Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've got to say I'm surprised every day to see how awful France is. Actually the US seems to do quite well in this area, so credit where it's due.

[Person Man]

Gee, this is a winded threat and I only read maybe a quarter of it, but it sounds like something I would be very active in 10  or even 5 years ago. The overlying theme is trying to systemize why I couldn't get laid and try to build it into some overarching Structuralist theory about the way business, politics, sex and the world in general works.

 I think the problem was that my confidence was just weighed down from being over analyzed in Elementary School, being teased in Middle School and trying to become a child prodigy in High School. Eventually, two months into college (well, college with my Diploma), I finally did get laid and I eventually fell in love with the first thing I stuck it to. She had really bad problems and she wasn't too attractive, but she came from a politically active Upper Middle Class family, so I thought it was a good deal.

This did nothing to really boost my confidence and I just focused on boosting my GPA to get into law school so I would have a chance to avoid debacles like taking Calc 4/Differential Equations at 17 and have a shot at a 6-figure salary helping to analyze the world for somebody else. Because of this lack of confidence, I scored in the high 150s on the LSAT (though I thought that was "good enough" because I lacked the confidence in my self to even convince my own family that law school was a good idea and I had no support and therefore had only the local law school as an option anyways) and went to a third tier program.

This was the time that my weird relationship began to take the most out of me and I couldn't convince a single professor to give me a single A in law school. Eventually it would be 2009. I was 23 years old, from a third tier program. Graduated in the bottom 15% of my class. Guess how that turned out?

Eventually, my then-wife left me with my failing career and I was pretty fat, too (for those remember the selfie I took when I was wondering if I looked a minority without being actually being minority..and then opie came across and said the same thing about himself).

In my third year of law school, I eventually dated this fat girl who was a shut in and after I broke up with her for being a racist, I tried looking for a job for a few months. I actually got kinda close and did get a chance to lose the weight and was able to convince one of the clinics in town to prescribe testosterone shots. That helped, too. However, I gave up after I couldn't save up enough money to take the bar and I went back to Florida.

At that point, my dad became estranged from his new wife and I basically took his business over for a couple of years as he was trying to play possum against his various legal problems. For about two years, I was modestly affluent (went across the country on trips, had a nice house and a late model Audi (though with sh**tty credit). Even though my life was actually more uncertain than it ever was, I at least had the confidence that eventually led to me picking up at least one new woman a month. In fact, one night I was able to pick up three. My life was awesomely terrible. Some of them had the bodies of porn stars and the faces of actresses and some lays were so fat/ugly that it bordered on bestiality.

Eventually, most of my dad's legal problems were either indefinitely postponed or had runs their course and in doing so, caused the business's income to drop in half (not to mention the value of the family's assets that is was run with also dropped by half). At that point, I discovered that I didn't have to be a washed up failed child prodigy (I was easily the youngest student in my law class) that was living on diminishing returns and eventually decided that it was better to be a late bloomer and to take all the hard math and science classes that I should have taken years ago. I now have a successful and good looking fiancé and am almost done with my degree in Computer Science.

This is winded, but the moral of the story is that it can get better and failure can be best seen as something that you are responsible for but not necessarily your fault.

[Person Man]

...and my bizarre excuse for a life kills decent thread. Not going on this forum after 10 pm should be a rule for me. The moral of the story is the same, though. That story is something along the line that you can take responsibility for things without beating yourself up about them.

[DC Al Fine]

My university is in the news after it was discovered that student leaders led new students in a "rape chant" during frosh week.

What was interesting with regards to this discussion is the varied responses blaming other cultures. The campus feminists are blaming patriarchy of course, while the resident priest and church groups blame the secular culture and the loose morals it produces.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My university is in the news after it was discovered that student leaders led new students in a "rape chant" during frosh week.

What was interesting with regards to this discussion is the varied responses blaming other cultures. The campus feminists are blaming patriarchy of course, while the resident priest and church groups blame the secular culture and the loose morals it produces.

It's certainly not surprising to see conservatives attempting to spin these events in their favor. I don't really see anything modern or "secular" about these kinds of attitudes, though.

[DC Al Fine]

My university is in the news after it was discovered that student leaders led new students in a "rape chant" during frosh week.

What was interesting with regards to this discussion is the varied responses blaming other cultures. The campus feminists are blaming patriarchy of course, while the resident priest and church groups blame the secular culture and the loose morals it produces.

It's certainly not surprising to see conservatives attempting to spin these events in their favor. I don't really see anything modern or "secular" about these kinds of attitudes, though.

