Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 222 posts

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#91

Post by te_chris »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #52

The 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,…

> 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, personality, attainment) are unpopular among the potential pool. Amateur pornography exacerbates this, because it appears to suggest that sex, and the mood of sexual adventurousness required to film it, is extremely common, and taking place between average, everyday people. This can further their fears of inferiority.

Is this more Jordan Peterson, “woe is men” shit?

Seriously, if these sovereign individuals can’t forge social relationships with others, especially women, and use that to further their understanding and connection with the real world, then that is their problem, as individuals. It’s not society’s fault that these individuals choose to not engage with society on society’s terms. It’s certainly not women’s fault and very much not their responsibility to fix.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#92

Post by Reedx »

jrs95 wrote: post #53
smhost wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Meanwhile 4chan & company has taken to calling him “Juden Peterstein”...so it seems his appeal is primarily limited to the kinda-sorta-far-right. Personally, seeing the guy talk makes me feel sleepy.

> so it seems his appeal is primarily limited to the kinda-sorta-far-right.

That's actually not the case (just see what kind of questions he gets from his actual audiences to see for yourself). Though on a surface level some of the alt-right likes him because he pisses off SJWs. But they're mistaken to think he's any kind of ally. He's spent much of his career opposing their views and sees both the alt-right and extreme left as big problems.

The idea that he's alt-right is really nonsense. He taught for decades at Harvard and the University of Toronto. As he says himself, you can go and look through his hundreds of hours of lectures and try to find where he's promoted anything alt-right. It's quite the opposite.

It's largely a false narrative driven by the extreme left, who are trying to dismiss and ruin him because he's critical of what they're doing.

This also happened with the progressive professor Bret Weinstein - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM

They tried/are trying to destroy him. It's a real problem.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#93

Post by cm2012 »

da_chicken wrote: post #57
redka wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Peterson seems to have a knack for not explaining himself well and expecting people to just understand where he's coming from. He's also really bad at phrasing. He constantly seems to get into hot water for what he says, and then if you try to figure out what he says he actually said it's never for what we're told he says. I think he'd do much better if he wrote more books and had a really good editor .

He is purposefully obtuse, so that wouldn't help. This way, hard core incels can believe he means the more extreme options, and he has plausible deniability for journalists.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#94

Post by grondilu »

damagednoob wrote: post #11

> 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…

> The rise of cheap entertainment in the form of online gaming or Netflix come readily to mind.

Those forms of entertainment have very little to do with sex, though. Pornography on the other hand is all about it by definition, so it would be odd to place gaming or Netflix on the same level as pornography regarding the influence they can have on sexual behavior.

I mean, gamers don't get an erection while playing and people usually don't masturbate when watching Netflix. Pornography is a sexual visual stimulus and it seems very hard not to suspect it has a significant impact on libido. I can also mention the many personal accounts on r/nofap that seem to confirm it.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#95

Post by matte_black »

te_chris wrote: post #81
matte_black wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not sure this disproves the comment you’re replying to. There will always be the ‘reject pool’ from previous years, but women in their 30s seem to be better at moving on with their lives. Men seem to resent it and demand the world provide them a partner and blame women when they say (collectively) “nah mate, we’re good”.

Women have plenty of resentment too, especially when they see men their age going after girls several years younger, something they didn’t really experience when they were young.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#96

Post by dragonwriter »

k__ wrote: post #90
frenchpress123 wrote: post #48

For posterity, here is Jordan Peterson responding to the numerous articles that misinterpretation his usage of the phrase "enforced monogamy": https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-...

This doesn't make any sense. Monogamous relationships remove 2 people from the dating marked, non-monogamous ones remove none.

Exclusive relationships remove 2 or more whether they are committed monogamy, committed polygamy (polygyny or polyandry), or committed two-sided polyamory (the last seems the most rarely attested, if it is a thing at all outside of fiction, and is included only for the same of excessive completeness.)

Committed polygamy does so asymmetrically with regard to gender, particularly, a committed polygynous relationship removes more women from the pool than men, and thus can be seen (from a numbers-game perspective) as disadvantaging not-yet-attached men more than monogamous commitments.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#97

Post by dasil003 »

superkuh wrote: post #66
eilyra wrote: post #46

Earlier 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.

It's crazy where the Overton window is that no one gives a shit about privacy issues unless they tie into politics somehow, and government trying to protect citizens' privacy by means of laws with actual teeth (read: fines) is equated to physical violence.

Ad tech has taken full carte blanche for long enough. If you actually dig into GDPR you find that it's quite reasonable, far better than the cookie law and other earlier iterations that fundamentally misunderstood technology.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#98

Post by majos »

gtowey wrote: post #79
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #52

The 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 shor…

I figure that most incel-type dudes have never had the experience of rejecting someone romantically, for any reason, but have been rejected. The complaint that women can be shallow and men can't (which isn't true; everyone, largely, is shallow to some degree) is really a face-saving way of complaining that women get to screen and reject men, and incel-type dudes don't feel like they have anywhere near that level of agency.

These are basic human-type concerns. Which makes the angry, bitter, you-definitely-can't-empathize-with-me rhetoric of many incels even more frustrating.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#99

Post by enimodas »

gtowey wrote: post #79
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #52

The 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 shor…

A search for 'double standards' on /r/tinder will show you some anecdata for example.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#100

Post by phaus »

da_chicken wrote: post #57
redka wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Peterson seems to have a knack for not explaining himself well and expecting people to just understand where he's coming from. He's also really bad at phrasing. He constantly seems to get into hot water for what he says, and then if you try to figure out what he says he actually said it's never for what we're told he says. I think he'd do much better if he wrote more books and had a really good editor .

Peterson doesn't want a really good editor. His books are known for being intentionally vague and incomprehensible while sounding clever and insightful, but in a way where most people can never really prove that he intended to make a statement about anything.
Post reply on HN