100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
No bio...
User ID: 2039
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2d ago
'm asking how TitaniumButterfly's picture of idyllic newly-converted affluent Christian life translates to those who are not already ahead in life.
-
I think @TitaniumButterfly's post covers all the important points for people who don't have a business as well.
-
I dont understand your middle paragraph about the Orthodox and handmade cheese?
[Edited and expanded below]
You could make an argument that the above Lil Nas X reference is just this generations version of freaking out the squares. Didn't Black Sabbath do that back in the 60s and 70s? But they didn't mean it. Hell, IIRC, Alice Cooper is a notorious evangelical but was still performing stage shows that featured simulated decapitation. What's all the fuss about?
The level one reply is that, as the Lil Nas X video shows, there's this weird hyper-fetish-sexualization present that wasn't before. Multiple grammy performances in the past ten years can be legitimately called non-nude strip shows. Kaye pulled that weird stunt earlier this year with his ... wife?
But that's level one stuff. Let's go deeper.
Here are some of the lyrics to a song entitled "Kill Yourself (Part III)" by a group calling themselves "SuicideBoys":
(Are you sensing a theme already?)
In my head, I feel like I'm a guest, so I'ma throw it all away Because when I am dead, I will be nothing decomposin' in a grave I'm matter, but I don't matter
This is profound nihlism and misanthropy.
SuicideBoys are most popular with younger Gen-Z. These people are essentially still in childhood and they're listening to triple-dense messages of "kill yourself." That's the satanism - creating such a feeling of despair precisely in the group of people who should be the most energetically hopeful.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2d ago
Start one.
100% dead serious.
Plenty of good info on the written internet (not YouTube) about starting a side hustle, gradually growing it, and then taking plunge while also managing your primary career for the few years you need to incubate.
With LLMs, it's never been easier to rapidly experiment with digital products and software.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2d ago
Getting up the next day and rocking hard comes easy.
........nice.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
5d ago
I look forward to an eventual SCOTUS case that crushes them.
I know, it being real estate - and residential real estate at that - there's whole multibillion dollar lobby and industry behind it. Still, I think once home ownership becomes an actual impossibility for 85%+ of Americans, the worm will turn.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
5d ago
Serious question; how are HOAs legal / constitutional?
The way I understand them, they are, generally, private non-profits. Yet, moving into an area "governed" by compels you to join them. There is no option not to.
How could such a thing be legal? The whole point of local-state-federal government is that they are the only "organization" one is compelled to be subject to. I can't square the existence of HOAs with the necessity of a government (even at the local level) maintaining full sovereign over its geographic jurisdiction
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
9d ago
Oh, I think you were right and have a very valid point.
In regards to "high art" literature, I think we're going to see a revenge of the typewriter. Writers will make a point to not only not use AI, but to disconnect entirely and write only from inside their own brain. I earnestly believe some will even resort to using typewriters again as a verifiable medium - there's no way I AI'ed this. Hell, maybe some will even return to longhand.
And this will create both excellent literature, and a snobbery class of weirdo "purebread writers" who still turn out slop, but they do it with artisanal pencils and free-range raised tree paper.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
9d ago
The term "therapy" has its physiological parallel in "physical therapy." Physical therapy is universally understood to be a means getting part of the body back to a normally functioning state, or as close to possible. Something went real wrong, we gotta fix that.
Physical training is when the body is more or less functioning normally, but you want to improve performance in some dimension.
Your examples of public speaking, personal organization, etc. is much more in line with the "physical training" concept. You want to improve performance and you have a specific and measurable goal towards which to progress.
"Everyone should go to therapy", in my opinion, is literally implicitly stating "everyone has something mentally and/or emotionally wrong and not normal about them and, therefore, we should all commit to professional support for an indefinite period of time."
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
9d ago
While I do agree with everything substantive and specific you wrote, I think the framing falls into a trap common to a lot of thinking about AI. Specifically, that AI will simply extend or accelerate a given domain and technology. In this case, publishing and fiction.
There's not going to be an AI written book that wins any prestigious award. This is because it would be foolish to simply have an AI write one immutable story. Instead, "AI writers" will be either fine-tuned or wholly trained models that people use to write stories on the fly that still adhere to a central plot, world, and character collection.