On the micro level, when the Catholic church took an active role in running the school, frosh events, freats etc. were either banned or severely restricted.

On the macro level, there is a common phrase in social conservatism "The brothel or the burqa", essentially that Western nations will be unable to achieve a feminist/rational/secular state, and as they become more post-Christian, they'll be forced to choose between a  fairly brutal version of secularism and Islam.

To apply to this case, the argument is essentially that the kids were taught poor/no morals and don't see something deeply wrong with chanting/joking about rape.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Here's a great blog post that is quite pertinent to this discussion.

http://natepyle.com/seeing-a-woman/

[Kitteh]

The social conservative spin to this issue is even more disgusting than the rape chant itself. The ideas that stigmatize rape survivors in mainstream society are not the result of a drift away from sexually repressive Judeo-Christian standards of compulsive monogamy, they are the result of centuries of those attitudes affecting how we view sex and especially female sexuality. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that there is a connection between religious attitudes that see virginity until marriage as a standard that everyone should follow (especially women, because obviously the valuation of virginity has never been applied equally to both genders by the church) and the belief that it's okay to rape a girl who gets blackout drunk at some party and then place some of the blame on her for "putting herself in that situation". The idea (on a micro level, as you put it) that banning frat parties is going to do anything to fight rape is born out of the same idiocy. The problem isn't that people have drifted away from the values that DC Al Fine thinks we should follow; it's that they've taken those values to their logical conclusion in modern society, and prescribing more of those values as the solution to this problem makes as much sense as prescribing cigarettes to treat lung cancer.

[DC Al Fine]

The social conservative spin to this issue is even more disgusting than the rape chant itself. The ideas that stigmatize rape survivors in mainstream society are not the result of a drift away from sexually repressive Judeo-Christian standards of compulsive monogamy, they are the result of centuries of those attitudes affecting how we view sex and especially female sexuality. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that there is a connection between religious attitudes that see virginity until marriage as a standard that everyone should follow (especially women, because obviously the valuation of virginity has never been applied equally to both genders by the church) and the belief that it's okay to rape a girl who gets blackout drunk at some party and then place some of the blame on her for "putting herself in that situation". The idea (on a micro level, as you put it) that banning frat parties is going to do anything to fight rape is born out of the same idiocy. The problem isn't that people have drifted away from the values that DC Al Fine thinks we should follow; it's that they've taken those values to their logical conclusion in modern society, and prescribing more of those values as the solution to this problem makes as much sense as prescribing cigarettes to treat lung cancer.

For all the bluster, you've yet to show any evidence whatsoever for your logic. It's absurd because *gasp* social conservatives don't like rape either!!!!

Seriously, how does this follow in any other situation? "Dave Ramsey wants people to stay out of debt so obviously he loves it when loan sharks break debtor's legs."

[Kitteh]

The social conservative spin to this issue is even more disgusting than the rape chant itself. The ideas that stigmatize rape survivors in mainstream society are not the result of a drift away from sexually repressive Judeo-Christian standards of compulsive monogamy, they are the result of centuries of those attitudes affecting how we view sex and especially female sexuality. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that there is a connection between religious attitudes that see virginity until marriage as a standard that everyone should follow (especially women, because obviously the valuation of virginity has never been applied equally to both genders by the church) and the belief that it's okay to rape a girl who gets blackout drunk at some party and then place some of the blame on her for "putting herself in that situation". The idea (on a micro level, as you put it) that banning frat parties is going to do anything to fight rape is born out of the same idiocy. The problem isn't that people have drifted away from the values that DC Al Fine thinks we should follow; it's that they've taken those values to their logical conclusion in modern society, and prescribing more of those values as the solution to this problem makes as much sense as prescribing cigarettes to treat lung cancer.

For all the bluster, you've yet to show any evidence whatsoever for your logic. It's absurd because *gasp* social conservatives don't like rape either!!!!

Seriously, how does this follow in any other situation? "Dave Ramsey wants people to stay out of debt so obviously he loves it when loan sharks break debtor's legs."

