This video will be presented in two parts and is a joint venture between MenAreGood and Hannah Spier’s Psychobabble. Hannah’s standard approach is to make the first half free for everyone, with the second half reserved for paid subscribers. To align with her process, I’m setting aside my usual practice of making all new posts free and following the same format for this release.
Children? Not sure to who you are referring here. The closest thing I have to children are a niece and nephew who live with their father and grandmother in California. My brother in law has custody and provides all their support as their mother contributes NOTHING to their support. Fun fact...while most dead beat parents are fathers (~50% have not paid up child support), that is only because mothers are disproportionately given custody over fathers. Mothers without custody have a 95% deadbeat rate. So...again...which sex is being selfish and not doing its part by the children here? Women fear true equality because the level of accountability it would bring to them is something they are NOT prepared to take on. Rights come AFTER responsibilities are fulfilled no matter how much feminists might wish that were not true and explain why nearly NO societies on Earth were matriarchal.
Fair enough with not making it free, should be a fabulous response though with Janice and Hannah and yourself of course. These two women are powerhouses in the fight against feminism.
The feminists took for grated that "autonomy" is a desirable goal. We should all be very careful about that word, which has been fashionable for decades in elite circles. There's no such thing as autonomy, certainly nor for any social species such as our own. (Never mind the rare exceptions, who have medical or psychiatric labels to explain their inability to be moral agents.) Autonomy is an illusion. In popular parlance, it's a synonym for "independence" and an antonym for dependence. But that's false, not only because dependence is undesirable but also because independence is impossible. The fact is that we all do need each other. Moreover, we all need to be needed. These two needs are basic and universal features of human existence. No society that ignores them could endure. Any if any society were to do so, it would not be a society at all but a collection of isolated individuals. Our goal has always been, and should always be, neither dependence (which should decline gradually after infancy and throughout childhood) nor independence (in the sense of autonomy, which is a perversion of maturity or adulthood). Rather, our goal should be, and must be, interdependence. In the specific context of relations between the sexes, that adds up to complementarity.
The feminists spoke also about their disdain for "rules." They might have referred only to rules that govern women or only to rules that they dislike. Either way, they argue on very shaky ground. It's one thing to tinker with this or that rule, after all, but another thing entirely to imply (as many feminists do) that rules, per se, are inherently "patriarchal" and therefore evil or oppressive. That makes no sense of either human history or human nature. Whatever else they do, rules create the order that underlies every social contract. Even the hedonistic Romans of the imperial period tried to maintain some order (partly by adopting Christianity). Fast forward to the day before yesterday--that is, the 1960s. The Sexual Revolution (which eventually left us with not only the naive hippies but also, eventually, the cynical wokers) has taught too many people that the only way to find meaning or to seek justice (or to get even) is by "transgressing" rules. Without the cultural organization that rules provide, however, we could not have communities at all (and therefore not be human). Instead, we be a collection of selfish ids.
Thank you Janice for debunking the part with 'rape is the worst thing possible'.
I have heard actual female victims who said the same.
And if you ask the question whether someone would prefer to be raped or killed (e.g. ukrainian war), then you get usually no answer but angry faces. How dare I ask a forbidden question? How dare I put the holy sacredness of sacral holyness of feminist the-one-word-to-rule-them-all into question?
But in movies, when men get raped, everybody laughs their cracks out. So funny hahaha.
Thank you Janice for debunking the part with 'rape is the worst thing possible'.
I have heard actual female victims who said the same.
And if you ask the question whether someone would prefer to be raped or killed (e.g. ukrainian war), then you get usually no answer but angry faces. How dare I ask a forbidden question? How dare I put the holy sacredness of sacral holyness of feminist the-one-word-to-rule-them-all into question?
But in movies, when men get raped, everybody laughs their cracks out. So funny hahaha.
Janice says she can’t see three men talking about the amount of sex they are, or, are not getting. In my experience men are talking more now than ever and way too much about sex, both on and off line.
Hi Anna, what I was trying to say, though perhaps not very clearly, was that I can't see three men getting together to discuss the consequences of a major social movement and turning it into a competition for victimhood regarding whether men are getting the sex they need or whether men are being pressured into having too much sex too soon, and what society should do about it to guarantee men's sexual happiness and security.
I'm sure you're right that men do discuss sexual matters both online and offline, as do women. (Personally, I'd rather we kept sex mainly a private matter. I don't want to know about anybody's sex life!). I didn't quite say it in the way I meant it: that the impulse to proclaim women's 'needs' and to turn the discussion into an issue of what society allegedly owes women is characteristic of a side of feminism that I dislike very much.
Talking in the moment, I'm always aware that what I'm saying isn't quite what I thought in my head when I was preparing for the discussion.
"Janice says she can’t see three men talking about the amount of sex they are, or, are not getting."