To use a common reference point, let's take Game of Thrones. People have their favorite characters, subplots, settings, etc. With an AI-writer-model, you could say "Hey, write a new subplot where that blonde with the dragons and whatnot flies on up to the blizzard place and fucks around for a while." (side note: I never watched or read GoT, ironically enough, so all my references are going to be bad)
Now, you're creating new content that still stays within the "world" of GoT. And it works at innumerable levels of detail. The casual consooomer will write one sentence slop generator stuff - and love it. The aficionado will create complex subplots and tweak small elements of character profiles to see how these reverberate throughout the grander story. I predict that once the cost of GPUs gets low enough (or models get efficient enough) people will literally be writing and producing full scale movies at home.
Instead of human authors and writers being the nucleus of "art" it will be a constellation of models, with humans recombining them ad infinitum. I look at this as a good thing. You can un-cancel your favorite show (The Wire!), Hemingway becomes immortal and produces infinite books. Unlimited GoT fanfic erotic (......yay?)
I know this will happen because I'm already doing it. My mental bubblegum is hardboiled neo-noir paperbacks. Think something in the vein of The Last Good Kiss. Over the course of a dozen 2 - 3 hour evenings, I've put together a GitHub repo of characters, settings, themes etc. I've used an AI toolchain to develop scenes. I then line edit them mostly for continuity issues (which AI still stumbles on) or to make a sudden plot twist because I feel like it. I am not doing this to publish a book. I am doing this because I genuinely find it far more entertaining and exciting that Netflix scrolling or re-watching the actually good stuff. And it's low stakes. I don't really care if the plot doesn't quite hold together. I don't care if a character's motivation self-contradicts after a while. It's fun. It's unlimited fun. Over the 40+ hours I've put into it, I've probably spent $100 in API credits. You can definitely argue that's actually quite a bit less cost effective than Netflix etc. But I believe the received value is excellent.
AI will not be a linear extension of current industries. I'm not saying it's a step-function for everything either. It will simply be a very hard to predict tangent. In many cases, this will be absolutely good for all parties. In many cases it will be a massive tradeoff and shift in the "center of gravity." I think there are only a few cases I can see where it represents a system-breaking potential.
Anyways, I'm off to writeread about Detective Jar-Jar Binks' latest case involving Anton Chigurh.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
9d ago
It often goes back and forth recommending obsolete or unavailable libraries or suggesting moving a line to the wrong place, then recommending I move it back in the next iteration. It's smart and often makes very good recommendations for improving and optimizing code, and it spots subtle bugs and typos very easily. It's also stupid and often makes terrible recommendations that will break your application.
I agree.
AI is indistinguishable from a junior dev.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
15d ago
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
15d ago
Thanks for the added insight here. I'll admit I was having a bit of lark when writing the post.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
15d ago
I especially don't see how you can raise kids in a poly relationship
You can't. You hit cult territory real quick.
And I'm not boo-outgrouping the Mormons here. I'm earnest when I say that the SF EA polyamory people would do themselves some favors by reading up on the history of polygamy within the LDS. Theological arguments aside, the Mormons have developed a thriving community that has endured despite a hell of a lot of persecution. Hell, they have a $124bn Hedge Fund. And they built this community by carving out a separate peace with the rest of the United States. This meant recognizing that polygamy was largely viewed by non-Mormons as "holy shit, what?" levels of weird. So, they instituted a fatwa against it changed their "laws" on it and mainline-LDS, slowly, became a kind of Utah Flavored version of MegaChurch protestantism.
EA, at its Zenith (SBF at his prime, before the fraud) was getting a lot of positive press as a forward thinking, but non-progressive, ideology that serious thinkers could rally around.
Then the fraud hit. Which is always bad. Then, following the fraud, the icky-sticky reality of the polyamory and Bahamas f*ck house came out. SBF == modern day Brigham Young?
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
15d ago
n of one, but in the two serious polyamory ... groups (couples/thruples? what do we call these associations?) that I've encountered, it was a very obvious case of hyper-sexual female(s) with obvious emotional maladaptive traits paired up with dark triad male(s) who could totally divorce all emotional bonds from immediate physical gratification. To be a little blunt and crude - but, I think, accurate - it felt like the cast in a green room at a porno shoot.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
15d ago
Relevant historical point -
A big part of the the sexual history of SF (gay Mecca, summer of love, polyamory etc.) is that in WW2, you could get kicked out of the Navy for being gay and that was the port they discharged you in. So, you have a bunch of young, fairly in shape gay men in the same spot.
