "raunch culture". That's actually a mixed bag of different things that are more or less "raunchy" compared to your own standards of taste.

I would agree with that, yes.

Both sexes would like to be strategically promiscuous (in different ways, but still promiscuous).

However, this is a prisoners dilemma. If the double cooperate box is "pre-sexual revolution mores", then the other two boxes (my sex does as it pleases, the other sex continues to play cooperate anyway) seem to be what playboy and pro-sex feminism we're going for for either sex. Turns out defect/cooperate combos weren't too stable, and you tend to end up in a defect/defect equilibrium.

Conservatives though such an equilibrium would mean lots of teenage mothers, and for a time it did, but it seems that equilibrium can also mean sterility due to lack of ability to form the trust necessarily to facilitate sex for most normal people (long term monogamous pairs).

"Feminists" seem to think we can still get to that "women defect, men cooperate" box if only we implement enough Orwellian pressure. Hence the kangaroo courts and such. Mostly it just seems to push us further into defect/defect.

I feel you are attacking a straw-man of feminism that is frequently seen online, and especially in this blog. A silent majority still value more-or-less traditional, monogamous relationships. "Sexually liberated" women also cooperate, just not by the (unfair, outdated) standard that they avoid pre-marital sex.

Women prefer a kind of strategic promiscuity where they try to get into a relationship with the highest status man they can at a given moment. Sometimes they use putting out to get it.

One term for this is called serial monogamy.

Having to be virgins at marriage would limit their ability to use putting out as a possible way to increase their bid for a higher status man.

That said, premarital sex lowers their value to men and usually makes for bad pair bonds (there is a pretty strong correlation between sexual partners before marriage and divorce, including a huge drop with the very first sexual partner).

I think the desire is to be able to use sex to try and capture high value partners, but not to be "judged" when those attempts fail. The problem is that failed sexual pairings are judged because they lower the value of the woman, that's just reality, and there is a limit to the amount of social programming you can use to paper over that reality.

Then there are also secondary issues. Like that sexualizing oneself attracts men other than the intended target, which the woman doesn't want to deal with. Or all of the complications that are involved with alcohol. Along with human emotions like jealousy, spite, etc.

The old way was better. But its hard to maintain because if some women start to try then they feel like its too easy for their competitors (other women) to use putting out to one-up them in a world there "the pill" and abortion have reduced the costs of putting out.

That said, premarital sex lowers their value to men and usually makes for bad pair bonds (there is a pretty strong correlation between sexual partners before marriage and divorce, including a huge drop with the very first sexual partner).

The last article on this that I read claimed that 0 prior partners is as strong a predictor of divorce as >10. That article claimed that the ideal number from a relationship-stability standpoint was ~2 prior partners.

I guess I've read different studies.

I think mine focused on # of partners a female had and may have controlled for SES. I can't remember, but there were multiple sources they pointed to this conclusion and I found it credible.

Fair enough. I'll keep an eye out for more data.

I don't think you are exactly correct. Certainly the "value" drop for not being a Virgin is minor enough that it's less than a myriad of other factors. (Looks, intelligence, agreeableness, cleanliness, etc.) However, I do believe that you make some good points on the game theory aspect.

Smart comment, asdf. I never thought of it that way, but the game theory principles seem like a good lens here.

#2 - that some place named Jiangsu near Shanghai was the cradle of modern Chinese capitalism, is wrong. Wikipedia informs us: "Officials in Guangdong Province led by Provincial Party Secretary Xi Zhongxun seized the initiative, starting with an investment project in Shekou prepared by Yuan Geng on behalf of the Hong Kong-based China Merchants Steam Navigation Company. This project, initially a ship breaking facility, was approved by Li Xiannian on January 31, 1979. In April 1979, Xi Zhongxun and other Guangdong officials presented in Beijing a proposal to give broader flexibility to the coastal provinces of Guangdong and Fujian to attract foreign investment, with additional exemptions in four cities, namely Shenzhen in the Pearl River Delta region, Zhuhai and Shantou in Guangdong and Xiamen (Amoy) in Fujian Province. For these, Chinese Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping coined the name "special zones"[3][4] with reference to the designation of another border region during the Chinese Civil War. The proposal was approved on July 15 and the four special zones were officially established on August 26, 1979." No mention of "Jiangsu"

Second, the abstract was in both English and Chinese. That's strange. I wonder if the Chinese was to appease some local yokel sponsor in China of this research paper, who might not read English? If so, it's further evidence the paper is suspect.