No, that's not what Janice said, or would ever say. Everyone knows men discuss their sex lives, as do women. What she said was that she couldn't imagine such a discussion amongst men being taken as serious social commentary, as these feminists obviously expect. Here's what Janice said:
"They spend a lot of time, probably about an hour and fifteen minutes, essentially arguing about whether women need to be having MORE sex, and feeling really GOOD about the sex they have, or whether women should be having LESS sex, and being protected from the BAD feelings that they may have if they're having too much sex, and I found the discussion just so trivial, I try to imagine a man sitting there saying "I didn't get enough sex, and now I'm able to have the sex that I need", and anyone taking that seriously."
I found the meaning perfectly clear, and perfectly hilarious. I think a lot of these feminist panel discussions would make excellent comedy material, simply by replacing women with men.
"It took me a while to comprehend the point you were making. There were three women on the panel publicly talking about sex."
It's not just about these three women discussing sex, there's a broader point about the sexual revolution, and the way feminists proclaim their "sexual liberation", and their "right to control their own bodies", free from traditional reproductive and moral constraints imposed by "the Patriarchy". In other words, to have as much sex as they want, with as many men as they want. The same applies to men - in theory, we're now able to have as much sex as we want, with as many women as we want, free from traditional reproductive and moral constraints. But it's not something men proclaim as their fundamental human right, or their biological need, in the way feminists do, because that would be laughable. As Janice says: "I try to imagine a man sitting there saying "I didn't get enough sex, and now I'm able to have the sex that I need", and anyone taking that seriously."
In theory, it is correct; however, in practice, it is anything but.
Over at least 4 decades, behaviour that was considered to be courting or seduction has become criminalised, sexual harassment and changes to the classification of what is regarded as sexual assault.
Previous feminists once claimed that women were not able to give valid consent because the patriarchy had indoctrinated them.
Many feminists also push the line that once a woman has drunk alcohol or taken drugs, she is no longer able to give a valid consent to sexual activity.
Yes, courting has become downright dangerous for men! The other point about the sexual revolution is that it did not benefit all men, only a small percentage of men who women found highly attractive. We're now able to quantify that percentage, thanks to modern dating apps, which show that around 90% of women swipe on the same 5% of men.
Her reference was to a panel discussion for pubic consumption, not men speaking among themselves. Women talk about sex plenty. They are just better at keeping the discussion on the down low or among themselves.
Men may not be doing so on a panel as per this episode of Diary of a CEO but they are talking about sex for public consumption on the internet. Yes women sometimes talk among themselves about sex and the subject should not be taboo but we have become sex obsessed and some people sex addicted.
I have a theory about public discourse around sex which is that nobody should be able to tell other people what is right for them until they confess every little thing they've done and want to do.
This would include every discussion of L, G, B, T, and Q -- unless the speaker antes up and tells their whole story, they have to sit down and shut up. That would shut down stupid conversations like this CEO thing fast.
The problem with all of our concepts of sex is that they are actually about sexual politics and there is no distinction made between the two. This is a creature of 19c feminism and it reaches a wild peak in the late 20c and is basically the whole theme of 21c discussions of sex.
Note how sex never gets into any conversation about sex. It is the thing missing and it never seems to turn up.
ALSO — regarding sex being "special," Wayland Young (2nd Baron Kennet)* argued eloquently in the 1960s that the problem with how we conceive of sex is that society makes sex special when it's really rather ordinary and everyday business. It's right there with eating food, using the toilet, chopping wood and carrying water.
Every person on Earth is fucked into existence (and any form of conception is sexual regardless); that's as ordinary as it gets. Dogs, cats, farm animals and all the lord's creatures do it in some form. I just heard an interview with a former Amish woman who said she learned about the existence of sex from seeing farm animals do it.
We eat eggs every day -- those are sexual organs. Fruit are sexual organs. Who doesn't love flowers? We all eat dairy! That comes from the boobs of cows, goats and sheep. And so on...
Everyone is interested in sex to some degree (and many think about it many times a day) and if they are not, so what. What we get instead is special collections locked in the backs of museums and libraries, everything discussed in hushed tones, and the use of scandal, accident, suicide, absence and tragedy generally for the covers for the experience of sex. He rails against use of euphemistic language that conceals basic truths. All the obsession of "young girl murdered" is veiled discussion of sex.
Sex is a basic, ordinary and normal part of existence. To "make it special" is to make it political and therefore to take it transhuman in important ways. He argues that the way to resolve the crisis is to bring discussion of actual sex, and its various historical artifacts, out into the open — into the front of the museum. The artifacts of Pompeii are a fine example of this; phallic symbols had to be hidden from the population otherwise...gasp.
--
*His famous book Eros Denied is sometimes acclaimed as a manifesto of the sexual revolution. It is really something else, which is a history of what the Roman Catholics did to sex and the discussion around it, turning it into nothing other than a sin or necessary evil. This attitude, based in Manicheism, relegates sex to all that is evil and dark. The feminists who take up the issue mirror this position, and to the extent they claim to be libertine, they are asserting their right to a guilty pleasure. That's why it always has to have a victim.