"Magical dirt" isn't wrong, it's just a lazy causal method. Magical dirt is real, it's often just the product of historical randomness.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
27d ago
This is a very mid-wit argument that is as specious as it is ever present.
"Without the Left women and minorities wouldn't be able to vote!"
Nonsense. This is a view of history as inherently progressive; you have good guys and bad guys and all of the bad guys will eventually lose if we just Resist hard enough. It's the fever dream of sophomore PoliSci students and ACLU lawyers alike.
Segregation and black enfranchisement itself were very non-linear and more a product of reform and reactionary ebbs and flows. People often forget that we had a black senator from Mississippi in the 1970s for instance. And that link shows the plethora of other black elected official holders before 1900.
The failure of Reconstruction was that it was, in fact, so radical as to provoke a counter-reaction that may have been stronger than what would normally occur. You then get Jim Crow and the Solid South for another few generations.
But that doesn't fit into the neat narrative of "Slavery Awful --> Lincoln --> Emancipation --> Oh no, KKK! ---> Rosa Parks, MLK ---> 1964 --> We're equal now! --> Oh wait, George Floyd, let's pretend it's 1964 again"
Do a deep dive into the better conservative (small c) thinkers; James Burnham and Willmoore Kendall. You'll see that one of the tenants of conservative thought is that it's totally fine for people to think whatever they want so long as the political system cannot be co-opted by the Small But Loud to coerce the Many But Disinterested to abandon their beliefs - as "ugly" as they might be. Democracy is a process and a system - never an "outcome" generator.
From, The Conservative Affirmation by Kendall:
Is there anything in the Constitution or in the American political tradition that prevents American government or American society from announcing: We intend to proscribe such and such ‘political’ opinions; to that end we intend to persecute those opinions, that is, to place the price of holding them—not expressing them, but holding them—so high that people will be forced to avoid them or, if they have already adopted them, to abandon them?
I know that, of course, all of us enlightened folk, if we were living in Alabama in 1955, would've definitely been on the "right side of history" and bravely advocated for desegregation. I mean, like, how could you not?
Because you (in Alabama in 1955) didn't really have a passionate attachment to the issue. It was simply the way things are. You're mostly interested in paying your mortgage and raising your kids. But, all of a sudden, your kids' teachers start telling them about their inherited culpability for slavery and you go, "Hey, what the fuck?" and now ... you're involved.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
29d ago
Tagging @OracleOutlook as well
The Wikipedia entry on Contemporary Catholic Liturgical Music lists "Popular composers." It's a hit list of boomers born in mostly the 1950s. Yes, the overwhelming feeling is that these people dabbled with hippie shit in the 60s but then decided they actually weren't down with the pagan beliefs and wanted to have a 401k and live in the suburbs.
If you look at the linked videos for the clown mass and, especially, the puppet mass, look at the preponderance of greyhairs. The boomers really did enjoy fucking up everything good and True.
I didn't go to my first Latin mass until my late 20s. It was a sung high mass on a Sunday. 90 minutes long. One of the first feelings I remember having after leaving was one of anger. I was so upset that my entire childhood and adolescence was spent at suburban novus ordo masses with pudgy retired hippies singing horrible contemporary hymns, Father Friendly sermons about "making sure Jesus is your best friend!", and an utter lack of energy, reverence, and glory. When you leave a latin mass now - especially a high mass - you feel like something meaningful happened. All of the motifs around spiritual nourishment and renewal that rung totally empty after a Novus Ordo actually come into tangible fruition.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
30d ago
I wonder if even a compromise new Pope represents a major concern for traditionalists, especially in the west.
As I understand it, the "traditionalist" catholic movement was largely underground after Vatican II all the way until the 1990s. The two largest groups dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass, the FSSP and the ICKSP, weren't even founded until 1988 and 1990, respectively. Even up through the Benedict XVI pontificate, traditionalists were very small and fringe (again, if my understanding is accurate)
This changed when Francis got The Big Chair. His break with a lot of seemingly bedrock doctrine (see Amoris Laetitia from 2016) contributed to the strengthening of the traditionalist movement. The Traditionis Custodes (2021) has been seem by some as a direct attempt to smash the TLM (although this is contradicted in part by how Francis dealt with the aforementioned FSSP, ICSKP, and even the SSPX).
