Why men need to read Hegel before going out on a date.
April 20, 2013 6:12 AM Subscribe
Drucilla Cornell On Dating. Drucilla Cornell on Feminism. Drucilla Cornell on Marxism.[obfuscated link to pdf]
Be sure to bring a copy of Phänomenologie des Geistes.
Check your False consciousness at the door.
posted by clavdivs at 6:35 AM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
Check your False consciousness at the door.
posted by clavdivs at 6:35 AM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
Behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one, which I don't mean in a good way.
What's the bad way to be treated like a gentleman? The only one I know of is "friendzoning," which I find to be a pretty patriarchal concept.
posted by LogicalDash at 6:41 AM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
What's the bad way to be treated like a gentleman? The only one I know of is "friendzoning," which I find to be a pretty patriarchal concept.
posted by LogicalDash at 6:41 AM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
The video was a riot. But I want to know what was in the pamphlet!
The link on feminism was like reading Arendt: "yeah, that's some carefully, clearly articulated thinking and a really good point! Wait, what's this get off my lawnism doing here? Oh, ok, we're past that, and, yeah, you tell 'em! Oh wait, what's this again now?" etc. Overall a worthwhile and thought-provoking read though, thanks for the post!
posted by eviemath at 6:43 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
The link on feminism was like reading Arendt: "yeah, that's some carefully, clearly articulated thinking and a really good point! Wait, what's this get off my lawnism doing here? Oh, ok, we're past that, and, yeah, you tell 'em! Oh wait, what's this again now?" etc. Overall a worthwhile and thought-provoking read though, thanks for the post!
posted by eviemath at 6:43 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one, which I don't mean in a good way.
What's the bad way to be treated like a gentleman? The only one I know of is "friendzoning," which I find to be a pretty patriarchal concept.
being treated as if you have no interest in sex.
why didn't her date just tell her what he was interested in, and let her decide if she also was interested in that, rather than invite her to "watch a movie"? ... a rhetorical question, we all know that would have not gone over well.
posted by cupcake1337 at 7:00 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
whenever i hear about "decadence" as something needing to be stamped out or otherwise 'dealt with', i start eyeing my passport
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 7:14 AM on April 20, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 7:14 AM on April 20, 2013 [11 favorites]
Continental philosophy is just awful.
posted by vorpal bunny at 7:23 AM on April 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by vorpal bunny at 7:23 AM on April 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
I would, however, point out that it took me years (and countless missed opportunities) to finally realize that I (and apparently Drucilla) fall into a small minority, or at least did at "that" age. Teens and 20-somethings, of both genders, don't go to the movies to watch the movie, simple as that.
Wait, what?
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:40 AM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wait, what?
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:40 AM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
The last link: "Should a Marxist Believe in Rights" is really kind of good, if you like that sort of thing, and kind of gets at some of the problems in the second link on a much deeper level.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:11 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by ennui.bz at 8:11 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
why didn't her date just tell her what he was interested in, and let her decide if she also was interested in that, rather than invite her to "watch a movie"? ... a rhetorical question, we all know that would have not gone over well.
Er, no, it's not at all obvious it wouldn't have gone over well.
posted by LogicalDash at 8:15 AM on April 20, 2013
Er, no, it's not at all obvious it wouldn't have gone over well.
posted by LogicalDash at 8:15 AM on April 20, 2013
Wait, what?
It takes maturity and experience to learn to make popcorn at home.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:16 AM on April 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
It takes maturity and experience to learn to make popcorn at home.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:16 AM on April 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
And you know what, nobody on the Left ever talks like this. That’s why we can’t speak to people. We have to say, “You know, I think it’s perfectly great that a 78-year-old man married a 21-year-old because anybody can fuck anybody they want, and as for children? Boy-man love or whatever? Oh, of COURSE a four-year-old can seduce you.”
What Left is she talking about? Does she get her idea of the left from Fox News? If she's going to make ridiculous claims like this and you think I'm going to take her seriously?
No, I will not.
posted by bswinburn at 8:25 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
What Left is she talking about? Does she get her idea of the left from Fox News? If she's going to make ridiculous claims like this and you think I'm going to take her seriously?
No, I will not.
posted by bswinburn at 8:25 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
What Left is she talking about? Does she get her idea of the left from Fox News? If she's going to make ridiculous claims like this and you think I'm going to take her seriously?
Ok, so which sex acts are good and which sex acts are bad? Are they all good, well then sex with a 4 year old is good. So, suppose sex with 4 year olds is out: why? Now, you could construct an argument something along the lines of well, a 4 year old can't give consent, in part because children are subject to adults (avoiding the question of whether 4 year olds can have sex with 4 year olds.) So, an argument about sexual morality becomes an argument about social power. She's making two points:
1) you can't talk about sexual liberty without talking about social power, unless you truly believe in a free market of sex acts.
2) why in the world would anyone be opposed to sexual liberty? answer: because when her daughter is giving blow jobs to older men in the bathroom, the housewife from hackensack can recognize that her daughter isn't "free," she's subject to those with social power over her. sexual morality promises (and it's a false promise) a social contract that liberality doesn't.
Ok, so which sex acts are good and which sex acts are bad? Are they all good, well then sex with a 4 year old is good. So, suppose sex with 4 year olds is out: why? Now, you could construct an argument something along the lines of well, a 4 year old can't give consent, in part because children are subject to adults (avoiding the question of whether 4 year olds can have sex with 4 year olds.) So, an argument about sexual morality becomes an argument about social power. She's making two points:
1) you can't talk about sexual liberty without talking about social power, unless you truly believe in a free market of sex acts.
