The Answer is (allegedly) Sex Robots

[mankytoes]

14 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yes, which is exactly why I didn't want to say it to begin with, don't want the significant other to go internet-stalking.  Anyway, I obviously don't know if it's human nature, but it's been my experience, as well as most of the people I've discussed it with (albeit that's a predominately male sample).

I think that's a fairly safe assumption.

Yes, the point is porn leads to more porn.  And the concerning thing is the escalation of appetites, disengagement with society, and the behavior that likely results from such tendencies.  Think that's clearly been the discussion the entire time, don't know why it needs to be reiterated.

These just seem like circular arguments. You aren't providing any reasoning, any evidence, for your point of view. 

13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

These sorts of solutions are hateful, like just about any solution that sympathetic (white males) sorts come up, like Douthat's -- they all involve women having to sacrifice something for the sake of these (white males) sorts not getting what they believe belongs to them, while they, of course DO NOTHING but whine on the internet all day about how mean others are to them. Makes them so attractive, doesn't it.

You should speak to some Indian women (to give just one example) if you really think this is a specifically white issue. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

These just seem like circular arguments. You aren't providing any reasoning, any evidence, for your point of view.

Well, at least I'm providing a point of view instead of conveniently only questioning others' without any semblance of reasoning or evidence.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

And I don't understand why you're saying you don't understand, when you said that historically this has been the case.  Do you not believe the present is shaped by the past (as well as other forces too, of course)?

I do.  It is just unfathomable to me that someone can say, and mean, that they see other human beings as property.  

[Kalbear]

22 minutes ago, Zorral said:

These sorts of solutions are hateful, like just about any solution that sympathetic (white males) sorts come up, like Douthat's -- they all involve women having to sacrifice something for the sake of these (white males) sorts not getting what they believe belongs to them, while they, of course DO NOTHING but whine on the internet all day about how mean others are to them. Makes them so attractive, doesn't it.

On your ETA: we, as a culture, need to come up with solutions for male intimacy in society that is allowed, is not tied up with sex exclusively, and is not harmful to others. Because I can guarantee you that if you don't do this, solutions will come up which violate harmful to others or are associated with sex - or both. 

Something I'd like to see come back in some form are the gentlemen's associations and fraternal organizations that used to be a big, big deal back in the day. The closest we have to that in person are things like gaming clubs, but that's not quite right - and the other thing we're getting are online communities, which are not scratching that intimacy itch. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do.  It is just unfathomable to me that someone can say, and mean, that they see other human beings as property.  

The trick is that they don't see them as human beings. They see them as less. This is a requirement, because if a person sees another person as actually human and also suffering, it hurts that person who saw them. 

In order to commit atrocity you have to dehumanize the person. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Something I'd like to see come back in some form are the gentlemen's associations and fraternal organizations that used to be a big, big deal back in the day. The closest we have to that in person are things like gaming clubs, but that's not quite right - and the other thing we're getting are online communities, which are not scratching that intimacy itch. 

Ugh, I tend to agree, and while professionally I loathe his (lack of) methods, it sounds like you'd really enjoy Putnam's Bowling Alone if you haven't already.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The trick is that they don't see them as human beings. They see them as less. This is a requirement, because if a person sees another person as actually human and also suffering, it hurts that person who saw them. 

In order to commit atrocity you have to dehumanize the person. 

That's not quite right.  Plenty of slaveowners saw themselves as civilizing their slaves to the latter's betterment, usually in the service of "god."  Hence, the justification was actually trying to "humanize" the slave.  White man's burden and all that.

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ugh, I tend to agree, and while professionally I loathe his (lack of) methods, it sounds like you'd really enjoy Putnam's Bowling Alone if you haven't already.

That's not quite right.  Plenty of slaveowners saw themselves as civilizing their slaves to the latter's betterment, usually in the service of "god."  Hence, the justification was actually trying to "humanize" the slave.  White man's burden and all that.

Trying to 'humanize' somebody requires not seeing them as human to begin with.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ugh, I tend to agree, and while professionally I loathe his (lack of) methods, it sounds like you'd really enjoy Putnam's Bowling Alone if you haven't already. 

I think there are more connections about overall people - especially online - but men have lost out because women tend to already have a lot of socially acceptable forms of intimacy bonding. So while this harms everyone - the lack of strong local communities - it especially harms men, because they lose one of the few forms of bonding they have.

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That's not quite right.  Plenty of slaveowners saw themselves as civilizing their slaves to the latter's betterment, usually in the service of "god."  Hence, the justification was actually trying to "humanize" the slave.  White man's burden and all that.

Sure! But humanizing the slave requires you to think of the slave as not human yet. And that's the point. Slavery is an atrocity even if you intend it as not one, and are somewhat kind in doing it, but a neurotypical human mind can't deal with the possibility of hurting someone in our tribe like us without justifying it. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think there are more connections about overall people - especially online - but men have lost out because women tend to already have a lot of socially acceptable forms of intimacy bonding. So while this harms everyone - the lack of strong local communities - it especially harms men, because they lose one of the few forms of bonding they have.