All of this is to say, nothing rallies a group like The Big Bad Enemy, and traditionalists had that with Francis to their hearts content - especially the sedevacantists and other RadTrads, including the Very Online versions.
If a New Pope is elected who, on day one, states "Yeah TLM is fine for whoever wants to celebrate it. Bishops don't need to ask for approval anymore. Go for it." does this take a lot of the Righteously Indignant (TM) wind out of the sails of the traditionalists? I don't know, but much hay was made for a reason during the Francis Pontificate.
Electing Pizzaballa would be, I think, a epoch defining moment for the church for the better. If there's a Cardinal out there (besides Zen) who has "future Saint" written all over him, it's probably Pizzaballa.
WSJ Article on Elon Musk's Reproductive Habits
(Side note: I know WSJ is paywalled. Can one of you internet heroes find an alt link?)
Thanks to @zoink:
Archive Link: https://archive.is/EVkGv
It's pretty weird. Musk, according to the article, references his children, collectively, as his "legion." He has a vision of a sort of compound in Texas for all of the women he's reproduced with along with the children. The cult vibes only get stronger until they run into cold hearted legal recourse. It appears, from the article, that drawn out family court proceedings, estrangement, and some sort of financial settlement are par for the course with Musk. Effective co-parenting or an amicable albeit non-exclusive relationship? Odds are low.
I've always been suspicious of Musk because a few reasons, but I'll decline to elaborate on those specifics in order to bring up a broader culture war point.
While "pronatalism" (loosely defined) is so hot right now on the right, there are some pretty major fractures beneath the surface. A lot of them have to do, unsurprisingly, with the centrality and importance of a stable nuclear family. Next to "the economy" (whatever that may mean), issue and topics of the family, I believe, are of paramount importance when drawing cultural and political lines. In the pronatal sphere, I see a two camp (at least) breakdown:
-
Have All The Babies All The Time (HAT-BAT) - This is firmly where Musk is king. The idea is simple mathematics with a dash of eugenics; if you are a "worthy man" have as many babies as possible. Multiple women? Fine. Selecting women based on your own rubric of "genetic desirability" also fine. This is where HBDers put their rubber to the road.
-
Have All The Babies And Raise Them In a Family (HAT-ARF) - This is the providence of traditional religious groups and a particular kind of secular cultural conservative (often, it's kind of hard to distinguish between these two subgroups because the latter will play-act at the religious part without really meaning it).
While it might seem that HAT-BAT and HAT-ARF might be able to leave each to their own and agree on "yay babies," I suspect that HAT-ARF will, quickly, stop to say "wait a minute, you actually have to raise your kids. A ton of data says that broken families have horrible social outcomes." And that right there is a major culture war split.
I'm a pronatalist, in the broadest sense possible, yet I do think it's too much to ask to necessarily tie that to some sort of religious requirement. Yet, I also don't see anyway to build functional societies without a nuclear family as the foundational unit. Spreading The Worthy Male Seed was the de facto method of world population for thousands of years. (Insert the stat here on how everyone in Central Asia is Genghis Khan's grandson/daughter). The result was a lot of continuation of the de facto state of man - war, strife, instability, and short lives. The formalization of monogamous marriage and all of the social and legal codes and laws that fractal out from there was a 2000+ year slow process that resulted in the stabilizing of families, of societies, and preservation of pro-social cultures. Destabilization of the family (sexual revolution etc.) has destabilized society and culture. Looking at it that way, the "Musk Mode" pronatalism is far more regressive that he - or others with similar strategies - would like to admit.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
Watch for staff turnover.
If this really was "the plan all along," I would expect most people to stay put.
If there was some moment where Trump "realized" that this was a massive economic blunder, he'll move or fire people, while still claiming "yep ... plan all along"
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
As @MaiqTheTrue says, the rot goes back much longer and, I would add, across many different domains.
This is at the root of anti-enlightenment / anti-modernist thinking (a position I seemingly become more comfortable with daily). Humans used to have a much more humble and limited opinion of their ability to understand the complexity of the universe and capital-T "Truth." Much of that was left to religion, theology, or, sometimes, applied ethics and morality. In fact, even the best thinkers of the enlightenment period had a totally different conception of religion and faith in terms of epistemic systems.
Whereas today, in purely rational terms, it is fashionable to draw a box around theology and religion as a kind of esoteric study of the human spirit or heart, classically, religion and theology was seen as a bedrock component of any knowledge system in much the same way we might think of arithmetic, basic grammar, or ... geography? (you take your pick).