2) why in the world would anyone be opposed to sexual liberty? answer: because when her daughter is giving blow jobs to older men in the bathroom, the housewife from hackensack can recognize that her daughter isn't "free," she's subject to those with social power over her. sexual morality promises (and it's a false promise) a social contract that liberality doesn't.
So, when somebody suggests that we have vigilantes that castrate every man who asks a high-school woman for a blowjob, you’re thinking … yeah, that’s a good idea: a lot less dicks, a lot less blowjobs, a lot less Fordist language for sexuality; yeah, I can go with it!posted by ennui.bz at 9:29 AM on April 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
This is interesting but is there ancillary material that would make it more approachable? I read through the interview but she honestly rambles so much and jumps between a bunch of different topics that I am unable to cogently consider her points. The jumble of fear of old age/dying alone and female empowerment and spiritual possession(?) is where I really fell off the wagon.
posted by pahalial at 9:46 AM on April 20, 2013
posted by pahalial at 9:46 AM on April 20, 2013
Why did she think it was a good idea to break off a date by giving a guy a dime and a Chick tract on Hegel?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:50 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:50 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
ennui.bz: But her claim is that the Left is fine with sex with four years, that there is no critique on the left for 78 year olds and 21 year olds marrying. That's just not the case. It's a total strawman argument.
If her argument that if we have to follow social conclusions to their ultimate conclusions in an reductio ad absurdum style without considering any subtleties or realizing that some arguments have limits, well, color me unimpressed.
posted by bswinburn at 10:17 AM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
If her argument that if we have to follow social conclusions to their ultimate conclusions in an reductio ad absurdum style without considering any subtleties or realizing that some arguments have limits, well, color me unimpressed.
posted by bswinburn at 10:17 AM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
"The Left" hardly has a monopoly on discussing or deciding what sex acts are "good" and which are "bad."
posted by rtha at 10:18 AM on April 20, 2013
posted by rtha at 10:18 AM on April 20, 2013
ennui.bz: But her claim is that the Left is fine with sex with four years, that there is no critique on the left for 78 year olds and 21 year olds marrying. That's just not the case. It's a total strawman argument.
This reminds me of Sam Harris' recent assertion that if you're okay with collateral damage during wartime you must be OK with torturing police suspects, thus torture is OK. It takes a certain deliberate, calculated egocentricism to throw out that kind of reasoning and immediately plug one's ears to any explanations to the contrary.
Is it some kind of outgroup homogeneity thing? The beliefe that one's own ideas are profoundly nuanced while everyone else's are crude, simplistic, and easily pigeonholed?
posted by verb at 10:22 AM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
This reminds me of Sam Harris' recent assertion that if you're okay with collateral damage during wartime you must be OK with torturing police suspects, thus torture is OK. It takes a certain deliberate, calculated egocentricism to throw out that kind of reasoning and immediately plug one's ears to any explanations to the contrary.
Is it some kind of outgroup homogeneity thing? The beliefe that one's own ideas are profoundly nuanced while everyone else's are crude, simplistic, and easily pigeonholed?
posted by verb at 10:22 AM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
i think 21-year-olds should be able to do whatever the fuck they want
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 10:34 AM on April 20, 2013
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 10:34 AM on April 20, 2013
Behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one
I don't know which myth is harder to dispel:
1. Just because you worked hard and were successful doesn't mean you were successful because you worked hard.
2. Just because you were nice and she doesn't want to go out with you doesn't mean she doesn't want to go out with you because you were nice.
posted by straight at 10:34 AM on April 20, 2013 [21 favorites]
I don't know which myth is harder to dispel:
1. Just because you worked hard and were successful doesn't mean you were successful because you worked hard.
2. Just because you were nice and she doesn't want to go out with you doesn't mean she doesn't want to go out with you because you were nice.
posted by straight at 10:34 AM on April 20, 2013 [21 favorites]
This is interesting but is there ancillary material that would make it more approachable? I read through the interview but she honestly rambles so much and jumps between a bunch of different topics that I am unable to cogently consider her points. The jumble of fear of old age/dying alone and female empowerment and spiritual possession(?) is where I really fell off the wagon.
Perhaps I am not being charitable to Cornell, but I strongly suspect ancillary material will not be of much assistance.
That could just be my phallocentric conception of truth talking though.
posted by vorpal bunny at 10:36 AM on April 20, 2013
Perhaps I am not being charitable to Cornell, but I strongly suspect ancillary material will not be of much assistance.
That could just be my phallocentric conception of truth talking though.
posted by vorpal bunny at 10:36 AM on April 20, 2013
The interview in the Jacobin is maddeningly frustrating: moments of genuine insight expressed with brutal precision, wrapped in endless layers of WTF.
"You get involved with the Tea Party-ers… [b]ecause every night of the week, you’ll have an activity. And you don’t have to do Internet dating. "
"There’s a study in the New York Times, and in this study of 1,500 people, only two men out of 1,500 had not cheated on their wives at the end of the first ten years!"
"I’ve seen deaths in South Africa where I didn’t even know the person died! [A]bout 15 minutes before she died, she sang this song and then everything got quiet. She died in this environment of love and care and no fear, with no needles being shoved in her face."
That last one is particularly baffling, as she spends most of the article railing against the fantasy of capitalist sexual monogamy before waxing poetic about the beautiful inspiring peacefulness of dying in South Africa. For every anecdote about a gentle, peaceful slide into the beyond there's a story about a faithful couple in their 90s who stuck together through thick and thin because lurve.