The logical connection here is really simple: stating that a culture which "encourages sexual promiscuity" leads to rape relies on the notion that there is a connection between consensual promiscuity and rape, which is one of the biggest problems with secular discussion of rape and a huge part of the stigma faced by rape survivors. "Opposing rape" in itself is meaningless, obviously nobody seriously "supports rape". But that doesn't mean that one isn't [inadventantly] promoting the same ideas that stigmatize people who have been raped and make them less likely to report it, etc. Just like very few people actually believe white people are the superior race, but just because someone isn't personally bigoted doesn't mean that they don't support things that have racially discriminatory effects.

idk who Dave Ramsey is so not sure what that second part means

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

drj, I have a question. I'm genuinely curious about and interested in your thoughts on this: Do you think that it's possible to hold--or, more importantly, do you think that it's possible to articulate--moral disapproval of sexual promiscuity in ways that don't have the perhaps inadvertent effects that you're describing on the way rape culture is perpetuated, or do you think that well is just too poisoned? (I agree with you that a lot of the time, perhaps most of the time, it does have those effects, by the way.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

drj, I have a question. I'm genuinely curious about and interested in your thoughts on this: Do you think that it's possible to hold--or, more importantly, do you think that it's possible to articulate--moral disapproval of sexual promiscuity in ways that don't have the perhaps inadvertent effects that you're describing on the way rape culture is perpetuated, or do you think that well is just too poisoned? (I agree with you that a lot of the time, perhaps most of the time, it does have those effects, by the way.)

I certainly can't answer your question as well as Drj would, but in my view the solution to this dilemma lies in the old "hate the sin, not the sinner" maxim. It is possible to articulate a social critique of promiscuity without holding a moral judgment on the people who engage in it. People who engage in the latter often drift toward the slut-shaming attitudes which nourish rape culture. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that promiscuity should be above any collective moral discussion.

Great link, PR.

[Kitteh]

hmm, that is an interesting question, I'm not quite sure about. I'll admit to being biased in this regard and having a very different view of promiscuity than you do . I feel like part of the problem with what DC Al Fine said was not just disapproval of promiscuity in general, it was specifically linking cultural approval/toleration of promiscuity with rape. I don't think it's possible to make that argument in a way that doesn't perpetuate rape culture because that argument implicitly rests on a connection between promiscuity and rape that is extremely problematic. Whether you can make a critique of promiscuity in general though (not specifically as a cause of sexual abuse) is a little different I think. It definitely depends on what you base disapproval of promiscuity on; I don't the argument that human beings inherently crave love and emotional connection and that pursuing sex alone is unfulfilling as promoting negative discourses about rape necessarily (although I'd disagree with that argument on a number of points). I think it gets tricky when a moral element is added to the argument. It does seem like a slippery slope from moral/ethical disapproval of promiscuity (from a secular or religious standpoint), to the logical conclusion from that sexually promiscuous people are immoral or at least behaving immorally, to that immorality being considered relevant when those people are raped. I'm not sure how to avoid that...so tldr I guess that it's not impossible probably but definitely tough and maybe impossible when arguing from some standpoints.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

drj, I have a question. I'm genuinely curious about and interested in your thoughts on this: Do you think that it's possible to hold--or, more importantly, do you think that it's possible to articulate--moral disapproval of sexual promiscuity in ways that don't have the perhaps inadvertent effects that you're describing on the way rape culture is perpetuated, or do you think that well is just too poisoned? (I agree with you that a lot of the time, perhaps most of the time, it does have those effects, by the way.)

I certainly can't answer your question as well as Drj would, but in my view the solution to this dilemma lies in the old "hate the sin, not the sinner" maxim. It is possible to articulate a social critique of promiscuity without holding a moral judgment on the people who engage in it. People who engage in the latter often drift toward the slut-shaming attitudes which nourish rape culture. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that promiscuity should be above any collective moral discussion.

This is about where I am right now. I know that 'hate the sin, not the sinner' comes across as awfully backhanded a lot of the time but it's the only way I've found that I'm able to responsibly go about articulating my problems with...a lot of things, really, not just things related to relationships or sex.

hmm, that is an interesting question, I'm not quite sure about. I'll admit to being biased in this regard and having a very different view of promiscuity than you do . I feel like part of the problem with what DC Al Fine said was not just disapproval of promiscuity in general, it was specifically linking cultural approval/toleration of promiscuity with rape. I don't think it's possible to make that argument in a way that doesn't perpetuate rape culture because that argument implicitly rests on a connection between promiscuity and rape that is extremely problematic. Whether you can make a critique of promiscuity in general though (not specifically as a cause of sexual abuse) is a little different I think. It definitely depends on what you base disapproval of promiscuity on; I don't the argument that human beings inherently crave love and emotional connection and that pursuing sex alone is unfulfilling as promoting negative discourses about rape necessarily (although I'd disagree with that argument on a number of points). I think it gets tricky when a moral element is added to the argument. It does seem like a slippery slope from moral/ethical disapproval of promiscuity (from a secular or religious standpoint), to the logical conclusion from that sexually promiscuous people are immoral or at least behaving immorally, to that immorality being considered relevant when those people are raped. I'm not sure how to avoid that...so tldr I guess that it's not impossible probably but definitely tough and maybe impossible when arguing from some standpoints.