And I think it's taken 300 or so years for the compounding effects of that loss to be felt. Your post highlights demoralization as a key issue. Many other places I've seen the term "crisis of meaning" thrown around. The figures for male suicides, drug overdose, and chornic alcoholism are often lumped together as "deaths of despair." The problem, to me, seems to be that a purely rational worldview creates a fundamentally underdeveloped system of knowledge and personal agency - we really do become the rational ideal. That is, information processors. But that alone does not make life livable, nor does it do anything to orient us towards useful application of information processing. One thing I know for sure about Scott from SSC - he is a world class thinker. Another thing I know for sure - sometimes he chooses the goofiest things to think about.
The various more developed religions do a lot to remedy this. The more purely "spiritual" ones (Buddhism etc.) I think aren't as great because they fail in engaging with the world in the opposite direction of rationalism. Instead of overthinking, they actively cultivate a profound detachment from things that may subjectively feel serene and peacful but is just a different method of undermining prosocial activities. If people find themselves adverse to organized religion, I see the most effective systems being some of the classic virtue ethics regimes -- stoicism etc.
There's going to (always) be a temptation to secularize the religious in order to try to split the baby and get the maximum amount of "meaning" without all of that pesky sin-and-metaphysics. This is the primary critique of Kant's categorical imperative. And I think it's a valid critique - secularizing something that is inherently not isn't possible and you're more likely engaging in some elaborate self-deception. Play the tape forward and you end up with wokeism - which has all of the anthropological trappings of a religious belief system yet is rife with internal contradictions and has zero rigorous epistemic construction.
In a nutshell, people need to cultivate a sense of faith - deeply held belief something transcendent and beyond themselves that they can orient a life towards. And there needs to be an accompanying practice of it. Just like physical fitness or general mental acuity, if you aren't doing "it" everyday, you're getting worse at it.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
1945-1979 saw a massive expansion in the American manufacturing sector
A good place to start in analyzing this (which is true, btw) is to ask "why?" Better yet, to ask "what were the prevailing macro conditions that allowed this to happen?"
Tracing that, you'll probably stumble upon the answer that is accepted by all serious economists and historians; after world war 2, ALL of the countries that had the human capital, technological proficiency, and public infrastructure to support a massive scale manufacturing sector were literally blown to shit and had suffered massive amounts of prime age male death ..... except for the USA.
1945 to 1979 happened as a fait accompli because no other country on earth could - at scale - do it.
In 2025, this is not the case. We would be immediately competing (with drastically higher labor costs by law) with several other countries (two of which who have larger absolute populations than us) who have spent the last 40 years (re)developing their manufacturing sectors.
But wait - we're already close to optimal in terms of manufacturing value add. The Chinese beat us out because they have three times the population and negative three billion times the respect for human rights. So when you, or anyone, says "bring back manufacturing!" - what in the actual hell do you mean? It's already here. Especially the best of it. In terms of high-end technical manufacturing (complex systems, aircraft, large machinery, etc.) the U.S. is so far out in first it's not even a competition.
The "manufacturing jobs" people like you seem to want are, what, exactly? Lightbulbs? Tee-shirts? Flip-flops? These are not jobs that pay well. These are not jobs that support families. These are not jobs that make strong communities. These are subsistence level toil.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
I regularly read articles about how protectionism is the secret sauce behind China's economy.
Written by whom, Experts?
As is become habitual for you, excellent writeup.
The problems for the "hot brilliant war hero ladykillers" archetype gets complicated with details, scale, and scale's inverted cousin, depth. Let's approach this from a few angles.
"1. We want strong men. Warriors!"
I do bemoan the fact that Congress is now only 5% or so military veterans. And, of that, an elevated amount are non-combat veterans (this in a nation coming off of 20 straight years of deployed warfare). And isn't masculinity in crisis? Shouldn't we have more ass-kicking real life G.I. Joe's on Capitol Hill?!
Well thank god for the likes of Eli Crane, Dan Crenshaw, and Marcus Luttrell! Not exactly. These guys are all former SEALs. They're badass credentials are unimpeachable. And they're wildly ineffective in congress. This is not only objective but obvious. One of my favorite examples is Eli Crane who for some reason decided to go on record with a gossip columnist for politico. This is bizarre. Politico is a DC specific news outlet that covers the "deep inside baseball" of Congress and The White House. Their reports are often ex-communications junior staffers and they live and die by their connections to politicians and their offices. There's a lot of quid pro quo and handshake deals. To be en effective politician, you have to know how to handle the press. You can't be too coy, you can't be an open book.