I tend to agree, but I'd be curious what women have to say about this.  I think it's entirely possible the internet atomizes or limits intimacy just as much for women as it does for men.  The difference, I'd think, would be their reaction to such isolation and how that affects society.

3 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

Trying to 'humanize' somebody requires not seeing them as human to begin with.

 

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure! But humanizing the slave requires you to think of the slave as not human yet. And that's the point.

Yep, that's why I said "not quite right" in terms of dehumanizing the person.  It's not wrong, just incomplete.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I tend to agree, but I'd be curious what women have to say about this.  I think it's entirely possible the internet atomizes or limits intimacy just as much for women as it does for men.  The difference, I'd think, would be their reaction to such isolation and how that affects society.

 

Yep, that's why I said "not quite right" in terms of dehumanizing the person.  It's not wrong, just incomplete.

Let the record reflect that I responded before Kal.

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

I tend to agree, but I'd be curious what women have to say about this.  I think it's entirely possible the internet atomizes or limits intimacy just as much for women as it does for men.  The difference, I'd think, would be their reaction to such isolation and how that affects society. 

The internet does do that - but the difference is that women still have emotional friendships as the standard for their friendships. Intimacy comes standard with most women's relationships of any nature, because that's the norm. Men don't have that - they had clubs and organizations as another form of intimacy - so when you remove clubs you lose one of the only outlets men have, but just one of the many that women can have. 

More intimacy in general is probably a good thing regardless, and I'm positive it's one of the reasons that the BwB has done so well in making lasting relationships past the board itself - but for women, it's going from some to less whereas men are going from some to none. 

 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

but for women, it's going from some to less whereas men are going from some to none.

In general, sure.  That's what I'm curious about - even if it's some to less rather than some to none, presumably it still has an effect, right?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Is it? I'd say it's just a sign of a dead relationship, not meaning to be judgemental. Don't get me wrong, being sexually active doesn't stop most people watching porn, but as an occasional side to actual sex, not a preference to it. To me that's like Harry Kane retiring to play FIFA all day. 

Not at all. Some people have little or no interest in watching porn while in a relationship while other enjoy regularly watching it, sometimes with their spouses. Different strokes for different folks. Personally I've always watched porn while in LTR for myriad reasons, and they were healthy relationships. Sometimes you need something new. Sometimes you want to play out a fantasy in your mind that you don't want to insert into the relationship. Sometimes your spouse simply isn't there.

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I mean, would you not be a bit put out if a partner said to you they'd rather watch porn than be intimate with you?

I've never heard someone say this in real life. Sure there are some examples you see in pop culture or on the news, but I think it's rather rare. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just wanted to echo the the idea that a lot of the misogyny in this shit likely stems from a lack of male intimacy.  At least in Western culture, and particularly the US men are constantly shunned for displaying emotions (especially negative emotions besides anger), and talking about women or relationships tends to have a heavy focus on proving how much you sexualize all women, ignore their feelings, and treat them like objects.  

I'd say it's typical for even guys that don't typically objectify women or have unhealthy relationships to laugh at jokes based on this premise or ignore more toxic comments at the bar or at work when only men are present.  I've certainly been guilty of it in the past.  All that just feeds into the macho/tough guy/toxic aspect of masculinity.  It's the tacit complicity that is probably the easiest thing to stop doing on a micro level to chip away at this.

The last few years I've been trying to nip that in the bud.  My twelve year old brother said 'no homo' when I hugged him last weekend and it broke my heart.  He was just joking around but wtf he's twelve years old and there's so much of this BS that he's already internalized.  

This shit is a disaster and it really hasn't been dealt with by men as a whole in any meaningful way.  Not even close.  

Re: Bowling alone... That's the one on De Toqueville and the death of 'civil society' and clubs, right?  We need the shit like 'remaining men together' from fight club but just for everyone 

[Kalbear]

Well, there's a reason that men took Fight Club's message about incredibly toxic masculinity and said 'hey, that fighting each other thing looks like REALLY GOOD FUN' and not, ya know, the actual message

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, there's a reason that men took Fight Club's message about incredibly toxic masculinity and said 'hey, that fighting each other thing looks like REALLY GOOD FUN' and not, ya know, the actual message

For sure.  I remember watching that with friends in highschool and the guys hugging and crying was something to laugh at, where as the fighting stuff made an impression.  The 17 year old male audience never really had a shot, as a whole, on picking up on that when they've been primed to celebrate the violence.  

I think raising boys to be feminist men is the only way the incel stuff disappears.  In the meantime I don't know what the best way is to deal with this stuff that has already snowballed into guys acting out murder fantasies, or how to limit the damage they will inevitably continue to inflict.  