It's hard to believe the interview wasn't edited to make her sound ridiculous. It's a shame, because the standard critique of capitalism as a fundamentally dehumanizing system that turns the aged into a waste resource is as on-target as it always is. Similarly, the critique of "sexual liberation" in the context of a still-male-dominated society is a solid one.
But those critiques have been made more clearly by other speakers and thinkers -- ones that don't veer so violently into the-world-is-my-rorschach-test.
posted by verb at 10:51 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
"You get involved with the Tea Party-ers… [b]ecause every night of the week, you’ll have an activity. And you don’t have to do Internet dating. "
"There’s a study in the New York Times, and in this study of 1,500 people, only two men out of 1,500 had not cheated on their wives at the end of the first ten years!"
"I’ve seen deaths in South Africa where I didn’t even know the person died! [A]bout 15 minutes before she died, she sang this song and then everything got quiet. She died in this environment of love and care and no fear, with no needles being shoved in her face."
That last one is particularly baffling, as she spends most of the article railing against the fantasy of capitalist sexual monogamy before waxing poetic about the beautiful inspiring peacefulness of dying in South Africa. For every anecdote about a gentle, peaceful slide into the beyond there's a story about a faithful couple in their 90s who stuck together through thick and thin because lurve.
It's hard to believe the interview wasn't edited to make her sound ridiculous. It's a shame, because the standard critique of capitalism as a fundamentally dehumanizing system that turns the aged into a waste resource is as on-target as it always is. Similarly, the critique of "sexual liberation" in the context of a still-male-dominated society is a solid one.
But those critiques have been made more clearly by other speakers and thinkers -- ones that don't veer so violently into the-world-is-my-rorschach-test.
posted by verb at 10:51 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is interesting but is there ancillary material that would make it more approachable? I read through the interview but she honestly rambles so much and jumps between a bunch of different topics that I am unable to cogently consider her points. The jumble of fear of old age/dying alone and female empowerment and spiritual possession(?) is where I really fell off the wagon.
I was a little bit confused by the spiritual possession part at first as well. She seems to be referring to particular cultural/spiritual practices in groups that she's worked with in South Africa, so maybe some anthropological background on the specific groups involved might be helpful to both of us? (*)
I think my main difficulty in reading those passages though was that the manner in which she talks about the beliefs/traditions is not the one that we commonly see. Usually we either get the complete insider perspective speaking from the point of view of, for example, "we all know that God exists and created the world in seven days," or we get the complete outsider perspective of "let me tell you about the quaint beliefs that this other culture has; which of course we civilized people know to be false, but aren't they fascinating?" Instead, she's seems to be trying to take a middle ground that does not assume that, eg., the spiritual possession is true in an absolute sense, but is respectful of the culture and of the fact that it is true to the people involved, and that informs their lives in a variety of ways. I like seeing that kind of approach, even though reading/interpreting it challenges me still due to my lack of experience with it.
(*) Or are you asking about the feminist theory context behind what she says? I'm not the best person to give recommendations there, but bell hooks' "Feminism for Everyone" is I think a pretty understandable read for a first introduction if needed. Then probably an introduction to feminist theory book that would include a variety of readings. I hear there are better and worse such texts, but haven't read any.
posted by eviemath at 10:51 AM on April 20, 2013
I was a little bit confused by the spiritual possession part at first as well. She seems to be referring to particular cultural/spiritual practices in groups that she's worked with in South Africa, so maybe some anthropological background on the specific groups involved might be helpful to both of us? (*)
I think my main difficulty in reading those passages though was that the manner in which she talks about the beliefs/traditions is not the one that we commonly see. Usually we either get the complete insider perspective speaking from the point of view of, for example, "we all know that God exists and created the world in seven days," or we get the complete outsider perspective of "let me tell you about the quaint beliefs that this other culture has; which of course we civilized people know to be false, but aren't they fascinating?" Instead, she's seems to be trying to take a middle ground that does not assume that, eg., the spiritual possession is true in an absolute sense, but is respectful of the culture and of the fact that it is true to the people involved, and that informs their lives in a variety of ways. I like seeing that kind of approach, even though reading/interpreting it challenges me still due to my lack of experience with it.
(*) Or are you asking about the feminist theory context behind what she says? I'm not the best person to give recommendations there, but bell hooks' "Feminism for Everyone" is I think a pretty understandable read for a first introduction if needed. Then probably an introduction to feminist theory book that would include a variety of readings. I hear there are better and worse such texts, but haven't read any.
posted by eviemath at 10:51 AM on April 20, 2013
Behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one.
Here is a fun secret: "perfect gentlemen" can get laid an awful lot if women actually like them.
posted by verb at 10:51 AM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
Here is a fun secret: "perfect gentlemen" can get laid an awful lot if women actually like them.
posted by verb at 10:51 AM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
I've never read anything like that before. That was a much needed antidote to the horrors of online dating that I'm currently trying to recover from.
posted by mermily at 11:12 AM on April 20, 2013
posted by mermily at 11:12 AM on April 20, 2013
justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow : Why did she think it was a good idea to break off a date by giving a guy a dime and a Chick tract on Hegel?
Because Grandma. C'mon man, pay attention! Wait... That doesn't really make any sense, does it?
I kinda had that same feeling when watching it. As in, I suspect Drucilla would have had a much smoother adolescence without grandma around giving dating advice that stopped having relevance to the modern world 50 years earlier.
verb : Here is a fun secret: "perfect gentlemen" can get laid an awful lot if women actually like them.