The one thing you don't do is go on record, multiple times, talking shit about your colleagues personal lives. It doesn't matter the party affiliation. There are 530+ members of Congress with complex networks of personal friendships, loyalties, and favors. Saying crazy shit about each other's policy positions is totally fair game, but you don't tell a reporter - on record, cited by name - "yeah, actually, that person drinks too much." This is because it will then be impossible to get anything done because no one wants to spend time with or trust you - you might dime them randomly in a gossip column.
But Eli Crane isn't thinking this way because Eli Crane is a SEAL. That's a hypermasculine world where everyone talks shit about everyone all the time. If there's a real problem it is handled directly and head on - "hey, bro, you and me slug it out in the parking lot." That was his professional calibration for years. And I am very happy we have thousands of other men like him on our side with their guns pointed in the other direction. But the job of "warrior" today (in the most traditional sense -- being an Air Force cyber general doesn't quite relate) is a hyper-specialized role because today's true warriors are the best in history; they are in the best physical shape, with the longest and most rigorous training, with an insane level of technological proficiency, and a support structure that costs billions of dollars.
Applied to other domains, however, they don't generalize well. So, back to the archetype, the problem here is that what the archtype assumes (at a higher level of resolution) is the JFK (and generations past) version of a warrior; a dashing young officer (because enlisted is low class, ew) who did a few years of service but not a full career, maybe saw some combat, and was in an elegant role; Navy PT boat captain, a British Cavalry officer, WW2 Fighter Ace.
Navy SEAL, Green Beret in GWOT? And enlisted? I dunno ... those guys can get into some shit. Again - I firmly believe these are the most pure form of "warriors" we have on the planet today. But the archetype model I started with above doesn't want that, they want Romance Novel Ready Warriors.
"2. Shooters gonna shoot and cads gonna cad"
This is more directly related to @FiveHourMarathon 's post. Can adultery be heroic and masculine if done correctly? If I am flying around bedding starlets instead of masturbating with my goon goggles on, my wife could maybe find some pride in that, right?
The problem here is when we consider scale, both large and small. It's possible to read the JFK sex files, chuckle, roll your eyes and go "Different times. Guy was an asshole. Got laid a lot, though." But what you're dismissing is the real human toll it all had on people like Jackie, Marilyn, and the countless nameless secretaries who undoubtedly went through all kinds of mental and emotional anguish (and, in some cases, physical - STDs, yall).
Okay, but, that's a couple dozen (a hundred) people. And it's not my problem. Can't we still, you know, try to support the idea of "Responsible cocksmen-ery"? No, we can't, because people will be irresponsible and, frankly, bad at it and irresponsibility and incompetence at scale are awful for society.
If men are suddenly "empowered" (lol) to run around like JFK trying to seduce the pants off of every waitress, it ends with the emotional and mental anguish of full families, with violently acrimonious divorces, with kids with fucked up families, and, on the harsher end, with actual no-debate-about-it sexual assault. Additionally, if I a have reasonable suspicion that my drinking buddy wants to Oval my Wife's Office, I might get a few whiskey's in me and decide to take a swing at him. Remember, men kill each other for money/drugs, respect (hierarchical preference in a male dominated space), and for control over specific females. Making Adultery Great again is a good way to Make America Murdery Again.
The archetype fails, here, when it's extropolated to scale. The sociological mechanism of monogamy-marriage is explicitly to create high social penalties to being a cad so that society doesn't eventually devolve into jealousy-motivated murder madness.
It wasn't at all necessary and, mostly as you pointed out, the product of the lack of concept of real consequences for multiple generations of a family who had grow up as the elite of the elite of the elite. There's a reason they called it "Camelot" - the Kennedys, specifically, are the closest American got in the post WW2 era to anointing our own royal family.
As they say, one of the the best things you can do for your career is die. JFK catching a hot one from Lee Harvey Oswald's blammer prevented what I think was a highly likely outcome for his presidency - nothing gets done and JFK flames out publicly when his affairs become too much for Jackie to bear. The seduction of the Hot Young President gives way to the ugly truth. Goldwater wins in '64 - running on an even stronger "morality" platform.
More options
Context Copy link