You say interesting things, Eric, and I take your point about the need to take our bodies seriously.
But this topic is more complex than that. I don't think that sex (or any human behavior) can be understood adequately in purely physiological, material or even societal terms. We eat, defecate, procreate and so on like other species. But we also make meaning, which is a distinctive and defining feature of our species. We can have sex with each other for a few minutes, for example, and then move on as if nothing happened. But we can also have sex with each other in transformative ways. Few other kinds of human behavior, in fact, have been cultivated for purposes that go way beyond immediate need or desire.
Marriage is a Catholic sacrament. But it's true that Catholics never got rid of Manichean dualism. Sex is fine within marriage, they've said, but even marriage is inferior to monastic or priestly chastity. I can see why many people have rebelled against that mentality. But Catholics are at least managing to reproduce themselves demographically, which is more than I can say for many secular communities in the Western world. Besides, Christian notions of marriage have varied greatly both historically and cross-culturally. The cultural deposit is surprisingly varied and spiritually rich.
But I'll speak here as a Jew. This is not the right venue for a theological discussion, but I will at least observe that Jewish theology discusses sex not only in the context of morality but also, and ultimately, in the context of holiness. Sex outside of marriage occurs in the profane (ordinary) world and is therefore discouraged, but sex within marriage occurs in the sacred (special) world and is therefore encouraged, even commanded--not condescendingly as a "necessary evil" (to reproduce the community), not merely to foster pleasure or companionship, but ultimately to experience holiness. The ideal occasion for sex is Friday night, when the sacred time of Shabbat replaces the profane time of any weekday. The Jewish mystical tradition goes much further than that. So do its counterparts in many other religious traditions. For evidence, consult Sufi poems or Hindu poems. Making sex special does not necessarily mean giving it political or moral significance. Sometimes, it means giving sex cosmic significance.
My point is only that religion can (although it doesn't always) confer beauty and meaning on sex (and other "ordinary" activities).
I see what you're getting at. I'm not alluding to it in my above comments but my core theory of sex, in practice, is tantric: sex is at the center of all of existence. But to assert that as a precept is biased. Sex is indeed very special as the thing that creates life. Yet it's also ordinary. And it's rarely ever discussed honestly, only from a political or theological standpoint. And we have not discussed the pervasive materialism (cash value) of sex that is so rampant in our times. The lack of opportunity to get sex out of a moral, religious, political or financial framework is so pervasive ... that most people have no clue how to have a discussion about sexual experiences that does not veer into some other direction. And among the underpinnings of that reality is the seeming truth that as soon as you admit to having too much fun, someone wants to shut you down.
Yes, Eric, sex is both special (sacred) and ordinary (profane). But I have a few questions, and they’re not as tangential as they might seem. I ask out of curiosity, not prickliness.
Why should anyone need or even want "a discussion about sexual experiences that does not veer into some other direction"? Why should anyone need or even want a closed discussion about any kind of experience at all? In short, why do you (seem to) advocate boundaries between experiences or interests? As an academic, I'm always amazed at how few of my colleagues are willing, let alone eager, to explore ideas that would lead beyond their own comfort zones. Specialization is one thing; fragmentation is another thing. Some academics do advocate multi-disciplinary approaches, it's true, but often for merely bureaucratic reasons.
I am not talking about a closed discussion. I am talking about a specific discussion, in context, related to other matters, that is not under some form of fear or prohibition or scrutuny. For those in Eastern cultures, there exist the Kama Sutra in many forms; volumes are written about Tantric practice and we have next to none of it. Take a look at a forgotten book called The Joy of Sex and you will see what I mean. We need this information; it will make us happier and more humane people.
When I discuss how to make tomato sauce, I do not need to worry about morality or religion. I don't have to justify it by my love of the Itailain people or by saying "the Pope is a great lover of marinara."
When I expalin to someone how to better record their music, or how to drive stick shift, or when a coach teaches a person how to lift weights, there is no urgent moral drama or apprehension. In the case of stick shift, the question does not go to, "And where do you plan to drive with this skill?"
Why the fuss around sex? It's not helpful. Discussion leads to understanding. I believe the prohibition on discussion — veiled as a libertine attitude but excluding the true liberty **of meaning** — leads to the distortions we see today.
Many are curious about sex and their sexuaiity. It's a topic in the news every day. It is on the cover of every women's magazine. But we can't have a discussion about sex about it that does not drift in the direction of scandal or morality or sin in a way that strangles it and chokes its oxygen.
Sex is never just left alone to be itself and what it naturally connects with — the expression of love. Just like you might groom your dog because you love him, you don't have to justify it. And you can explain how to do it. "And here is how we trim the claws." There is no scandal.