That works well for us middle-agers, with a dating pool that has shifted to value "responsible" over "rabid wombats in heat". It doesn't work so well for teen boys.
posted by pla at 12:17 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Because Grandma. C'mon man, pay attention! Wait... That doesn't really make any sense, does it?
I kinda had that same feeling when watching it. As in, I suspect Drucilla would have had a much smoother adolescence without grandma around giving dating advice that stopped having relevance to the modern world 50 years earlier.
verb : Here is a fun secret: "perfect gentlemen" can get laid an awful lot if women actually like them.
That works well for us middle-agers, with a dating pool that has shifted to value "responsible" over "rabid wombats in heat". It doesn't work so well for teen boys.
posted by pla at 12:17 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
That works well for us middle-agers, with a dating pool that has shifted to value "responsible" over "rabid wombats in heat". It doesn't work so well for teen boys.
I suspect you might be shocked to hear others' experiences. As best as I can tell, "guys who view gentlemanly behavior as a frustrating societal expectation" tend to fare badly at any age. "Guys who have relationships with members of the opposite sex but aren't constantly 'trying to get to the next base,'" as Cornell might put it, do pretty well.
Make of it what you will. Perhaps it's a sign that women value being treated as emotional peers. Perhaps it's proof that negging works. Perhaps it's a demonstration that the universe is full of irony. Either way, this ridiculous "gentlemen don't get any" / "Nice guys finish last" meme shouldn't derail the rest of the thread, it's just kind of baffling to see it pop up again and again.
posted by verb at 12:28 PM on April 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
I suspect you might be shocked to hear others' experiences. As best as I can tell, "guys who view gentlemanly behavior as a frustrating societal expectation" tend to fare badly at any age. "Guys who have relationships with members of the opposite sex but aren't constantly 'trying to get to the next base,'" as Cornell might put it, do pretty well.
Make of it what you will. Perhaps it's a sign that women value being treated as emotional peers. Perhaps it's proof that negging works. Perhaps it's a demonstration that the universe is full of irony. Either way, this ridiculous "gentlemen don't get any" / "Nice guys finish last" meme shouldn't derail the rest of the thread, it's just kind of baffling to see it pop up again and again.
posted by verb at 12:28 PM on April 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
I dated a cultural anthropologist once. I didn't like it.
posted by zscore at 12:50 PM on April 20, 2013
posted by zscore at 12:50 PM on April 20, 2013
Either way, this ridiculous "gentlemen don't get any" / "Nice guys finish last" meme shouldn't derail the rest of the thread, it's just kind of baffling to see it pop up again and again.
It isn't baffling in the slightest. Being a bad boy sociopath is a good mating strategy.
posted by Tanizaki at 12:54 PM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
It isn't baffling in the slightest. Being a bad boy sociopath is a good mating strategy.
posted by Tanizaki at 12:54 PM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
This is fun to watch/read, but it's been a few years since my Philosophy 101 class (sure, let's just assume I did all the readings) and I am not sure how she thinks her dates would have been impacted by reading Hegel. Does this make sense to anyone who is more familiar with Hegel, and if so, can you please explain?
Your comment was very interesting, ennui.bz, but what do you mean by Fordian?
posted by bunderful at 12:56 PM on April 20, 2013
Your comment was very interesting, ennui.bz, but what do you mean by Fordian?
posted by bunderful at 12:56 PM on April 20, 2013
anyone who is more familiar with Hegel
It's a complex way of saying "be able to have a conversation".
gentlemen
C.S. Lewis pointed out in the 1940's "A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word." This is before the expression "Gentlemen's Club" came into use. It's a fluid word; it's easy to talk right past other people when using it.
posted by relish at 1:04 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's a complex way of saying "be able to have a conversation".
gentlemen
C.S. Lewis pointed out in the 1940's "A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word." This is before the expression "Gentlemen's Club" came into use. It's a fluid word; it's easy to talk right past other people when using it.
posted by relish at 1:04 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Being a bad boy sociopath is a good mating strategy.
Linked study shows that "bad boy sociopaths" (as you call them) claim to have had more sexual partners.
posted by straight at 1:21 PM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Linked study shows that "bad boy sociopaths" (as you call them) claim to have had more sexual partners.
posted by straight at 1:21 PM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
It isn't baffling in the slightest. Being a bad boy sociopath is a good mating strategy.
Not sure the linked article says that. I'm no expert, but the takeaway seems to be that among twentysomething undergrads, Machiavellian, narcissistic, psychopathic tendencies correlate with an "exploitative, short-term mating strategy." That's not the same as being a "Bad Boy" archetype; in fact, the majority that matched that profile seemed to regard themselves as well-liked, gregarious extroverts.
posted by verb at 1:33 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not sure the linked article says that. I'm no expert, but the takeaway seems to be that among twentysomething undergrads, Machiavellian, narcissistic, psychopathic tendencies correlate with an "exploitative, short-term mating strategy." That's not the same as being a "Bad Boy" archetype; in fact, the majority that matched that profile seemed to regard themselves as well-liked, gregarious extroverts.
posted by verb at 1:33 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ok, so which sex acts are good and which sex acts are bad? Are they all good, well then sex with a 4 year old is good.
Huge logic leap there, captain. All sex acts are okay, so sex with any class of persons is okay?
Apart even from that whole thing about not actually having to be logically consistent and reasoning from first principles in real life, even if you're a leftist.
Or the whole idea of consent as driver of what is and isn't okay rather than what you're actually doing.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:49 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Huge logic leap there, captain. All sex acts are okay, so sex with any class of persons is okay?