1) I suppose I must be part of that "raunch culture". I used to be annoyed about self-righteous-but-ignorant Christian conservatives telling me what to do and say and think. Now I find myself annoyed about self-righteous-but-clueless SJWs telling me what to do and say and think.

1-#can you believe some womyn?
&why does the washington post think that social media is to blame
if a womyn makes a false accusation?
smells like some sorta postmodern gender theory

ye olde washington post not too good on causality
&the headline is sorta slanted
the police didn't arrest social media the police
blamed/arrested the womyn who made the false allegation

4: The really interesting part of this for me was the dropping of homing pigeons somewhat randomly over Europe and asking the finders to write down some useful intelligence and let the pigeon fly back to England. Crowd-sourced military intelligence. Even more interesting were the German counter-measures, and British counter-counter-measures.

But the article failed to mention the pigeon aerial reconnaissance corps. Pigeons of course can't make verbal reports so they were outfitted with miniature cameras that would automatically start taking pictures after a pre-set time interval.

One thing that I've never understood: AFAICT, pigeons offer only one-way communication: they fly home. How does the sender of the message acquire additional pigeons to keep sending messages back home? In the crowd-sourced example above, the pigeons were dropped out of airplanes to parachute to the ground. But most users of pigeons, from the ancient Romans to besieged Parisians during the Franco-Prussian War, did not have airplanes.

Poor Matt Yglesias. Such a promising thinker once upon a time. Then founded Vox and became a figurehead for the lowbrow Millennial new leftists.

Sheeeit. I had a low opinion of him long before he started Vox.

+1, I don't recall ever reading anything that Yglesias wrote that was particularly insightful.

He wrote a great piece about land taxation. It immediately showcased his stupidity. He was off in his calculations by orders of magnitude. Literal orders of magnitude. Any moron with two brain cells would have known.

Yglesias is the same as Jared Kushner: attended Harvard because his daddy was famous (with Hispanic famous author instead of money).

He’s a literal incompetent heir ranting about Trump being an incompetent heir. I want his SAT scores more than Trump tax returns.

Hey Yglesias, show your math scores. You want honesty and openness. Let’s see how retarded you are.

Liberals want Trump tax returns, I want SAT scores for every one of these talking heads.

Ok, but we get to see William Kristol's scores at the same time.

+1, on the SAT scores

1. Matt Yglesias on the evolution of feminism.
I liked the original version when Gloria wore short miniskirts.

1. Republican controlled legislatures around the country are passing abortion restrictions promoted by the Christian right that would effectively bar abortions before the woman even knows she is pregnant. In defending the legislation, the male sponsors have described pregnant women as "hosts". This reminded me of the movie Aliens, in which the aliens would use humans as incubators for the aliens' offspring. If the male sponsors of the legislation were used as incubators, they might decide that pregnant women are more than mere "hosts".

Well, I am pro-choice, but I don't see how you can avoid to see pregnant women at hosts, at least after a certain time. Otherwise, with a foetus inside, they have two heads, four legs, four arms, etc. In other words, they are aliens, not human (and in particular, they have no human rights).

No. They are hosts, and they can decide, at least up to a certain time in the pregnancy that is a matter of opinion, to stop being hosts, that is to abort.

As I recall, the more hard core abortion supporters labeled the fetus as the 'conception product'

1. The concept of "raunch culture" is interesting and deserves some picking apart. There's really a lot of things going on there, everything from "Girl's Gone Wild" which is kind of anti-feminist to "sex-positive" feminist libertinism which celebrates things like female orgasms and the use of vibrators. Raunchy isn't necessarily sexist, though it certainly CAN be. Always a fine line and people may have differing opinions on what crosses it. I kind of prefer the 1980s-1990s feminism that was pro-raunch (i.e. Three's Company).

I always think about an interview Prince did a few years back, where he criticized pop stars like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera for being too sexual. The interviewer obviously pushed back on that, pointing out that Prince was no stranger to sexually charged lyrics himself.