The friendly but authentic (and experienced) discussion "how may I do that better" is nonexistent around sex, as is the opportunity to discuss the problems caused BY the prohibition itself. Why do I feel this way when I watch this woman dance? What is the purpose of masturbation — of relating to oneself physically and emotionally? Why do I feel guilty about this [anything]?
Why has this gone wrong in my relationship? Even a topic like "premature ejacualtion" we leave to the drug compaies to program. Matters of desire are left to OnlyFans, $75 for five minutes — and therby swept into the corner. No questions asked. In this way, we divide sex from love, and assume that this is really our situation. Yet in many situations of love, sex and desire seem to be the troubling issue. We should be able to discuss these things freely without risking scandal or the #metoo goon squad coming at 3 am. "And just WHAT did you say to her?"
Wayland Young exporessed it best, in his 1964 book Eros Denied. Please pardon any typos, I am a terrible typist.
====
<< Around the thought and the act of sex there hang a confusion and a danger, a tension and a fear which far exceed those hanging around any other normal and useful part of life in our culture. The tension harries us not only in extreme forms, whether ridiculous or horrible, but also in the dim, nagging form, so familiar that we hardly notice if, of ignorance and doubt.
Throughout the rich urban West, though most of all in the Anglo-Saxon West many, perhaps, even most, people spend their lives in hesitation and confusion about sex and love.
They hesitate and are confused because they are not free. For a number of reasons, some essential human nature itself and some contingent to human nature but essential to the structure of Christian and post-Christian beliefs, in the Anglo-Saxon countries and to differing degrees throughout Chrisitiandom, Islam, Jewry and the societies influenced by them, we are unfree in the faculty to love.
We are unfree in two ways: as we consider the faculty, and as we exercise it. Love is neither a free object in our minds, nor a free agent in our hearts.
No man is entirely free, and the things which bind him are many. Some have to do with his nature as an individual, and some with the nature of the society he lives in, and some with society as such. The systems of religion, political ideology, political and economic structure, and so forth, within which each man lives, give him some freedoms and deny him others.
It happens that, for reasons some of which will be examined in this book, the system within which we in England and America live gives us many admirable freedoms but rather conspicuously denies us one in particular. It denies us, the full freedom, the run of ourselves and our societies, by staining, flawing, by cutting off, demarcating, labeling, noticing with a label saying “this is a special" the corner, the area, where physical desire and fulfillment have their function. >>
---- end quote.
So the question is not "why would you do this" but rather to, "why would anyone place a ban or censor this?" Why the heck are we so nervous about it that we must pretend it does not exist?
Well, Eric, answering that question is what made Dr. Ruth famous (although even she often discussed sex in contexts that went far beyond physiology). It's true that many people are awkward in talking about (or even enacting) sex. That can indeed be a problem. But its cause is neither stupidity nor ignorance (although both, of course, can contribute to the problem). As you say, sex is special but also ordinary. But one thing that makes it special (though not uniquely special) is that it has important consequences (unlike recording music, driving a car and lifting weights). And those consequences are both personal (jealousy, say, and either wanted or unwanted children) and communal (demographic continuity, say, and either overpopulation or underpopulation).
One function of sexual behavior, the "ordinary" one, is recreation (often but not always in the context of emotional attachment). But the other function, the "special" one, is reproduction. Trouble is, these can overlap and sometimes in unpredictable ways. No society that is known to either historians or anthropologists has ever ignored the latter, not even our own society. We have found technological ways of avoiding reproduction (contraception) or allowing the disposal of unwanted offspring (abortion or infanticide). Moreover, we have introduced technologies (such as in vitro fertilization) to avoid problems for couples who would otherwise be unable to depend on sexual behavior in order to have children) and others (such as surrogacy) for couples who can depend on sexual behavior but only by adding a third party.
So, yes, every society is anxious for good reasons about sexual behavior, or at least about its potential consequences, and therefore surrounds it with rules (and folklore). The rules vary from one time or place to another, sure, but the underlying anxiety does not. I see nothing wrong with rules as such. Rules are inherent features of culture, after all, and culture is an innate feature of being human.
This first part really shows the true nature of feminism...selfish sexism on the part of women. It is the matriarchy on steroids!
Exactly
Feminism is not about equality
It is an ideology based on nothing but hatred of men and boys and is really all about power and SPECIAL STATUS FOR WOMEN IN ALL THINGS
Feminism is the largest hate movement the world has ever seen
They hate 1/2 of world’s entire population
They hate women too...at least rival women!
Children? Not sure to who you are referring here. The closest thing I have to children are a niece and nephew who live with their father and grandmother in California. My brother in law has custody and provides all their support as their mother contributes NOTHING to their support. Fun fact...while most dead beat parents are fathers (~50% have not paid up child support), that is only because mothers are disproportionately given custody over fathers. Mothers without custody have a 95% deadbeat rate. So...again...which sex is being selfish and not doing its part by the children here? Women fear true equality because the level of accountability it would bring to them is something they are NOT prepared to take on. Rights come AFTER responsibilities are fulfilled no matter how much feminists might wish that were not true and explain why nearly NO societies on Earth were matriarchal.
