Disclaimer: This post is on sensitive topics of sex and power. I try to make it clear when I make a claim; beware drawing indirect inferences; I rarely value signal. As promised in my last post, I now return after a civility pause to the topic of comparing sex and income inequality and redistribution. This post will be unusually long, as I’m trying harder to speak carefully.
As far as I can tell, sex-positive, leftist activists don't believe that bad sex is a good, and also that good sex (absent things that prevent it, such as misogyny) is not scarce; masturbation can count as good sex, for example. There are certainly people and policies that try to change the fraction of people-that-have-good-sex, and I am not sure they are on your radar.
Your research as you have framed it is adjacent to - stronger than that, very, very close to - misogynist beliefs that women have a (social) obligation to pair up with a man. Please do not neglect the very clear and present danger that your words will be twisted to support vile policies - for example, used to support the claim that (gay) marriage bans rationally further a legitimate state interest.
That was one of the arguments advanced by the (eventually) losing side of the 2015 US Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage is not long ago, and it was an incredibly difficult fight. It was polarized on the left-right axis, and the court makeup has shifted since then, and the three branches of US government are now red.
This, among other similar political fights, explains why left-wing people are generally hostile to your recent posts, and right-wing people are generally friendly to it - it's because your research topic touches on these current, active, difficult political fights.
If you proceed incautiously, without attempting to anticipate the likely political implications of your words and willful misconstruals of your words, your positive intentions to contribute to society via science and your positive previous contributions to society, will not matter. Your total impact on society will be "was yet another tool of powerful, regressive, social forces".
I would recommend Kate Manne's "Down Girl". This is a recent philosophy text about what "misogyny" means, and it addresses one of the common fallacies that you stepped into - the idea that people are talking about "women-hating men" when they say "misogynists". The problem she points out with that psychological definition of misogyny is that it not only cannot be used to definitely say "Such-and-such is misogynist", it can also not exonerate anyone from being a misogynist - regardless of their outward behavior, who can know what was in their heart?
1. Wealth redistribution generates far more net utility because it involves far more people. Compare "Benefit to multiple poor people's happiness minus some harm to one rich person's happiness" to "Benefit to one person getting a better mate versus another person getting a worse one". (Not that I'm saying maximising net utility is always the way to go in social issues, but it's worth keeping in mind.)
2. Sexual preferences *depend* on whether you had freedom to choose. You can enjoy a piece of food whether you earned it or it was handed to you by the state. You can't enjoy a relationship independent of whether they chose to be with you. There isn't a static preference that comes first, and means to satisfy preference that comes second.
It is entirely possible for two people who naturally both choose to be with each other as a first preference (not just the best they get, but their actual first preference), to *both* hate being forcibly paired off with each other.
All this stuff also applies to friendships btw. I'd definitely be in favour of societies and spaces that are designed to faciliate more *voluntary* interaction between people otherwise not getting it - be it platonic or not.
P.S. If I may say so, I feel like you should have thought of these points yourself. Violating a taboo should require a higher burden of understanding on the part of the person violating it as to why they're justified in violating the taboo and are smart enough to navigate around whatever problem the taboo exists to avoid. And my points weren't particularly hard to come up with.
Yes, but not the way you think. Research has consistently shown that female sexual selection in online dating follows a Pareto distribution. This means that a minority of men have all the sexual opportunity on these platforms, whereas a majority of men do not - they get very few matches and chances of actually meeting up for a date are miniscule.
Sexual redistribution on dating apps happens the other way: guys who otherwise would've had a solid chance with a number of women if met in real life, in normal conditions, have their sexual opportunity taken away by more successful males.
Another point to consider is what this does to those women's egos, who get to be with an attractive male out of their league (out of their league in terms of settling down, not for sex, we all know the requirements for males to want sex are completely different than settling down), even if just for sex, skews their perception of what is attainable for them for a long-term relationship.