But Prince said that when he was writing songs like that, pretty soon his audience was full of people who were only there for that, while they ignored the rest of the music. He said that the little pop tarts were going to discover the same thing, and when they no longer offered their audience sex, there wouldn't be anyone left to listen to the music. Fast-forward, and it's amazing how prescient he was on that. Of course, he had already lived through it, so was speaking from experience.

Anyway, back to "raunch culture." The idea that we can push boundaries and experience a little sexual freedom is attractive for many obvious reasons. The problem is that if you spend too much time pushing that message, you start to attract the wrong kinds of people. Pretty soon, your positive, uplifting pro-sex feminist message starts to acquire a subtext that you never wanted there. Some people are only pro-sex feminists because they're pro-sex, and they're only pro-sex for themselves.

So, Prince said, "You get the audience you deserve," and that's what feminism got. There are people out there who still push for sexual freedom, but who also take the time to outline moral conditions under which it benefits all participants. Those are the good ones. It's the ones pushing more simplistic messages that ruined everything.

I do agree there's a fine line, wherein if you don't police what's acceptable, then your community ends up getting taken over by creepy guys who think it's cool to grab girls butts on the dance floor. And then all the girls leave and it turns into a sausage fest, and shortly afterwards it's a gay scene. (Seen this happen a couple of times!)

I think that's why in a lot of these cases you get this heavy layering of explicitly feminist messaging, which some people find onerous. Because it drives away the creeps. If the women essentially own the scene, and men are invited guests who have to stay on good behavior, then it tilts the balance of power in a way that keeps the creepy guys at bay, and you avoid having that sexist subtext creeping into your message.

In order words, you can have a pro-sex culture, but it only works if it's controlled by women - if the women get to decide what the rules are. Consider it this way - women are the ones with the limited resource that there is high demand for. Hence women have more negotiating power. Thus the stable equilibrium is one in which women set the rules. If men get to set the rules, the equilibrium becomes unstable because the creepy guy phenomenon. Women will exercise their power to drop out and become sexually unavailable.

Oh yeah, and incel culture - case in point. Only instead of ending in a gay scene it ends in a toxic culture of misogynistic rage.

you wanna see biologists challenge gender norms here?
17feet 140 lbs &73 juevos

You mean it only works in favor of your preferred ends, Hazel. Don't give a sh!t.

I am not sure if you're aware of this Hazel, but your last paragraph is exactly the same as incel/red pill "women as sexual gatekeepers" theory.

Yeah, so?
Women are going to be in charge of who they have sex with.
Don't like it? Don't get laid. Case in point.

I mean, this is one way of looking at it, but a bunch of men could just get together and institute Saudi Arabia in response. Which happened in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan.

So much for stability.

Likewise, the CCP considers large numbers of unmarried men to be a threat to the stability and security of the People's Republic of China. So they are gradually making it increasingly difficult for women to be economically independent and conducting government training on how to be a good wife or girlfriend.

I'm not sure I agree with you there.

For one thing, you might be underestimating the role other men play in keeping creepy guys at bay, and how doing so is itself a part of the game.

For another thing, I think you might be overestimating women's ability to control the scene without making other women feel ashamed.

Third, men and women en masse like different kinds of things. If women control the whole scene then you end up with a scene that is largely unappealing, both to some men who aren't creeps and to some women who don't want to be the ones in their relationships setting the rules.

Well, right, the men that "get it" tend to support the women being in control and help enforce the rules. Also, the rules can in a sense be meta-rules, as in there is some room for the more explicit rules to allow guys to be assertive and be the pursuer. But you have to be careful about that and when there's a conflict or uncertainty, you have to fall back on letting the women decide what meta-rules govern those rules. otherwise the creeps will wheedle their way in and you will end up with the same thing happening. Women will just choose not to participate. Again, I must emphasize that the guys that "get it" basically know this. And they know that their chances of getting laid are *higher* because their promoting a culture where women can feel comfortable being sexually available.

This sums it up:

"Again, I must emphasize that the guys that "get it" basically know this. And they know that their chances of getting laid are *higher* because their promoting a culture where women can feel comfortable being sexually available."