Same in Europe. Mothers are more dead beats than fathers.
A detail never mentioned in our gynocentric media.
Fair enough with not making it free, should be a fabulous response though with Janice and Hannah and yourself of course. These two women are powerhouses in the fight against feminism.
Feminism is not about equality
It is an ideology based on nothing but hatred of men and boys and is really all about power and SPECIAL STATUS FOR WOMEN IN ALL THINGS
Feminism is the largest hate movement the world has ever seen
They hate 1/2 of world’s entire population
The feminists took for grated that "autonomy" is a desirable goal. We should all be very careful about that word, which has been fashionable for decades in elite circles. There's no such thing as autonomy, certainly nor for any social species such as our own. (Never mind the rare exceptions, who have medical or psychiatric labels to explain their inability to be moral agents.) Autonomy is an illusion. In popular parlance, it's a synonym for "independence" and an antonym for dependence. But that's false, not only because dependence is undesirable but also because independence is impossible. The fact is that we all do need each other. Moreover, we all need to be needed. These two needs are basic and universal features of human existence. No society that ignores them could endure. Any if any society were to do so, it would not be a society at all but a collection of isolated individuals. Our goal has always been, and should always be, neither dependence (which should decline gradually after infancy and throughout childhood) nor independence (in the sense of autonomy, which is a perversion of maturity or adulthood). Rather, our goal should be, and must be, interdependence. In the specific context of relations between the sexes, that adds up to complementarity.
The feminists spoke also about their disdain for "rules." They might have referred only to rules that govern women or only to rules that they dislike. Either way, they argue on very shaky ground. It's one thing to tinker with this or that rule, after all, but another thing entirely to imply (as many feminists do) that rules, per se, are inherently "patriarchal" and therefore evil or oppressive. That makes no sense of either human history or human nature. Whatever else they do, rules create the order that underlies every social contract. Even the hedonistic Romans of the imperial period tried to maintain some order (partly by adopting Christianity). Fast forward to the day before yesterday--that is, the 1960s. The Sexual Revolution (which eventually left us with not only the naive hippies but also, eventually, the cynical wokers) has taught too many people that the only way to find meaning or to seek justice (or to get even) is by "transgressing" rules. Without the cultural organization that rules provide, however, we could not have communities at all (and therefore not be human). Instead, we be a collection of selfish ids.
Amazing
Thank you Janice for debunking the part with 'rape is the worst thing possible'.
I have heard actual female victims who said the same.
And if you ask the question whether someone would prefer to be raped or killed (e.g. ukrainian war), then you get usually no answer but angry faces. How dare I ask a forbidden question? How dare I put the holy sacredness of sacral holyness of feminist the-one-word-to-rule-them-all into question?
But in movies, when men get raped, everybody laughs their cracks out. So funny hahaha.
Thank you Janice for debunking the part with 'rape is the worst thing possible'.
I have heard actual female victims who said the same.
And if you ask the question whether someone would prefer to be raped or killed (e.g. ukrainian war), then you get usually no answer but angry faces. How dare I ask a forbidden question? How dare I put the holy sacredness of sacral holyness of feminist the-one-word-to-rule-them-all into question?
But in movies, when men get raped, everybody laughs their cracks out. So funny hahaha.
Powerful discussion and contributions - especially from Janice towards the end...
Janice says she can’t see three men talking about the amount of sex they are, or, are not getting. In my experience men are talking more now than ever and way too much about sex, both on and off line.
Hi Anna, what I was trying to say, though perhaps not very clearly, was that I can't see three men getting together to discuss the consequences of a major social movement and turning it into a competition for victimhood regarding whether men are getting the sex they need or whether men are being pressured into having too much sex too soon, and what society should do about it to guarantee men's sexual happiness and security.
I'm sure you're right that men do discuss sexual matters both online and offline, as do women. (Personally, I'd rather we kept sex mainly a private matter. I don't want to know about anybody's sex life!). I didn't quite say it in the way I meant it: that the impulse to proclaim women's 'needs' and to turn the discussion into an issue of what society allegedly owes women is characteristic of a side of feminism that I dislike very much.
Talking in the moment, I'm always aware that what I'm saying isn't quite what I thought in my head when I was preparing for the discussion.
Thank you Janice for your clarity. I would like to see the victim narrative dropped by both sexes and an embrace of our polarity.
Yes, indeed! And an embrace of our complementarity.
With monte carlo simulation, I was able to find the rule set behind feminist thinking:
Sex is a bad thing + woman has a lot of sex* -> woman is victim
Sex is a good thing + woman has none of it -> woman is victim
Sex is a bad thing + woman has none of it -> woman is victim
Sex is a good thing + woman alot of it -> woman is victim
* also works with 'has some, but not enough' or 'has some, but too much'
So Feminists are very consistent with the right side of the equation.