Apart even from that whole thing about not actually having to be logically consistent and reasoning from first principles in real life, even if you're a leftist.
Or the whole idea of consent as driver of what is and isn't okay rather than what you're actually doing.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:49 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Either way, this ridiculous "gentlemen don't get any" / "Nice guys finish last" meme shouldn't derail the rest of the thread, it's just kind of baffling to see it pop up again and again.
I'm baffled about why you are baffled. Lots of men were taught to “be a gentleman” because their parents don't realize or are in denial about the fact that those dignified manners aren't really in high demand in the culture today. Young women today don't generally feel attraction to guys who remind them of their grandfathers. Why is that controversial?
Another way of saying the same thing: some guys are still modeling themselves after Roger Moore's James Bond, and wondering why Daniel Craig's abs are getting all the attention. Maybe you still love the tux, but that just means you're probably out of touch with mainstream culture and definitely out of touch with mainstream youth culture.
posted by AlsoMike at 2:01 PM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm baffled about why you are baffled. Lots of men were taught to “be a gentleman” because their parents don't realize or are in denial about the fact that those dignified manners aren't really in high demand in the culture today. Young women today don't generally feel attraction to guys who remind them of their grandfathers. Why is that controversial?
Another way of saying the same thing: some guys are still modeling themselves after Roger Moore's James Bond, and wondering why Daniel Craig's abs are getting all the attention. Maybe you still love the tux, but that just means you're probably out of touch with mainstream culture and definitely out of touch with mainstream youth culture.
posted by AlsoMike at 2:01 PM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Rule 1: Never (ever) actually read anything by Hegel.
posted by jade east at 2:03 PM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by jade east at 2:03 PM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
I'm baffled about why you are baffled. Lots of men were taught to “be a gentleman” because their parents don't realize or are in denial about the fact that those dignified manners aren't really in high demand in the culture today. Young women today don't generally feel attraction to guys who remind them of their grandfathers. Why is that controversial?
Because in pla's post, it was clear that "gentleman" was used to mean "a guy who doesn't initiate sexual contact without an indication of interest from his partner." We're not talking about wearing cravats and pipe-smoking.
posted by verb at 2:10 PM on April 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
Because in pla's post, it was clear that "gentleman" was used to mean "a guy who doesn't initiate sexual contact without an indication of interest from his partner." We're not talking about wearing cravats and pipe-smoking.
posted by verb at 2:10 PM on April 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
I read "behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one" as "never expressing any desire for sex means you don't get any", ditto "friendzoning". If you merely invent reasons to be around people you like, but otherwise sit there like a bump on a log, then obviously they wont view you as a perspective relationship.
Worse, random acquaintance attraction doesn't usually last particularly long. If you move when they're attracted to you, then you've an opportunity to build a relationship and friendship in parallel. If you move too early or too late, they're actually off wondering about another acquaintance, not you. Not an insurmountable obstacle, but not good either.
You'll notice I've avoided any gendered pronouns so far? All the above seems fairly universal. All the "friendzone" junk simply asserts that males are more likely than females to obsess over false prospects. I've no clue if this holds, well never spent any time as a female myself. In practice though, society officially tells males they should act upon attractions, but omits explaining how. So maybe males waste more time on false prospects simply because society told them acting on attraction is their obligation and authority but they haven't yet acted? Conversely, society actively tells females they should not overtly act upon their attractions. So maybe females discard their own attractions too quickly when males don't notice an (subtle) action she took?
Is being a bad boy sociopath a good mating strategy? Yes, but maybe (mild) sociopathy is at least as advantageous in say business as in mating? Or maybe sociopathy's largest advantage in mating is simply that trying more often helps you exploit the odds, attraction windows, or whatever.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:19 PM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
Worse, random acquaintance attraction doesn't usually last particularly long. If you move when they're attracted to you, then you've an opportunity to build a relationship and friendship in parallel. If you move too early or too late, they're actually off wondering about another acquaintance, not you. Not an insurmountable obstacle, but not good either.
You'll notice I've avoided any gendered pronouns so far? All the above seems fairly universal. All the "friendzone" junk simply asserts that males are more likely than females to obsess over false prospects. I've no clue if this holds, well never spent any time as a female myself. In practice though, society officially tells males they should act upon attractions, but omits explaining how. So maybe males waste more time on false prospects simply because society told them acting on attraction is their obligation and authority but they haven't yet acted? Conversely, society actively tells females they should not overtly act upon their attractions. So maybe females discard their own attractions too quickly when males don't notice an (subtle) action she took?
Is being a bad boy sociopath a good mating strategy? Yes, but maybe (mild) sociopathy is at least as advantageous in say business as in mating? Or maybe sociopathy's largest advantage in mating is simply that trying more often helps you exploit the odds, attraction windows, or whatever.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:19 PM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
Huge logic leap there, captain. All sex acts are okay, so sex with any class of persons is okay?
not really e.g. the question of gay sex really involves classes of people rather than acts per se e.g. blow jobs from hot females, ok!
If her argument that if we have to follow social conclusions to their ultimate conclusions in an reductio ad absurdum style without considering any subtleties or realizing that some arguments have limits, well, color me unimpressed.
the point is that basing sexual freedom on license i.e. "everything goes" leads to some unpleasant conclusions. people on the left tend to be for sexual freedom and generally not pedophilia by a combination of fuzzy consent arguments and what feels right. what counts as moral philosophy on the left is pretty fuzzy, even whether there is such a thing. but her point is that freedom doesn't look so good if it means getting exploited.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:33 PM on April 20, 2013
not really e.g. the question of gay sex really involves classes of people rather than acts per se e.g. blow jobs from hot females, ok!