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Just wanted to echo the the idea that a lot of the misogyny in this shit likely stems from a lack of male intimacy.  At least in Western culture, and particularly the US men are constantly shunned for displaying emotions (especially negative emotions besides anger), and talking about women or relationships tends to have a heavy focus on proving how much you sexualize all women, ignore their feelings, and treat them like objects.  

I'd say it's typical for even guys that don't typically objectify women or have unhealthy relationships to laugh at jokes based on this premise or ignore more toxic comments at the bar or at work when only men are present.  I've certainly been guilty of it in the past.  All that just feeds into the macho/tough guy/toxic aspect of masculinity.  It's the tacit complicity that is probably the easiest thing to stop doing on a micro level to chip away at this.

The last few years I've been trying to nip that in the bud.  My twelve year old brother said 'no homo' when I hugged him last weekend and it broke my heart.  He was just joking around but wtf he's twelve years old and there's so much of this BS that he's already internalized.  

This shit is a disaster and it really hasn't been dealt with by men as a whole in any meaningful way.  Not even close.  

Re: Bowling alone... That's the one on De Toqueville and the death of 'civil society' and clubs, right?  We need the shit like 'remaining men together' from fight club but just for everyone 

OK.  Why is it the solution men have turned to because they don't have intimate relationships with other men to hate women?

I mean, really, when men had the most intimate and important relationships with men, as in war bands, the real identity of group was mass rape, group rape, humiliation and degradation of women?  And, of course, making them slaves.

And in those days of course, hugging other men, and crying, was culturally more than acceptable.  Read the literature of Greeks, Vikings, Ottomans, etc.

In other words, I'm not buying these arguments about how and where  these kinds of guys and their hatred of women come from.

Even back where I grew up, where everyone knew no man could survive as a real man or fully integrated member of the community without his wife, men who were ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THEIR WIVES made fun of them and everyone went along with it.  In other words women are always supposed to be utterly at the disposal of any man for whatever he wants, depending of course, on how powerful or equal the man who really owned her was in comparison with the individual.

If men don't have community objectives to bond around, such as wrestling big trees into the ground to make the support for lines of electricity or telephones, they have to fall into basements and whine about the hottest women in the world don't give them the time of day and kill other women?

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not at all. Some people have little or no interest in watching porn while in a relationship while other enjoy regularly watching it, sometimes with their spouses. Different strokes for different folks. Personally I've always watched porn while in LTR for myriad reasons, and they were healthy relationships. Sometimes you need something new. Sometimes you want to play out a fantasy in your mind that you don't want to insert into the relationship. Sometimes your spouse simply isn't there.

Nice.

I think you've missed the context a bit here, I don't think there's anything wrong with watching porn when in a relationship, I was talking about preferring porn over intimacy with your partner. 

[Darth Richard II]

22 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Incel movement?  That is the first time I’ve ever seen that word.  If they can find no women who want to be intimate with them perhaps the problem is their lack of social skills?

Good lord:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2018/4/25/17277496/incel-toronto-attack-alek-minassian

oh my sweet summer child

[DMC]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I'd say it's typical for even guys that don't typically objectify women or have unhealthy relationships to laugh at jokes based on this premise or ignore more toxic comments at the bar or at work when only men are present.  I've certainly been guilty of it in the past.  All that just feeds into the macho/tough guy/toxic aspect of masculinity.  It's the tacit complicity that is probably the easiest thing to stop doing on a micro level to chip away at this.

Hm.  In terms of my experience with the bar talk, I think we can isolate the "checking out" phase of the conversation.  Yes, it's objectifying, but it's something all people do, women just do it with more subtlety.  As a social norm that's an unfair double standard, but I don't think being like "that chick is hot" is really that objectionable.  The guy who says something out of line is usually either the guy who's had too many or the one you move a couple stools down from.

In terms of complaining about relationships, I think the worst misogyny I've been a party to or encouraged is the notion that women are unstable or not as rational.  One of my best friends when I lived in DC (so 18-22) used to insist that all women were crazy.  Since then, I've always took the complaint to mean the same way he meant it, which is really more of a compliment - that women tend to be much more emotionally aware than us, and so I can't figure out why she's' mad at me.  But I'm sure plenty of men I've talked to at the bar are interpreting it much more in a "bitches be crazy" way, which is underscored by the implication of women are stoopid.  So yeah, I've tried to stop doing that the past couple years.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Re: Bowling alone... That's the one on De Toqueville and the death of 'civil society' and clubs, right?  We need the shit like 'remaining men together' from fight club but just for everyone 

Yep it's all about Putnam droning on about how important social capital is and how tv ruined it by degrading civil society.  On Fight Club, it's one of those "I'm shocked, but not surprised" things in terms of how many guys can completely miss the point of such a great movie.

26 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I think you've missed the context a bit here, I don't think there's anything wrong with watching porn when in a relationship, I was talking about preferring porn over intimacy with your partner. 

If you're watching porn without your partner by definition you are preferring it to your partner at that time.