Generally when men get together we don't talk about sex.
"Janice says she can’t see three men talking about the amount of sex they are, or, are not getting."
No, that's not what Janice said, or would ever say. Everyone knows men discuss their sex lives, as do women. What she said was that she couldn't imagine such a discussion amongst men being taken as serious social commentary, as these feminists obviously expect. Here's what Janice said:
"They spend a lot of time, probably about an hour and fifteen minutes, essentially arguing about whether women need to be having MORE sex, and feeling really GOOD about the sex they have, or whether women should be having LESS sex, and being protected from the BAD feelings that they may have if they're having too much sex, and I found the discussion just so trivial, I try to imagine a man sitting there saying "I didn't get enough sex, and now I'm able to have the sex that I need", and anyone taking that seriously."
I found the meaning perfectly clear, and perfectly hilarious. I think a lot of these feminist panel discussions would make excellent comedy material, simply by replacing women with men.
It took me a while to comprehend the point you were making. There were three women on the panel publicly talking about sex.
Firstly, I strongly doubt that three men would speak publicly in the manner that these women did.
Secondly, men talking about their sex lives is generally a forbidden topic and either generalisations are used or over exaggeration.
Men in general do not have the language skills to really be able to articulate what is really going on in their lives.
"It took me a while to comprehend the point you were making. There were three women on the panel publicly talking about sex."
It's not just about these three women discussing sex, there's a broader point about the sexual revolution, and the way feminists proclaim their "sexual liberation", and their "right to control their own bodies", free from traditional reproductive and moral constraints imposed by "the Patriarchy". In other words, to have as much sex as they want, with as many men as they want. The same applies to men - in theory, we're now able to have as much sex as we want, with as many women as we want, free from traditional reproductive and moral constraints. But it's not something men proclaim as their fundamental human right, or their biological need, in the way feminists do, because that would be laughable. As Janice says: "I try to imagine a man sitting there saying "I didn't get enough sex, and now I'm able to have the sex that I need", and anyone taking that seriously."
<The same applies to men - in theory,>
In theory, it is correct; however, in practice, it is anything but.
Over at least 4 decades, behaviour that was considered to be courting or seduction has become criminalised, sexual harassment and changes to the classification of what is regarded as sexual assault.
Previous feminists once claimed that women were not able to give valid consent because the patriarchy had indoctrinated them.
Many feminists also push the line that once a woman has drunk alcohol or taken drugs, she is no longer able to give a valid consent to sexual activity.
Yes, courting has become downright dangerous for men! The other point about the sexual revolution is that it did not benefit all men, only a small percentage of men who women found highly attractive. We're now able to quantify that percentage, thanks to modern dating apps, which show that around 90% of women swipe on the same 5% of men.
Her reference was to a panel discussion for pubic consumption, not men speaking among themselves. Women talk about sex plenty. They are just better at keeping the discussion on the down low or among themselves.
Men may not be doing so on a panel as per this episode of Diary of a CEO but they are talking about sex for public consumption on the internet. Yes women sometimes talk among themselves about sex and the subject should not be taboo but we have become sex obsessed and some people sex addicted.
there's a big difference. these women are holding themselves out as respectable, proper experts, not people having a conversation.
It may seem like we've become sex obsessed but in fact there's been a massive decline in sexual activity in recent years, for example 1 in 3 US men aged 18 to 24 reporting no sexual activity in the past year. https://news.iu.edu/live/news/26924-nearly-1-in-3-young-men-in-the-us-report-having-no
I have a theory about public discourse around sex which is that nobody should be able to tell other people what is right for them until they confess every little thing they've done and want to do.
This would include every discussion of L, G, B, T, and Q -- unless the speaker antes up and tells their whole story, they have to sit down and shut up. That would shut down stupid conversations like this CEO thing fast.
The problem with all of our concepts of sex is that they are actually about sexual politics and there is no distinction made between the two. This is a creature of 19c feminism and it reaches a wild peak in the late 20c and is basically the whole theme of 21c discussions of sex.
Note how sex never gets into any conversation about sex. It is the thing missing and it never seems to turn up.
ALSO — regarding sex being "special," Wayland Young (2nd Baron Kennet)* argued eloquently in the 1960s that the problem with how we conceive of sex is that society makes sex special when it's really rather ordinary and everyday business. It's right there with eating food, using the toilet, chopping wood and carrying water.
Every person on Earth is fucked into existence (and any form of conception is sexual regardless); that's as ordinary as it gets. Dogs, cats, farm animals and all the lord's creatures do it in some form. I just heard an interview with a former Amish woman who said she learned about the existence of sex from seeing farm animals do it.
We eat eggs every day -- those are sexual organs. Fruit are sexual organs. Who doesn't love flowers? We all eat dairy! That comes from the boobs of cows, goats and sheep. And so on...