If her argument that if we have to follow social conclusions to their ultimate conclusions in an reductio ad absurdum style without considering any subtleties or realizing that some arguments have limits, well, color me unimpressed.
the point is that basing sexual freedom on license i.e. "everything goes" leads to some unpleasant conclusions. people on the left tend to be for sexual freedom and generally not pedophilia by a combination of fuzzy consent arguments and what feels right. what counts as moral philosophy on the left is pretty fuzzy, even whether there is such a thing. but her point is that freedom doesn't look so good if it means getting exploited.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:33 PM on April 20, 2013
the point is that basing sexual freedom on license i.e. "everything goes" leads to some unpleasant conclusions. people on the left tend to be for sexual freedom and generally not pedophilia by a combination of fuzzy consent arguments and what feels right.
Those arguments are not particularly "fuzzy," any more than "murder is bad" is fuzzy because there are other forms of killing that are not murder.
In a consent-based sexual ethic, there are two core questions: has consent been given? And, as an adjunct, is this individual capable of giving what we would call "real" consent?
Various forms of coercion or incapacitation can make consent a moot point, after all. That applies to legal contracts just as much as sexuality, but it doesn't mean that we throw up our hands and declare contract law hypocritical and unmaintainable.
posted by verb at 3:28 PM on April 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
Those arguments are not particularly "fuzzy," any more than "murder is bad" is fuzzy because there are other forms of killing that are not murder.
In a consent-based sexual ethic, there are two core questions: has consent been given? And, as an adjunct, is this individual capable of giving what we would call "real" consent?
Various forms of coercion or incapacitation can make consent a moot point, after all. That applies to legal contracts just as much as sexuality, but it doesn't mean that we throw up our hands and declare contract law hypocritical and unmaintainable.
posted by verb at 3:28 PM on April 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
i had a few paragraphs written, but this says it better than i would have
I read "behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one" as "never expressing any desire for sex means you don't get any", ditto "friendzoning". If you merely invent reasons to be around people you like, but otherwise sit there like a bump on a log, then obviously they wont view you as a perspective relationship.
posted by cupcake1337 at 5:47 PM on April 20, 2013
I read "behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one" as "never expressing any desire for sex means you don't get any", ditto "friendzoning". If you merely invent reasons to be around people you like, but otherwise sit there like a bump on a log, then obviously they wont view you as a perspective relationship.
posted by cupcake1337 at 5:47 PM on April 20, 2013
Verb: This reminds me of Sam Harris' recent assertion that if you're okay with collateral damage during wartime you must be OK with torturing police suspects, thus torture is OK. It takes a certain deliberate, calculated egocentricism to throw out that kind of reasoning and immediately plug one's ears to any explanations to the contrary.This sounds more like a recent Glenn Greenwald misrepresentation than the nuanced point Harris was trying to make nearly a decade ago about how we weigh the various harms for which we hold one another morally culpable.
Harris: I argued then, and I believe today, that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board./derail (with apologies)
However, rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, many readers mistakenly conclude that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not.
[...] To argue that torture may sometimes be ethically justified is not to argue that it should ever be legal (crimes like trespassing or theft may sometimes be ethical, while we all have an interest in keeping them illegal).
[...] Such “ticking-bomb” scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of such thought experiments. The point is that unless you have an argument that rules out torture in idealized cases, you don’t have a categorical argument against the use of torture.
posted by Davenhill at 6:05 PM on April 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Is being a bad boy sociopath a good mating strategy?
Even if there is a correlation, isn't it much more plausible the arrow of causation points the other way?
Is it more likely that lots of people are attracted to sociopaths? Or rather that lots of people will put up with crap from someone they already think is attractive that they wouldn't take from someone they don't find attractive?
posted by straight at 7:17 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Even if there is a correlation, isn't it much more plausible the arrow of causation points the other way?
Is it more likely that lots of people are attracted to sociopaths? Or rather that lots of people will put up with crap from someone they already think is attractive that they wouldn't take from someone they don't find attractive?
posted by straight at 7:17 PM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Because in pla's post, it was clear that "gentleman" was used to mean "a guy who doesn't initiate sexual contact without an indication of interest from his partner."
pla said "Behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one, which I don't mean in a good way. :)" which clearly means overly chaste — going to the movies with girls and later realizing they expected him to make a move.
Most men are taught that a perfect gentleman would never think sexual thoughts about a woman he isn't married to, and even with his wife he should ideally regard sex as sordid and degrading. So men who follow benevolent sexist norms that are ultimately designed to "protect a woman's virtue" and prevent premarital sex find themselves in the dreaded "friendzone" not having premarital sex? Yes, that sounds about right.
posted by AlsoMike at 8:07 PM on April 20, 2013
pla said "Behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one, which I don't mean in a good way. :)" which clearly means overly chaste — going to the movies with girls and later realizing they expected him to make a move.
Most men are taught that a perfect gentleman would never think sexual thoughts about a woman he isn't married to, and even with his wife he should ideally regard sex as sordid and degrading. So men who follow benevolent sexist norms that are ultimately designed to "protect a woman's virtue" and prevent premarital sex find themselves in the dreaded "friendzone" not having premarital sex? Yes, that sounds about right.
posted by AlsoMike at 8:07 PM on April 20, 2013
AlsoMike : Most men are taught that a perfect gentleman would never think sexual thoughts about a woman he isn't married to, and even with his wife he should ideally regard sex as sordid and degrading
I wouldn't go that far, but yeah, you got the gist of my meaning just fine otherwise.