The guys who get laid a lot, even the ones who just have a few relationships, they have no problem with feminism and seeing women as equals, other humans with every bit as much agency and import as they have. It's the incels and creeps who have the problem.

Seems like there's a lot of complaint about men's behaviour within relationships for this to be true.

Gender egalitarianism probably does not have too much relationship with how many relationships a man has. Women as a class just aren't gonna be that discerning when looks, wealth, power, career success, athleticism, charm (i.e. what really women care about in choosing a partner) don't correlate much with opinions about female "agency".

Again, I'm actually talking about what it takes to sustain a more libertine culture with respect to sexuality, without it turning into "raunch culture" that gets taken over by creepy guys. All sorts of people get laid in all sorts of contexts, and our culture might be in some sort of transitional phase between "libertine" and "raunch", leading to more conservative anti-sex feminism (women withdrawing from the dating market because there are too many creeps out there).
And of course, even in highly evolved libertine environments, wealth and power and fame can outweigh the societies safeguards against creepy behavior. But other things being equal, spaces where creeps are weeded out are going to tend to attract more female participaton. Writ large, a society where women are protected against unwanted advances is probably going to be a society where women are more willing to (for example) wear more revealing clothing and display sexual availability. And if you really think about, it's actually quite obvious that that has to be the case.

You lost me on your last sentence. The kind of guy who is willing to go along with pretty much anything just to increase his chances of "getting laid" seems to me to be precisely the kind of creep a sane woman would want to exclude.

I think the dynamic has to be far more equal than that. A great relationship occurs when two people desperately want each other, not when one wants desperately to feel comfortable and the other wants desperately to get laid.

A great relationship has been built when an ordinary man and an ordinary woman can look at each other, remember, forgive, and not be able to imagine going through life with anyone else at their side.

Well it's not "pretty much anything". It's accepting the fact that women get to decide who they're going to have sex with and thus control the dating market because they're the ones who control the scare commodity. Any society that says "No, MEN get to decide who women have sex with!" is going to be society where women tend to withdraw from the dating market and make themselves unavailable. Again, you might be perfectly happy with a society where women generally are less suxually available. What I'm saying is IF you want women to be more sexually available, THEN you basically have to accept that women are going to determine the terms of their sexual availability.

Again, I've seen this happen in microcosm. if there are guys violating people's boundaries, and that isn't being policed, then the women will simply stop showing up to your parties, and pretty soon the sex ratio will become skewed. It's almost like the same concept as "ladies night". Or even strip clubs where touching is not allowed - you put the female in control of the encounter. How many lap dancers would there be if strip clubs didn't police guys trying to touch the dancers?

I think we can all celebrate women’s choice now being the only factor.

The data suggests that close to 1/3 of young men are now priced out of the sexual marketplace. I say that the free market is finally at work !!

We will know when full freedom of choice is realized when 70% of men are priced out of the marketplace. We’re moving towards a state of nature. And that’s a win. No more of the fascist marriage. Women free to make their decisions, and the government will pay for the children.

I disagree, Hazel. Women’s sexual availability is their choice. Trying to make it all a consequence of men’s behavior is avoiding women’s own responsibility for their actions. And, anyway, it doesn’t matter to men as a group how “sexually available” women as a group are. I only need one woman to be sexually available to me, and happily, she is.

Besides that, this dynamic changes by about age 27 or 28, when women are no longer the ones with the scarce resources. By that age, all the really good men and women have started to pair up, and the ones who are left are part of a ever-diminishing quality pool. Men in this scenario have greater bargaining power, and women become ever-more-willing to do what it takes to get one of the good ones before there are none left and before the woman’s biological clock expires (much earlier than a man’s does).

So, it’s best to have these questions negotiated equally, with neither sex claiming more authority than 50%.

Trying to make it all a consequence of men’s behavior is avoiding women’s own responsibility for their actions.

That is not what I'm arguing. I'm simply saying that the social dynamics makes it easier to maintain a more "libertine" environment if women are more in control of what the social norms regarding acceptable behavior are. In a hypothetical reality in which men and women were equally horny and equally subject to various costs associated with unwanted advances (I could get into how screwed up it is that our society has these conceptions about women's purity and honor), it would make sense for the control of the rules to be evenly split. But it's just reality that men are more likely to be the gropers and women generally incur higher costs from being subject to unwanted groping. This isn't about right or wrong, it's just where the social equilibrium happens to lie in the context of our current society and all the baggage about sexuality we have.

