51–60 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enforced monogamy, i.e., marriage
That would just be monogamy. The thing people are calling stupid is the idea that low status men should be assigned wives forcefully to prevent them from being sad, which is what some people have actually proposed.
This skirts a taboo that you can barely talk about: that personal preferences in dating are not judged to the same standard, and that movements of empowerment and positivity are clashing with everyone's free will in pursuing -- and especially articulating -- what they do and don't like. Declining to date someone because they're fat is now firmly seen as a bullying tactic, but not dating someone because they're short is perfectly fine. The protocols around communicating preferences to others and getting them accepted by one's peers is a quagmire where social conventions haven't ventured, so everyone lies for self-preservation ("I like you as a friend", "I don't wanna be tied down"), and those left out are left to draw their own conclusions.
This is all terribly unfortunate, but not really new; the incel movement, however, feeds not solely on rejection and obsessing over the base biological reasons thereof, but the implicit entitlement they they'd deserve otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>”enforced monogamy” from e.g. blowhard academics Are academics advocating wholesale monogamy? That’s usually the field of organized religion.
They're talking specifically about Jordan Peterson, and he sees himself as a high priest who is a literal embodiment of Jesus Christ, rising to the top of the universal dominance hierarchy. He is signaling to his low status followers that he would redistribute sex if he were in power. If you think I'm making this up or being hyperbolic, watch his 100s of hours worth of lectures on YouTube. Even if you think this is u…
Personally, seeing the guy talk makes me feel sleepy.
>Perhaps the most volatile question: does widely available free porn encourage “incels,” the latest boogeymen from the Internet, and the calls for “enforced monogamy” from e.g. blowhard academics who people inexplicably take serious? In a world where objective journalism doesn’t pay, does every site become Vice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. Everything is fine in moderation.
Not everything is fine in moderation. Mainlining sulfuric acid, for example. Whether porn consumption is fine in moderation is a subject of fair debate. Unfortunately, the science on this is not sufficiently clear.
Alcohol creates concrete bad outcomes when for instance driving. I think there is a lot less people watching porn while driving than driving under influence. Alcohol makes you prone to some kinds of cancers, porn not much. Watching porn is at least order of magnitude safer than drinking alcohol. There is no way you can use sulfuric acid injections as comparison for porn watching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enforced monogamy, i.e., marriage
That would just be monogamy. The thing people are calling stupid is the idea that low status men should be assigned wives forcefully to prevent them from being sad, which is what some people have actually proposed.
Or to make sure they are sad and not intrinsically happy alone?:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3464902
;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>”enforced monogamy” from e.g. blowhard academics Are academics advocating wholesale monogamy? That’s usually the field of organized religion.
Jordan Peterson, whose being referenced here explained what he meant[0] and it doesn't seem unreasonable. It's uncharitable to jump to a conclusion here without going beyond our presuppositions. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn60-8Ql_44
I think he'd do much better if he wrote more books and had a really good editor.
I wonder if there is a user content monetization scheme in porn industry. By that I mean whether all those people, regular people and not porn actors, who voluntarily upload videos where they have sex, bathe, undress etc get paid. I think a large portion of such videos are really private but are leaked by bitter exes, or stolen from lost mobiles etc, but there is a portion that is indeed voluntary. I wonder about tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. Everything is fine in moderation.
Not everything is fine in moderation. Mainlining sulfuric acid, for example. Whether porn consumption is fine in moderation is a subject of fair debate. Unfortunately, the science on this is not sufficiently clear.
I was under the impression that the size of the online porn industry is in the billions. And yet, the article states that Thylmann bought pretty much every competitor with just $362 million. That doesn't add-up. What am I missing? Are the rumors for the industry's size overstated?