I honestly don't know where the "negging" comment came from, I consider that crap beyond demeaning, to myself. I just meant that it took me perhaps a bit longer than average to realize that we all function as a sexual species, and that both genders actually want sex - Not some sort of bird mating ritual where the male collects blue things and maybe the female will put up with him for the night.
posted by pla at 8:39 PM on April 20, 2013
I wouldn't go that far, but yeah, you got the gist of my meaning just fine otherwise.
I honestly don't know where the "negging" comment came from, I consider that crap beyond demeaning, to myself. I just meant that it took me perhaps a bit longer than average to realize that we all function as a sexual species, and that both genders actually want sex - Not some sort of bird mating ritual where the male collects blue things and maybe the female will put up with him for the night.
posted by pla at 8:39 PM on April 20, 2013
1) I was usually the one making moves on young men in movie theaters, I don't know what to make of that. (I read it in books!)
2) It is unpleasurable to have young men "zooming over your body like an airplane" or whatnot.
I think the bother isn't necessarily the sexual element, but the weird, predatory, goal-scoring methods that high school boys are supposed to strive for. Also, with respect to 1), I read it in books like Judy Bloom's Deenie, where the girls only had vague notions of what the boys would get up to, whereas the boys were clearly well-briefed in advance, and that's the part that's maybe particularly awful now. Two teenagers going to see a movie, plotting in advance to make out in the only privacy they have as high schoolers, does not sound creepy to me. A boy taking a girl to the movies to see how far he can get, while she wallows in ignorance, is just a bad set-up.
Now that doesn’t make any sense on the level of rationality but it makes perfect sense on the level of this fantasy: that if a woman owns her own body, if a woman claims what I’ve called the imaginary domain, if a woman says “my body is something I imagine, and I will do with it as I will,” then all of a sudden men are completely cut off from life-producing power. We’re that scary, we scare the shit out of them.
I've always found arguments about the female power to give and take life a little cuckoo/"symbolic," but this actually makes a deep sense to me for the first time. I guess there's been a joke dialogue circulating around tumblr lately where one girl says "I want to have children but I don't want to be pregnant or give birth, and I don't want to adopt because I want them to be biologically mine," and a second girl says "so basically you want to be a father." I don't know why until like, this week, I hadn't realized how massively different the male experience of parenthood was-- I took it for granted that men had the easier route (how many times have I been put down by a man who says he's glad he doesn't have to deal with all my female body stuff?), but not how terrifyingly fragile that seems.
So in that light, I get the women in the Tea Party movement. I don’t want to do internet dating either. I don’t want to be barraged by diet pills and told that I’m sexually worthless because I’m 62 and every man really wants to fuck a 20-year-old (why? Because he’s afraid of death! That’s absolutely right, that’s Jacques Lacan’s point).
This too. I don't know what's with me tonight, maybe I'm just high (4/20 y'all), but of course you'd fuck a 20-year-old if you were afraid of death and wanted to look back, not ahead, and of course formal equality is true late-capitalist bullshit. And of course the Tea Party and other religious groups provide a very comforting sense of layered, community care-giving, which was a major reason I was attracted to them when I was younger and felt terrified of the world.
And while she exaggerates for comic effect, people (men?) on the left are notorious for defending "sexual liberty" when it comes to liberated younger women having affairs with middle-aged men. Suddenly we shouldn't infantalize young women! They know what they're doing! They want a mature, fiscally-responsible cock-- it's biology. Funny how we infantalize them when it comes to everything else, whether left- or right-wing. It's almost surreal for me to really think about, but nearly every woman I've been close friends with has had some sort of sexual dalliance with an older man between the ages of 19-21 (right before she started to really know herself, if my experience is example), that she looks back on with revulsion and shame, sometimes bemused shame. And as one of those young women, I wasn't very attracted to the man himself, in the end-- I was attracted to the idea of sexual independence and mystique that got me to him. (And, as she says, sexual performance.) He was not unattractive, but he was less attractive to me than my peers would have been, if I hadn't been operating inside a matrix of ideas about female sexuality and supposed sexual power. YMMV, but I know my experience is not unique.
What she says about kinship and intimacy is quite touching. I don't know if I believe in collectives, but I also don't know how far I can see beyond my inherited notions of sexual jealousy, &c., because I haven't pushed my own personal envelope very far in that regard.
Anyway, very cool.
posted by stoneandstar at 9:53 PM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
2) It is unpleasurable to have young men "zooming over your body like an airplane" or whatnot.
I think the bother isn't necessarily the sexual element, but the weird, predatory, goal-scoring methods that high school boys are supposed to strive for. Also, with respect to 1), I read it in books like Judy Bloom's Deenie, where the girls only had vague notions of what the boys would get up to, whereas the boys were clearly well-briefed in advance, and that's the part that's maybe particularly awful now. Two teenagers going to see a movie, plotting in advance to make out in the only privacy they have as high schoolers, does not sound creepy to me. A boy taking a girl to the movies to see how far he can get, while she wallows in ignorance, is just a bad set-up.
Now that doesn’t make any sense on the level of rationality but it makes perfect sense on the level of this fantasy: that if a woman owns her own body, if a woman claims what I’ve called the imaginary domain, if a woman says “my body is something I imagine, and I will do with it as I will,” then all of a sudden men are completely cut off from life-producing power. We’re that scary, we scare the shit out of them.