Regarding "social equilibrium" I am far more sympathetic to "asdf's" analysis above. I don't think "give the women all the decision-making power" is a stable equilibrium. In fact, I don't think it gives even women what they ultimately want in the long run.

Given society's inequality of the sexes, I argue for greater equality. Since it's all hypothetical anyway, I don't see the purpose of hypothetically doing a "step one, give women all the power; step two, create equality" process. Why not skip right to step two?

You can't wave a magic wand and make men and women's psychology with respect to sexuality "equal". That's why.

You missed my point. You also can't wave a magic wand and give all decision-making power to women-only. Since we're already in the realm of the imaginary, I choose to imagine one step to equality rather than two.

+1 @ RPLong. Some faint ghost of this may be true, but waaaay too many counterveiling pressures on women for it hold in a strong sense.

Women face individual opportunity costs in individual status and mating competition and life experience from dropping out of scenes popular with men and not showing up ("Whaaaat, that girl Stacy who went to the dance took *my* boy Chad?!?!", "I'm unpopular just because I don't ever go where the cool boys are?!?!", "Oh, I've wasted my life...") unless the women in question are just totally unpopular incels anyway.

Aristophanes "Lysistrata" was a comedy. Still is. R Kelly is less of a comedy, and he can still do what he does.

"Well, women have to be in total control of dating and sexual mores in most socialising environments, or they'll either show total solidarity and just stay at home and never have a romantic life, or go back to old style kin networks, which were mostly organised by men anyway" is just not a credible proposition consistent with the available evidence or common sense.

It only takes a certain critical mass of women to drop out of "scenes popular with men" when those scenes are sexual, for it to rapidly become a very uncomfortable environment for the remaining women.
You don't want to be one of the last three women left at a swingers party with a bunch of horny men. Many "fetish" scenes explicitly require that men show up with a partner for this reason. No single males are even allowed.

That's a revealing comment. If X is a vector of men that make 3 women feel unsafe, that means X is a vector containing at least one unsafe man. It shouldn't matter if there are 12 or 24 women at a fetish party: that man is unsafe because he's the same element of the same vector.

See, it's not the presence of women that's doing the work here; it's the fact that the women have to worry about a creep. "There's 24 of us, so the odds are lower that any one of us will go home with the creep tonight" is statistically true, but also not an equilibrium, because someone goes home with a creep in 100% of those scenarios.

The solution is not a better-designed fetish scene. The solution is a better pair match. Find someone you can trust with your fetish, not a fetish you can trust with your risk-tolerance for creeps.

OR you find a fetish scene that polices itself in a way that insures that creepy guys are quickly identified and cast out. You're right that the rules aren't 100% controlled by women though. I'm overstating it a bit. It's just heavily weighted towards women deciding what's ok and what isn't.

Yeah, but this is obviously impossible for people who live in sparsely populated areas, and only probably impossible for everyone else. You might find such a scene but be uninterested in the fetish. You might exposure yourself to more risk by gaining a reputation for being a person in search of the right fetish scene.

But we've completely jumped the shark. When I think "sexually libertine," I don't think "fetish scenes and swinger parties." Instead, I think, "People who are comfortable being sensual with each, fetish or no fetish." In other words, libertinism to me is more about people who can be intimate with each other without having to worry about fear or shame if 3rd parties find out that they were intimate with each other.

I've never liked how libertine and kink gets conflated. It's possible to be raunchy without being kinky. I'd argue that it's also normal and mentally healthy. That's what we should be aiming for, not a world with a thriving self-policing fetish community. I mean, I have no problem with the latter, but it's not the primary focus of promoting sex-positivity.

Oh, so you're talking about weird fetish scenes and stuff?

I thought perhaps skim read and thought you were talking about The Club and social scenes.

Yeah, those fetish things which are purely about sex and hookups, will not may bear imbalances where women would be outnumbered by men.