Everyone is interested in sex to some degree (and many think about it many times a day) and if they are not, so what. What we get instead is special collections locked in the backs of museums and libraries, everything discussed in hushed tones, and the use of scandal, accident, suicide, absence and tragedy generally for the covers for the experience of sex. He rails against use of euphemistic language that conceals basic truths. All the obsession of "young girl murdered" is veiled discussion of sex.
Sex is a basic, ordinary and normal part of existence. To "make it special" is to make it political and therefore to take it transhuman in important ways. He argues that the way to resolve the crisis is to bring discussion of actual sex, and its various historical artifacts, out into the open — into the front of the museum. The artifacts of Pompeii are a fine example of this; phallic symbols had to be hidden from the population otherwise...gasp.
--
*His famous book Eros Denied is sometimes acclaimed as a manifesto of the sexual revolution. It is really something else, which is a history of what the Roman Catholics did to sex and the discussion around it, turning it into nothing other than a sin or necessary evil. This attitude, based in Manicheism, relegates sex to all that is evil and dark. The feminists who take up the issue mirror this position, and to the extent they claim to be libertine, they are asserting their right to a guilty pleasure. That's why it always has to have a victim.
You say interesting things, Eric, and I take your point about the need to take our bodies seriously.
But this topic is more complex than that. I don't think that sex (or any human behavior) can be understood adequately in purely physiological, material or even societal terms. We eat, defecate, procreate and so on like other species. But we also make meaning, which is a distinctive and defining feature of our species. We can have sex with each other for a few minutes, for example, and then move on as if nothing happened. But we can also have sex with each other in transformative ways. Few other kinds of human behavior, in fact, have been cultivated for purposes that go way beyond immediate need or desire.
Marriage is a Catholic sacrament. But it's true that Catholics never got rid of Manichean dualism. Sex is fine within marriage, they've said, but even marriage is inferior to monastic or priestly chastity. I can see why many people have rebelled against that mentality. But Catholics are at least managing to reproduce themselves demographically, which is more than I can say for many secular communities in the Western world. Besides, Christian notions of marriage have varied greatly both historically and cross-culturally. The cultural deposit is surprisingly varied and spiritually rich.
But I'll speak here as a Jew. This is not the right venue for a theological discussion, but I will at least observe that Jewish theology discusses sex not only in the context of morality but also, and ultimately, in the context of holiness. Sex outside of marriage occurs in the profane (ordinary) world and is therefore discouraged, but sex within marriage occurs in the sacred (special) world and is therefore encouraged, even commanded--not condescendingly as a "necessary evil" (to reproduce the community), not merely to foster pleasure or companionship, but ultimately to experience holiness. The ideal occasion for sex is Friday night, when the sacred time of Shabbat replaces the profane time of any weekday. The Jewish mystical tradition goes much further than that. So do its counterparts in many other religious traditions. For evidence, consult Sufi poems or Hindu poems. Making sex special does not necessarily mean giving it political or moral significance. Sometimes, it means giving sex cosmic significance.
My point is only that religion can (although it doesn't always) confer beauty and meaning on sex (and other "ordinary" activities).
I see what you're getting at. I'm not alluding to it in my above comments but my core theory of sex, in practice, is tantric: sex is at the center of all of existence. But to assert that as a precept is biased. Sex is indeed very special as the thing that creates life. Yet it's also ordinary. And it's rarely ever discussed honestly, only from a political or theological standpoint. And we have not discussed the pervasive materialism (cash value) of sex that is so rampant in our times. The lack of opportunity to get sex out of a moral, religious, political or financial framework is so pervasive ... that most people have no clue how to have a discussion about sexual experiences that does not veer into some other direction. And among the underpinnings of that reality is the seeming truth that as soon as you admit to having too much fun, someone wants to shut you down.
Yes, Eric, sex is both special (sacred) and ordinary (profane). But I have a few questions, and they’re not as tangential as they might seem. I ask out of curiosity, not prickliness.
Why should anyone need or even want "a discussion about sexual experiences that does not veer into some other direction"? Why should anyone need or even want a closed discussion about any kind of experience at all? In short, why do you (seem to) advocate boundaries between experiences or interests? As an academic, I'm always amazed at how few of my colleagues are willing, let alone eager, to explore ideas that would lead beyond their own comfort zones. Specialization is one thing; fragmentation is another thing. Some academics do advocate multi-disciplinary approaches, it's true, but often for merely bureaucratic reasons.
I am not talking about a closed discussion. I am talking about a specific discussion, in context, related to other matters, that is not under some form of fear or prohibition or scrutuny. For those in Eastern cultures, there exist the Kama Sutra in many forms; volumes are written about Tantric practice and we have next to none of it. Take a look at a forgotten book called The Joy of Sex and you will see what I mean. We need this information; it will make us happier and more humane people.
When I discuss how to make tomato sauce, I do not need to worry about morality or religion. I don't have to justify it by my love of the Itailain people or by saying "the Pope is a great lover of marinara."