Thank you for your answer! I agree with most of what you're saying here, aside from a few particular points that are probably obvious to both of us. (If they're not I can go into more detail but I feel like we have decent understandings of each other's viewpoints on this.)

[Kitteh]

Thank you for your answer! I agree with most of what you're saying here, aside from a few particular points that are probably obvious to both of us. (If they're not I can go into more detail but I feel like we have decent understandings of each other's viewpoints on this.)

haha yeah I think I can guess which points we disagree on here :b

[Person Man]

The "if its ok to have sex then that means that rape is either less bad or a natural consequence" seems like the argument that someone who is very sexually frustrated would make.

It seems to be something that an involuntary celibate would make, "if I ain't getting any, no one should." or "those other guys get laid because they are rapists". And in my experience, its generally a Republican Alpha Male (usually someone a bigger than everyone else) that generally has lots of sex under questionable circumstances.

That's probably some of the appeal of social conservatism and I heard this in PSYC 1000. Its this idea that "I can't get laid, so I'm going to live in an environment where no one else is". It provides you a sense of security about your manhood.

[Franknburger]

Do you think that it's possible to hold--or, more importantly, do you think that it's possible to articulate--moral disapproval of sexual promiscuity in ways that don't have the perhaps inadvertent effects that you're describing on the way rape culture is perpetuated, or do you think that well is just too poisoned?

I think it depends on what you mean with "moral disapproval". As long as it relates to yourself, I don't see a problem at all. I also think it may be legitimate to question whether promiscuity and having a long-term relationship go together well - though I would not ask this question from a moral point of view, but rather focus on the practical aspects ("Are you really clear on whether you want a partnership or not?" "Does the partner know and accept? "Are you fair to your partner?" erc.)

Everything beyond tends to prescribe others how to deal with their bodies. And that is a red line- nobody has the right to impose his personal beliefs and values onto another adult person. Once that line is crossed, you are getting into dangerous terrain. There are still a number of steps between imposing your values, and ultimately imposing your sexuality onto somebody else, so "moral disapproval" is definitely not rape, or anywhere near to it. But the underlying pattern, namely refusing to accept another person's autonomy over his/her body, is the same.

[Person Man]

Do you think that it's possible to hold--or, more importantly, do you think that it's possible to articulate--moral disapproval of sexual promiscuity in ways that don't have the perhaps inadvertent effects that you're describing on the way rape culture is perpetuated, or do you think that well is just too poisoned?

I think it depends on what you mean with "moral disapproval". As long as it relates to yourself, I don't see a problem at all. I also think it may be legitimate to question whether promiscuity and having a long-term relationship go together well - though I would not ask this question from a moral point of view, but rather focus on the practical aspects ("Are you really clear on whether you want a partnership or not?" "Does the partner know and accept? "Are you fair to your partner?" erc.)

Everything beyond tends to prescribe others how to deal with their bodies. And that is a red line- nobody has the right to impose his personal beliefs and values onto another adult person. Once that line is crossed, you are getting into dangerous terrain. There are still a number of steps between imposing your values, and ultimately imposing your sexuality onto somebody else, so "moral disapproval" is definitely not rape, or anywhere near to it. But the underlying pattern, namely refusing to accept another person's autonomy over his/her body, is the same.

This is basically what this debate is about. What we must think about the transition into a society of a more secular social contract is not that sexual morality is simply going away but rather becoming a way that individuals are fair to one another, not some collective and universal method of social engineering.

[DC Al Fine]

The "if its ok to have sex then that means that rape is either less bad or a natural consequence" seems like the argument that someone who is very sexually frustrated would make.

It seems to be something that an involuntary celibate would make, "if I ain't getting any, no one should." or "those other guys get laid because they are rapists". And in my experience, its generally a Republican Alpha Male (usually someone a bigger than everyone else) that generally has lots of sex under questionable circumstances.

That's probably some of the appeal of social conservatism and I heard this in PSYC 1000. Its this idea that "I can't get laid, so I'm going to live in an environment where no one else is". It provides you a sense of security about your manhood.

Thanks for the stereotype

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thank you for your answer! I agree with most of what you're saying here, aside from a few particular points that are probably obvious to both of us. (If they're not I can go into more detail but I feel like we have decent understandings of each other's viewpoints on this.)

haha yeah I think I can guess which points we disagree on here :b

May I say that I'm really glad we can do so respectfully?