I've always found arguments about the female power to give and take life a little cuckoo/"symbolic," but this actually makes a deep sense to me for the first time. I guess there's been a joke dialogue circulating around tumblr lately where one girl says "I want to have children but I don't want to be pregnant or give birth, and I don't want to adopt because I want them to be biologically mine," and a second girl says "so basically you want to be a father." I don't know why until like, this week, I hadn't realized how massively different the male experience of parenthood was-- I took it for granted that men had the easier route (how many times have I been put down by a man who says he's glad he doesn't have to deal with all my female body stuff?), but not how terrifyingly fragile that seems.
So in that light, I get the women in the Tea Party movement. I don’t want to do internet dating either. I don’t want to be barraged by diet pills and told that I’m sexually worthless because I’m 62 and every man really wants to fuck a 20-year-old (why? Because he’s afraid of death! That’s absolutely right, that’s Jacques Lacan’s point).
This too. I don't know what's with me tonight, maybe I'm just high (4/20 y'all), but of course you'd fuck a 20-year-old if you were afraid of death and wanted to look back, not ahead, and of course formal equality is true late-capitalist bullshit. And of course the Tea Party and other religious groups provide a very comforting sense of layered, community care-giving, which was a major reason I was attracted to them when I was younger and felt terrified of the world.
And while she exaggerates for comic effect, people (men?) on the left are notorious for defending "sexual liberty" when it comes to liberated younger women having affairs with middle-aged men. Suddenly we shouldn't infantalize young women! They know what they're doing! They want a mature, fiscally-responsible cock-- it's biology. Funny how we infantalize them when it comes to everything else, whether left- or right-wing. It's almost surreal for me to really think about, but nearly every woman I've been close friends with has had some sort of sexual dalliance with an older man between the ages of 19-21 (right before she started to really know herself, if my experience is example), that she looks back on with revulsion and shame, sometimes bemused shame. And as one of those young women, I wasn't very attracted to the man himself, in the end-- I was attracted to the idea of sexual independence and mystique that got me to him. (And, as she says, sexual performance.) He was not unattractive, but he was less attractive to me than my peers would have been, if I hadn't been operating inside a matrix of ideas about female sexuality and supposed sexual power. YMMV, but I know my experience is not unique.
What she says about kinship and intimacy is quite touching. I don't know if I believe in collectives, but I also don't know how far I can see beyond my inherited notions of sexual jealousy, &c., because I haven't pushed my own personal envelope very far in that regard.
Anyway, very cool.
posted by stoneandstar at 9:53 PM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
*amend to say I may be conflating Deenie with another young adult story?
posted by stoneandstar at 10:26 PM on April 20, 2013
posted by stoneandstar at 10:26 PM on April 20, 2013
ennui.bz, thank you for introducing me to Drucilla Cornell! I can't agree more that freedom within the current model of monogamy is a recipe for loneliness and desperation. I don't know how long it will be before we see widespread communal living, but I think there's plenty we can do in the meantime just being more honest and open about our needs, and supporting each other through intentional families.
P.S. I also found Christopher Ryan's comparison of monogamy and vegetarianism insightful and entertaining.
posted by finnegans at 7:28 PM on April 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
P.S. I also found Christopher Ryan's comparison of monogamy and vegetarianism insightful and entertaining.
posted by finnegans at 7:28 PM on April 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I prefer celibacy to reading Hegel.
posted by snottydick at 5:48 AM on April 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by snottydick at 5:48 AM on April 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
Why men need to listen to sexagenarian single women before going out on a date.
posted by Tanizaki at 7:07 AM on April 22, 2013
posted by Tanizaki at 7:07 AM on April 22, 2013
I don't know how long it will be before we see widespread communal living
It probably depends on what you mean by widespread.
posted by snottydick at 10:10 AM on April 22, 2013
It probably depends on what you mean by widespread.
posted by snottydick at 10:10 AM on April 22, 2013
If the mechanism were purely that people "put up with more crap" from attractive people, that's still sociopathy causing short term mating success, straight, not the other way. I'd expect the dark tirad contributes significantly to short term mating success beyond just "put up with more crap" though, well consider machiavellianism. A priori, I'd expect the dark tirad contributes to numerous other short term social successes too though, including many business activities, making it a people issue, not a gender issue.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:03 PM on April 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 5:03 PM on April 22, 2013 [2 favorites]
Maybe. It seems just as likely to me that someone who is attractive and not an asshole would have more mating success than someone who is attractive and an asshole.
It's a hard thing to measure. The "dark triad" article relies too much on the self-reported mating success of assholes to be very credible.
posted by straight at 11:31 AM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's a hard thing to measure. The "dark triad" article relies too much on the self-reported mating success of assholes to be very credible.
posted by straight at 11:31 AM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Interestingly, google yields dark personalities are better at making themselves look attractive, not exactly what I expected.
Thread related : SMBV 2942
posted by jeffburdges at 6:39 PM on April 23, 2013
Thread related : SMBV 2942
posted by jeffburdges at 6:39 PM on April 23, 2013
« Older I've taken people on tour here where they've wept | Feminism as a scifi nightmare. No really. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I would, however, point out that it took me years (and countless missed opportunities) to finally realize that I (and apparently Drucilla) fall into a small minority, or at least did at "that" age. Teens and 20-somethings, of both genders, don't go to the movies to watch the movie, simple as that.
Behaving like a perfect gentleman means you get treated like one, which I don't mean in a good way. :)
posted by pla at 6:31 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]