When I expalin to someone how to better record their music, or how to drive stick shift, or when a coach teaches a person how to lift weights, there is no urgent moral drama or apprehension. In the case of stick shift, the question does not go to, "And where do you plan to drive with this skill?"
Why the fuss around sex? It's not helpful. Discussion leads to understanding. I believe the prohibition on discussion — veiled as a libertine attitude but excluding the true liberty **of meaning** — leads to the distortions we see today.
Many are curious about sex and their sexuaiity. It's a topic in the news every day. It is on the cover of every women's magazine. But we can't have a discussion about sex about it that does not drift in the direction of scandal or morality or sin in a way that strangles it and chokes its oxygen.
Sex is never just left alone to be itself and what it naturally connects with — the expression of love. Just like you might groom your dog because you love him, you don't have to justify it. And you can explain how to do it. "And here is how we trim the claws." There is no scandal.
The friendly but authentic (and experienced) discussion "how may I do that better" is nonexistent around sex, as is the opportunity to discuss the problems caused BY the prohibition itself. Why do I feel this way when I watch this woman dance? What is the purpose of masturbation — of relating to oneself physically and emotionally? Why do I feel guilty about this [anything]?
Why has this gone wrong in my relationship? Even a topic like "premature ejacualtion" we leave to the drug compaies to program. Matters of desire are left to OnlyFans, $75 for five minutes — and therby swept into the corner. No questions asked. In this way, we divide sex from love, and assume that this is really our situation. Yet in many situations of love, sex and desire seem to be the troubling issue. We should be able to discuss these things freely without risking scandal or the #metoo goon squad coming at 3 am. "And just WHAT did you say to her?"
Wayland Young exporessed it best, in his 1964 book Eros Denied. Please pardon any typos, I am a terrible typist.
====
<< Around the thought and the act of sex there hang a confusion and a danger, a tension and a fear which far exceed those hanging around any other normal and useful part of life in our culture. The tension harries us not only in extreme forms, whether ridiculous or horrible, but also in the dim, nagging form, so familiar that we hardly notice if, of ignorance and doubt.
Throughout the rich urban West, though most of all in the Anglo-Saxon West many, perhaps, even most, people spend their lives in hesitation and confusion about sex and love.
They hesitate and are confused because they are not free. For a number of reasons, some essential human nature itself and some contingent to human nature but essential to the structure of Christian and post-Christian beliefs, in the Anglo-Saxon countries and to differing degrees throughout Chrisitiandom, Islam, Jewry and the societies influenced by them, we are unfree in the faculty to love.
We are unfree in two ways: as we consider the faculty, and as we exercise it. Love is neither a free object in our minds, nor a free agent in our hearts.
No man is entirely free, and the things which bind him are many. Some have to do with his nature as an individual, and some with the nature of the society he lives in, and some with society as such. The systems of religion, political ideology, political and economic structure, and so forth, within which each man lives, give him some freedoms and deny him others.
It happens that, for reasons some of which will be examined in this book, the system within which we in England and America live gives us many admirable freedoms but rather conspicuously denies us one in particular. It denies us, the full freedom, the run of ourselves and our societies, by staining, flawing, by cutting off, demarcating, labeling, noticing with a label saying “this is a special" the corner, the area, where physical desire and fulfillment have their function. >>
---- end quote.
So the question is not "why would you do this" but rather to, "why would anyone place a ban or censor this?" Why the heck are we so nervous about it that we must pretend it does not exist?
Well, Eric, answering that question is what made Dr. Ruth famous (although even she often discussed sex in contexts that went far beyond physiology). It's true that many people are awkward in talking about (or even enacting) sex. That can indeed be a problem. But its cause is neither stupidity nor ignorance (although both, of course, can contribute to the problem). As you say, sex is special but also ordinary. But one thing that makes it special (though not uniquely special) is that it has important consequences (unlike recording music, driving a car and lifting weights). And those consequences are both personal (jealousy, say, and either wanted or unwanted children) and communal (demographic continuity, say, and either overpopulation or underpopulation).
One function of sexual behavior, the "ordinary" one, is recreation (often but not always in the context of emotional attachment). But the other function, the "special" one, is reproduction. Trouble is, these can overlap and sometimes in unpredictable ways. No society that is known to either historians or anthropologists has ever ignored the latter, not even our own society. We have found technological ways of avoiding reproduction (contraception) or allowing the disposal of unwanted offspring (abortion or infanticide). Moreover, we have introduced technologies (such as in vitro fertilization) to avoid problems for couples who would otherwise be unable to depend on sexual behavior in order to have children) and others (such as surrogacy) for couples who can depend on sexual behavior but only by adding a third party.
So, yes, every society is anxious for good reasons about sexual behavior, or at least about its potential consequences, and therefore surrounds it with rules (and folklore). The rules vary from one time or place to another, sure, but the underlying anxiety does not. I see nothing wrong with rules as such. Rules are inherent features of culture, after all, and culture is an innate feature of being human.