Is Tinder a form of sexual redistribution? If the value of a commodity is the labour it would require to obtain the commodity then sex could also be valued by the effort it takes one to go out and find a sexual partner. By reducing the effort of finding sexual partners you are effectively distributing more sex to people who would otherwise not have access to the sexual partners curated through the app. I know this is an old post but it's a thought I had
Indeed it's occurred to me in recent years that while politicians often argue that you should vote for them to improve your income, they never claim voting for them will get you more sex - even though for many (particularly men) this is a major life priority. I'd like to ask any politician, for any policy: how will this get voters more sex?!
Perhaps the only policies that have directly addressed this in living memory are legalization of gay sex, and presumably some to do with availability of contraception. Both long ago. (I'm not sure even gay marriage is directly relevant.)
Fair enough. I mean my vague priors suggest it is more a danger with the sex issue but certainly not enough to think we shouldn't experiment with policies like you suggest so we can get some actual empirical data.
Of course not. I was trying to engage with the actual substance of the discussion not the absurd reaction that it's somehow inappropriate to consider the issue and see what can be done. However, to figure out what's a good policy requires we also debate potential harms from such policies.
On that point I'd first raise the worry that making the amount of sex other people are getting much more salient by instituting measures and ways to verify these things might well worsen the very problem we are concerned about.
Second, I'd challenge the claim that for practical purposes we've gotten particularly better at measuring income. Sure, if the IRS comes by they can gauge your income but the harms from inequality presumably derive not from the actual fact some people have more money than others but from the perception that this is true. A world in which everyone had x units of value would be pareto dominated world in which 99% of people had x units of value and 1% of people had x+1000 units but this was completely unknown to everyone but them. Thus, it seems the harm arises from our awareness of the relative wealth inequalities and since most people don't consult IRS records that seems to be based on visible displays of wealth which seem to have remained pretty much the same over time or even decreased.
I think a redistribution of sex might be more about priming women to take "a bird in the hand vs two in the bush". That is, don't think about the unlikely chance you can hookup with the high status man as a life time partner, lower your standards and date a low status man.
As far as I can tell, sex-positive, leftist activists don't believe that bad sex is a good, and also that good sex (absent things that prevent it, such as misogyny) is not scarce; masturbation can count as good sex, for example. There are certainly people and policies that try to change the fraction of people-that-have-good-sex, and I am not sure they are on your radar.
Your research as you have framed it is adjacent to - stronger than that, very, very close to - misogynist beliefs that women have a (social) obligation to pair up with a man. Please do not neglect the very clear and present danger that your words will be twisted to support vile policies - for example, used to support the claim that (gay) marriage bans rationally further a legitimate state interest.
That was one of the arguments advanced by the (eventually) losing side of the 2015 US Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage is not long ago, and it was an incredibly difficult fight. It was polarized on the left-right axis, and the court makeup has shifted since then, and the three branches of US government are now red.
This, among other similar political fights, explains why left-wing people are generally hostile to your recent posts, and right-wing people are generally friendly to it - it's because your research topic touches on these current, active, difficult political fights.
If you proceed incautiously, without attempting to anticipate the likely political implications of your words and willful misconstruals of your words, your positive intentions to contribute to society via science and your positive previous contributions to society, will not matter. Your total impact on society will be "was yet another tool of powerful, regressive, social forces".
I would recommend Kate Manne's "Down Girl". This is a recent philosophy text about what "misogyny" means, and it addresses one of the common fallacies that you stepped into - the idea that people are talking about "women-hating men" when they say "misogynists". The problem she points out with that psychological definition of misogyny is that it not only cannot be used to definitely say "Such-and-such is misogynist", it can also not exonerate anyone from being a misogynist - regardless of their outward behavior, who can know what was in their heart?
1. Wealth redistribution generates far more net utility because it involves far more people. Compare "Benefit to multiple poor people's happiness minus some harm to one rich person's happiness" to "Benefit to one person getting a better mate versus another person getting a worse one". (Not that I'm saying maximising net utility is always the way to go in social issues, but it's worth keeping in mind.)
2. Sexual preferences *depend* on whether you had freedom to choose. You can enjoy a piece of food whether you earned it or it was handed to you by the state. You can't enjoy a relationship independent of whether they chose to be with you. There isn't a static preference that comes first, and means to satisfy preference that comes second.
It is entirely possible for two people who naturally both choose to be with each other as a first preference (not just the best they get, but their actual first preference), to *both* hate being forcibly paired off with each other.
All this stuff also applies to friendships btw. I'd definitely be in favour of societies and spaces that are designed to faciliate more *voluntary* interaction between people otherwise not getting it - be it platonic or not.
P.S. If I may say so, I feel like you should have thought of these points yourself. Violating a taboo should require a higher burden of understanding on the part of the person violating it as to why they're justified in violating the taboo and are smart enough to navigate around whatever problem the taboo exists to avoid. And my points weren't particularly hard to come up with.
women making as much as men is "taking from men and giving to women"
Can you give citations?
And that's a problem why?
This is what a feminist looks like.
This is a myth created by leftist media.The word Incel can be found in literature long before whoever that person is used it.
This. Rape is basically unpaid sex.
Yes, but not the way you think. Research has consistently shown that female sexual selection in online dating follows a Pareto distribution. This means that a minority of men have all the sexual opportunity on these platforms, whereas a majority of men do not - they get very few matches and chances of actually meeting up for a date are miniscule.
Sexual redistribution on dating apps happens the other way: guys who otherwise would've had a solid chance with a number of women if met in real life, in normal conditions, have their sexual opportunity taken away by more successful males.
Another point to consider is what this does to those women's egos, who get to be with an attractive male out of their league (out of their league in terms of settling down, not for sex, we all know the requirements for males to want sex are completely different than settling down), even if just for sex, skews their perception of what is attainable for them for a long-term relationship.
Is Tinder a form of sexual redistribution? If the value of a commodity is the labour it would require to obtain the commodity then sex could also be valued by the effort it takes one to go out and find a sexual partner. By reducing the effort of finding sexual partners you are effectively distributing more sex to people who would otherwise not have access to the sexual partners curated through the app. I know this is an old post but it's a thought I had
I also think that there are incel equivalents to begging in the street, property crime, etc.Yes, it is called rape.
all rapes are committed by creepy incels.
Indeed it's occurred to me in recent years that while politicians often argue that you should vote for them to improve your income, they never claim voting for them will get you more sex - even though for many (particularly men) this is a major life priority. I'd like to ask any politician, for any policy: how will this get voters more sex?!
Perhaps the only policies that have directly addressed this in living memory are legalization of gay sex, and presumably some to do with availability of contraception. Both long ago. (I'm not sure even gay marriage is directly relevant.)
Fair enough. I mean my vague priors suggest it is more a danger with the sex issue but certainly not enough to think we shouldn't experiment with policies like you suggest so we can get some actual empirical data.
Making income visible and salient can also be argued to create worse outcomes related to income inequality.
Of course not. I was trying to engage with the actual substance of the discussion not the absurd reaction that it's somehow inappropriate to consider the issue and see what can be done. However, to figure out what's a good policy requires we also debate potential harms from such policies.
On that point I'd first raise the worry that making the amount of sex other people are getting much more salient by instituting measures and ways to verify these things might well worsen the very problem we are concerned about.
Second, I'd challenge the claim that for practical purposes we've gotten particularly better at measuring income. Sure, if the IRS comes by they can gauge your income but the harms from inequality presumably derive not from the actual fact some people have more money than others but from the perception that this is true. A world in which everyone had x units of value would be pareto dominated world in which 99% of people had x units of value and 1% of people had x+1000 units but this was completely unknown to everyone but them. Thus, it seems the harm arises from our awareness of the relative wealth inequalities and since most people don't consult IRS records that seems to be based on visible displays of wealth which seem to have remained pretty much the same over time or even decreased.
I think a redistribution of sex might be more about priming women to take "a bird in the hand vs two in the bush". That is, don't think about the unlikely chance you can hookup with the high status man as a life time partner, lower your standards and date a low status man.