Do you think that it's possible to hold--or, more importantly, do you think that it's possible to articulate--moral disapproval of sexual promiscuity in ways that don't have the perhaps inadvertent effects that you're describing on the way rape culture is perpetuated, or do you think that well is just too poisoned?

I think it depends on what you mean with "moral disapproval". As long as it relates to yourself, I don't see a problem at all. I also think it may be legitimate to question whether promiscuity and having a long-term relationship go together well - though I would not ask this question from a moral point of view, but rather focus on the practical aspects ("Are you really clear on whether you want a partnership or not?" "Does the partner know and accept? "Are you fair to your partner?" erc.)

Everything beyond tends to prescribe others how to deal with their bodies. And that is a red line- nobody has the right to impose his personal beliefs and values onto another adult person. Once that line is crossed, you are getting into dangerous terrain. There are still a number of steps between imposing your values, and ultimately imposing your sexuality onto somebody else, so "moral disapproval" is definitely not rape, or anywhere near to it. But the underlying pattern, namely refusing to accept another person's autonomy over his/her body, is the same.

This is basically what this debate is about. What we must think about the transition into a society of a more secular social contract is not that sexual morality is simply going away but rather becoming a way that individuals are fair to one another, not some collective and universal method of social engineering.

The issue is I don't see morality in any area as entirely personal or subjective and am really not willing to make an exception just for sex, and while I also don't wish to go around attempting to enforce morality (through whatever mechanism) in many areas, of which sex is one, I don't feel able to just not talk about these things, primarily because I intend to write highly philosophical and theological novels for a living.

Bodily autonomy is sometimes a good argument in law and in social sciences but I'm not sure it's a good one in normative ethics.

[Kitteh]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people. leaving the argument at "well it doesn't affect you so don't push your views on other people" strikes me as a bit cowardly and not being willing to carry your arguments to their full, logical extent.

[King]

I like vaginas.

[tik 🪀✨]

I like vaginas.

Really? I always found them rather chewy.

Don't mind me. Carry on.

[Antonio the Sixth]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people. leaving the argument at "well it doesn't affect you so don't push your views on other people" strikes me as a bit cowardly and not being willing to carry your arguments to their full, logical extent.

I absolutely agree with this. I can't stand these leftists who, by naivete or intellectual laziness, resort to arguments rooted in the same, shallow idea of freedom which libertarians are so fond of.

BTW, I should precise that my view on sexual promiscuity is not exactly the same as Nathan's, even though our divergences tend to be overshadowed considering the forum consensus on these issues. I do not view promiscuity in itself (even at a general level) as inherently morally wrong, if it is the result of a considerate decision and is fully understood as such by all the parts involved. What I have a major problem with, however, is the increasing social pressure toward promiscuity. I think this can be just as oppressive of individuals as the societal pressure against promiscuity was in traditional societies.

[afleitch]

I think this has taken an interesting turn. The problem is that appeals to ‘personal autonomy’ (which as a classical liberal I strongly support; the idea that it’s some exclusive quasi-libertarian thing makes me think you’ve all spent too much time on the internets ) is what has driven the move towards ‘permissiveness’, not the reappraisal of sexual acts within a moral framework. By permissiveness I mean a move away from the patriarchal and heteronormative view of morality (which granted the heterosexual male free reign in sexual acts; being able to define what is morally ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ concerning them and also being able to roundly ignore them). What I don’t mean by ‘permissiveness’ is over sexualisation. That has always manifested itself regardless of what moral and social norms are in place.

It is of no coincidence that the LGBT rights movement has manifested and sadly at times in the 20th Century, ebbed, with successive waves of feminism. Women have not attained the advances that they have on the basis of people determining they are ‘morally right’ as women, but on the basis of personal autonomy; in part being granted literal control over their own bodies with their own abilities as women being determined by their contributions rather than the limitations placed upon them a priori by men. Gays have not achieved the position in some parts of society that they currently hold because people have determined at first that being gay and committing the sexual acts associated with it is either moral or amoral (because a close examination may lead the heterosexual to find it difficult to disassociate heterosexual sexual norms, potential revulsion of the scatological etc from the homosexual physical and emotional experience) but because of the fact that someone being gay doesn’t affect them or doesn’t threaten them. That comes first (and I know from personal experience with people’s reactions to me) and then any moral re-appraisal comes second. I cannot consider that ‘cowardly’ but merely a stage in acceptance.