But I think probably more for reasons that men will not show up when they've not got a chance of getting laid. That probably explains why "men have to bring a partner" happens at swingers' parties - you don't get to just take cookies out of the jar without putting in.

I'd expect that to happen well before imbalances get serious enough that the girls will be particularly scared that they'll be the "prey" for large numbers of men (as opposed to the "Queen Bee" able to pick from a group of men that slightly outnumber them due to all that demand>supply business).

Even in fetish scenes though I don't imagine much like "The women set the rules" on sexual conduct can really survive too well - fetishy stuff tends to be masc dom which militates against it, and men are fundamentally still acting as the enforcers (women don't have much enforcement option, only a fleeing option) and won't totally subdue to rules that they don't get to shape. But I wouldn't know.

#5 - So the researchers find that men who have steady jobs and live in large urban centers tend to have more sex. In other words, people who have an opportunity to socially interact, and who do indeed do so, tend to engage in the most intimate form of social interaction at higher rates than other men. Sounds about right to me.

This is not a sex drought. It's an interpersonal relationship drought. Young people are "always on," presenting their image rather than forming real social bonds. Those who figure out how to make other people feel befriended and loved will be in high demand.

That seems like a bit of over-complication. Young people are indeed always on....line. Chasing girls/guys simply occupies less time and effort when the entertainment of staying in your room is so compelling.

3. The fact that American cities show agglomeration benefits despite public transport that is apparently even worse than the UK doesn't fit this argument.

London is not the UK. The link was about Birmingham metropolitan area with 4+ million people and most of the public transport relies on buses that get stuck on traffic.

About the size of LA with 1 metro line, some trams and trains. So, Birmingham has worse public transport than LA, let that sink for a while.

5. I would guess that we are in a process where people are beginning to see that there are other things in life besides sex.

In traditional societies, life expectancy was 25 so everybody had to have 6-7 kids by the time they were 40. Today this is not the case: having sex is now just a hobby. And different people might choose different hobbies.

What I find interesting is that Western cultures prides itself from being "individualistic" but conforming to the socially accepted hobbies such as "dating" is seem as a must: people have to conform to social expectations at all cost. While Japanese society, often called "cookie cutter" by western bigots, exhibits a higher degree of diversity in social behavior among young people.

There's probably never been a society where the life expectancy of someone that lived through infancy was as low as 25. In an earlier age people had many children because the role of organisms then was reproduction, just as it is today. Sanitary napkin sales were small because women were almost always pregnant.

Until the late 1800s childhood mortality rates were horrendous. People may have had 7 kids but only saw two or three make it to adulthood . This was true even for the rich and powerful.

It seems a lot simpler than that for changes in feminists. They've moved away from simple rights based claims - vote, equal pay for equal work - to sociological and economic statistical claims - pay gaps based on complex economic composition of labour are "wrong", "The male gaze causes eating disorders", "The conviction rate for rape is too damn low! (And we'll compromise practically any legal norm to get it higher)".

To the extent they are describing existing phenomena, these are complex economic and psychological phenomena which they don't really have any expertise or understanding of, and are ill equipped to tackle by a background of media studies, literary criticism and ideology-masquerading-as-academy.

They don't really understand whether what they're talking about is real or what causes them if it is, and neither does much of society, and to make matters worse, they've largely adopted a post-modern, "critical theory" perspective where academic discourse is about power dynamics and there's no real "truth" to be found, just language games. So they are then free to go insane with ideological weirdness ("rape culture", "patriarchy" and other such stuff) that was former confined to smaller radical feminist segments in their movement, and society doesn't really seem to want to do much to stop it.

Feminists who are not very happy with the way society treats sexuality - incel feminists unattractive in the mating market (at least to their desired partners), radical lesbian feminists, feminists who've had individual bad romantic experiences with poorly chosen partners - are particularly free to go such.

Good comment. It seems every movement, when they've achieved their goals, need to set the goalposts further so they can keep going. That's when it get ridiculous. The pay gap now is still there because of women's choices. There are studies that show strong correlation between how free a society is and declining participation of women in STEM careers.

#2...Just read Joe Studwell "How Asia Works", and found it excellent. I can't say I'm inclined to give Mao any credit for anything remotely called "progress."

Comments for this post are closed