Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rarely would a non-op-ed refer to a group holding an opinion has blowhards that some people inexplicably take seriously. The New York Times does profiles on White Supremacists that have more respectful tones than this.
It's refreshing. Call a spade a spade.
Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
71–80 of 222 posts
Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
#72> Did you know that teens are having substantially less sex than the previous few generations? It’s true! And generally interpreted as a good thing. But Ronson suggests that this is in large part because porn is replacing sex, and, in fact, making real sex with real woman seem alienating and difficult. Further down the author specifically mentions the correlation/causality fallacy but there are surely other explanati…
There’s also been a shift due to online and apps that give women an unlimited choice of men while giving the majority of men nearly no choice — the dating world for most men has become a lot more difficult over the last couple of years. I see my male friends really struggle and I see my female friends have unlimited options.
Has there really, though? It doesn’t seem like that’s the case where I am.
Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
#73> Did you know that teens are having substantially less sex than the previous few generations? It’s true! And generally interpreted as a good thing. But Ronson suggests that this is in large part because porn is replacing sex, and, in fact, making real sex with real woman seem alienating and difficult. Further down the author specifically mentions the correlation/causality fallacy but there are surely other explanati…
There’s also been a shift due to online and apps that give women an unlimited choice of men while giving the majority of men nearly no choice — the dating world for most men has become a lot more difficult over the last couple of years. I see my male friends really struggle and I see my female friends have unlimited options.
Females only have the upperhand until their 30s, when the pool of suitable men begins to dry up. After this point they must become increasingly attractive and prurient to maintain the same level of options as the average young 20 something.
Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Anything in moderation is fine basically by definition, including injecting sulfuric acid. Botulinum toxin, the most potent poison known to mankind and lethal at concentrations of a few ng/kg, is used by celebrities to smooth wrinkles. It's all about dosage.
Perhaps it’s not the best example. Replace it with something more specific if you wish, like “placing live fragmentation grenades in one’s mouth in moderation”.
Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
#75The widespread availability of pornography probably does drive home several extra layers of resentment in someone whose personal track record with courting, dating, and sex has been unsatisfying. At a surface level, it seems to demonstrate that sex -- and not just fruits of performances thereof -- is a transaction, and that the attributes that they bring to the marketplace (appearance, aesthetic, attitude, interests,…
"Declining to date someone because they're fat is now firmly seen as a bullying tactic"
What?
Where I come from you're allowed to date who you deem to be attractive. Nobody cares if you don't date anyone because they're fat, dumb, small, poor or what not.
Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
#76From the site here in GDPR-land: "Select 'OK' to continue using our products, otherwise, you will not be able to access our sites and apps." Looks like I'm not reading this then.
Wait, weren't dialogues that force you to give consent for non core parts of the experience forbidden under the GDPR? As in, you can't force people to consent by witholding service if they don't?
Yes, this notice itself explicitly makes them non-compliant (IMO, not a lawyer), better to have nothing.
Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
#77The widespread availability of pornography probably does drive home several extra layers of resentment in someone whose personal track record with courting, dating, and sex has been unsatisfying. At a surface level, it seems to demonstrate that sex -- and not just fruits of performances thereof -- is a transaction, and that the attributes that they bring to the marketplace (appearance, aesthetic, attitude, interests,…
> 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.
As they say, "'No' is a complete sentence." Anyone can decline to date anyone for any reason you like. And it's probably best not to give reasons, especially if it's something intrinsic or hard to change.
Many people lack a peer group capable of giving them effective dating advice. Men who don't have any friends who aren't straight guys of their own age should probably fix that first. And work on opening up emotionally.
Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
False. That's how how was (deliberately?) misinterpreted. But "enforced monogamy" is a term used in e.g. evolutionary biology to describe, basically, just a societal norm of monogamy, maybe enforced by law (polygamy is illegal in most places). No-one's suggesting forcing women to marry someone.
> No-one's suggesting forcing women to marry someone.
The "incel" community frequently calls for the state to provide partners to incels. They point to how in the Netherlands, the disabled have access to sex worker services, subsidized by the state. They claim that their inability to find sexual partners is comparable to a disability, and therefore the state should help.
Then, some portion of those incels believe that men should be able to expect that their sexual partners do not have any other partners, so suddenly this turns into believing that the state should provide incels a monogamous, long-term partner, essentially a wife.
Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
#79The widespread availability of pornography probably does drive home several extra layers of resentment in someone whose personal track record with courting, dating, and sex has been unsatisfying. At a surface level, it seems to demonstrate that sex -- and not just fruits of performances thereof -- is a transaction, and that the attributes that they bring to the marketplace (appearance, aesthetic, attitude, interests,…
> 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.
Do you have sources to cite on that? Because this honestly sounds like an incel talking point. The idea that it's ok for women to judge and reject men -- for being short, or any other number of male-oriented deficiencies -- but men are not similarly free to reject women based on their appearance. It's bullshit and it doesn't really exist. Anecdotally, I've never once seen someone be judged for not wanting to date someone no matter how shallow the reason. It's just another way in which these men are claiming to be unfairly victimized in the dating world.
Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, weren't dialogues that force you to give consent for non core parts of the experience forbidden under the GDPR? As in, you can't force people to consent by witholding service if they don't?
Yeah, and it's by far the worst part of the GDPR. It's based on the implicit premise that you don't own your company and can be compelled to provide services to random people by the government at the point of a gun.
And I find it the best part, just because I want to use a service from you doesn't give you the right to muck about with my data for other reasons than to provide that service and the GDPR makes that explicit.