site banner
ymeskhout  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   2445 thread views

The Bailey Podcast E030: Indubitably, Porn

Listen on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, SoundCloud, Pocket Casts, Google Podcasts, Podcast Addict, and RSS.

In this episode, we discuss porn.

Participants: Yassine, Interversity, Neophos, Xantos.

Links:

E016: The Banality of Catgirls (The Bailey)

Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Behavioral Sciences)

How Pornography Can Ruin Your Sex Life (Mark Manson)

Does too much pornography numb us to sexual pleasure? (Aeon Magazine)

The great porn experiment (TEDx)

Hikikomori (Wikipedia)

The Effects Of Too Much Porn: "He's Just Not That Into Anyone" (The Last Psychiatrist)

Hard Core (The Atlantic)

Recorded 2022-12-18 | Uploaded 2023-01-12

14
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One thing I noticed is that, among my acquaintances, those who do go down the rabbit hole of drugs, porn, and video games are all men.

Now that might be just my social circle but the difference is quite striking. I have several explanations as to why:

  • Male and female dysfunctions are different. It is more socially acceptable to spend hours on instagram than hours gaming.

  • We are wired not to see female losers as losers. Women have intrinsic value, men only insofar they accomplish and provide something. A woman who doesn't accomplish anything is still a woman, therefore intrinsically valuable, therefore not a loser.

  • Greater male variability hypothesis: There are more male geniuses, but also more male dumbasses.

  • Glass floor: women have better support systems/ social support and don't fall as deep

  • Superstimuli are geared towards male taste. I know much fewer female potheads / video game junkies. Superstimuli for women (e.g. instagram) seem to be harmful in less obvious ways

Not only do we not see female losers as losers, but I think that often we fail to perceive them at all. A third of homeless people are female, for instance, but the prototypical homeless person in the public consciousness is almost invariably male. I think there's also a recent upswing in young male dysfunction owing to the collapse of masculine-coded blue-collar work. Service sector jobs code as more feminine and better pair with female agreeability, while males chaff under the subservience required of them.

A third of homeless people are female, for instance, but the prototypical homeless person in the public consciousness is almost invariably male.

Are they sleeping on the streets though or are they bouncing around couches?

Sometimes they really are on the street (usually obese, weird looking, skeletal, etc.), but I think people tune them out because they don't enjoy contemplating unfeminine women. They are actively unwholesome in ways that slovenly men are not. It is the dual edge of the women are wonderful trope.

You pretty neatly covered the possibilities, although I might phrase a few differently. My guess is 50% glass floor, 30% male variability, 20% women are wonderful bias.

Women do, by objective measures, seem to be doing better at not becoming losers. Whether this is more about the intrinsic nature of women or the structures of society is a lot like asking why a lake exists: is it the hole or the rain?

One more thing I forgot to mention: Women tend to score higher on agreeableness. Being an anti-social loser requires some immunity against social disapproval.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats