Like Jason pointed out bellow, nearly every society that allowed polygamy was really a patriarchal one where men were allowed to have multiple wives. Since the number of men and women tend to be equal, unless humans create an artifical scarcity of one gender, nearly every polygamous society tends to have a large percentage of men that never marry. This really isn't a good idea. One theory behind the emergence of monogamy was that monogamous societies were more stable since it didn't leave a large number of men bachelors.
I think plural marriage has a problem that same-sex marriage did not. Mainly, its going to be hard to nearly impossible to come up with legal regime for plural marriage that is both equitable and isn't a legal cluster fu*k. Most of the problems come from the end of marriage. Lets say that Woman A is married to Men A, B, and C. She become pregnant with Man A's kid. As the kid turns school age, Woman A and Man A take a traditional turn and want to raise their kid in a monogamous family situation. So she divorces Men B and C. Are Men B and C going to be liable for child support? Can they demand visitation rights? What if it was Man A with Women A, B, and C. The battle over estates in plural marriages is going to be immense to.
There are going to be problems with the formation of plural marriage. Lets say that Man A is married to Women A, B, and C. Women B wants to also marry Man B. Should this be allowed or will plural marriages require a type of anchor spouse, either a man or woman, that everybody has to be married to like the traditional polygamist marriage practiced in patriarchal societies except a bit more equitable? Should there be a limit to how many spouses you can have at a given time?
I'm also more than a little skeptical about the ability of most people to manage a polyamorous relationship on an emotional level.
This is pretty spot on. If you can touch a woman in away that is somewhat sexual or at least romantically affectionate but at the same time doesn't make her feel awkward or worse than you can create chemistry. A lot of men fear touching women, so you come across as confident. The problem is that a lot of men engage in the wrong sort of touching or don't stop when told to.
That would have struck me as super-gross. When I was in my twenties, I could at least appreciate the looks of older women. When I was thirteen or fourteen, it was unspeakable.
I'm actually pretty sure that slightly to very immature forty year olds "mentoring" twenty year olds in the ways of romance and love is a really bad idea, it might be worse than PUA in some ways. It doesn't even work in the movies and in the movies the characters have the power of script on their side. ;.
More seriously, its not a good idea for several reasons. For one thing, not everybody wants to be mentored. When I was in my late teens and early twenties, the idea of an older woman mentoring me a la the Graduate would have creeped me out. I wanted to date young women my own age. I'm sure I can't be alone with this. You have some power dynamic issues. Finally, like you noted, a forty something who is constantly dating twenty somethings rather than seeking a steady relationship with anybody is probably not the best tutor for romance or dating. They might be okay on the physical side of the relationship but thats about it.
I'd say this fairly accurate. It certainly matches some of my more shameful fantasies. The desire for a hot woman is mainly a status-thing. A hot girlfriend/wife/one-night stand generally is a way to pull rank over other men just like how some men compete over cars. The other half is that most people like physical beauty.
I'd say this fairly accurate. It certainly matches some of my more shameful fantasies. The desire for a hot woman is mainly a status-thing. A hot girlfriend/wife/one-night stand generally is a way to pull rank over other men just like how some men compete over cars. The other half is that most people like physical beauty.
Not really. Men's magazines, ponorgraphic or not, assume that the audience is really succesful with the ladies and sleeps with a different beautiful woman every night or something. Now this isn't the case but they cater to their readership's perception of themselves. Publications aimed at nerdier men just avoid romantic advise in general and are technically gender-neutral anyway.
Stories in men's magazines tend to be more boasting than anything else. A lot of romantic advise aimed at men that isn't PUA shit is something of a case of the clueless leading the clueless.
I think that a lot of women's magazines have all sorts of dating advise. Most of it is not so good and more than a little sexist but it exists. If you compare it with media aimed at men, the assumption is that men know this stuff already.
Its weird. Women receive all sorts of advise on how to date. A lot of that advise is bad but the market for dating services for women exists. Men are apparently supposed to know intuitively how to date. This is causing a lot of frustration.
I'm very skeptical about the success of PUA techniques. They seem designed to work best on people with issues or if a person doesn't have issues, you need to inflict short-term Stockholm Syndrome on an otherwise mentally healthy person. Both of these options are not really that moral. Seducing a person with issues raises some serious concerns about consent. Inflicting short-term Stockholm Syndrome is just a form of mental assault.
I think the idea of celebrity role models is interesting in its own right. Do we expect all celebrities to be role models or just ones that kids are more likely to be exposed to than not like the ones who star in media aimed at kids or athletes? If its only the celebrities whose career is based on catering to children to a certain extent, are those celebrities on a twenty-four/seven sort of guard where they always have to be in role model roll. I suppose the equivalent for ordinary people would be to tell teachers that they can never go to a bar or be seen doing anything less than pristine because their students might see it. Is this right or is it asking too much?
I'm not really that much of a fan of May-December Romances. The appeal of the older partner providing romantic and sexual mentoring to a younger partner regardless of the gender always seemed kind of sketchy to me. However, if it happens I don't think that we should really protest it to much, unless the younger partner is under the age of consent or there is a power dynamic abuse, and just kind of accept. Its not really that nice to make snide comments about couples. Protesting wide age ranges makes as much sense as protesting inter-racial couples, none at all.
Schwyzer always struck me as the grown up version of the college student that takes Women's Study courses and says the ideologically correct thing in order to get laid. One reason why I couldn't get into The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was because the male protagonist came off like that to. That and I found the female protagonist to be a horrible person rather than a tragic hero in many ways. Sometimes she could be outright petty and evil.
Its a very tricky issue. I'd argue that if a non-violent crime causes a certain amount of monetary damage or involves political corruption of some sort than prison might be appropriate.
I'm not going into Churchill worship, he was absolutely ineffective in peacetime for one thing and in a democracy, politicians should be able to be effective in multiple situtions. I just think the quote is witty.
One thing that any reasonable prison must include is the abolishment of private prisons. There are way too many preverse incentives with private prisons as the infamous case in Pennsylvania demonstrated. Prisons must be owned and run by governments and funded through tax dollars in order to prevent said abuses.
I wouldn't go that far but I agree that we jail far too many people. Prison should be for people who commit violent crimes. Putting non-violent criminal in jail, especially if they are very young or old, is cruel and waste of money and resources. Fines, community service, and various programs are better forms of corrections and punishment. Even when jail time is an appropriate punishment, we put people away for way to long. Prison sentences for most crimes need to be dramatically reduced.
The various Scandinavian countries run the best prisons on the planet. They actually make attempts to reform the inmates and rehabilitate them. The problem is that they require a non-vengeful population whose willing to spend the money on doing things right. I don't think we'll ever achieve that in the United States.
On “Next Up: Polygamy”
Like Jason pointed out bellow, nearly every society that allowed polygamy was really a patriarchal one where men were allowed to have multiple wives. Since the number of men and women tend to be equal, unless humans create an artifical scarcity of one gender, nearly every polygamous society tends to have a large percentage of men that never marry. This really isn't a good idea. One theory behind the emergence of monogamy was that monogamous societies were more stable since it didn't leave a large number of men bachelors.
"
I think plural marriage has a problem that same-sex marriage did not. Mainly, its going to be hard to nearly impossible to come up with legal regime for plural marriage that is both equitable and isn't a legal cluster fu*k. Most of the problems come from the end of marriage. Lets say that Woman A is married to Men A, B, and C. She become pregnant with Man A's kid. As the kid turns school age, Woman A and Man A take a traditional turn and want to raise their kid in a monogamous family situation. So she divorces Men B and C. Are Men B and C going to be liable for child support? Can they demand visitation rights? What if it was Man A with Women A, B, and C. The battle over estates in plural marriages is going to be immense to.
There are going to be problems with the formation of plural marriage. Lets say that Man A is married to Women A, B, and C. Women B wants to also marry Man B. Should this be allowed or will plural marriages require a type of anchor spouse, either a man or woman, that everybody has to be married to like the traditional polygamist marriage practiced in patriarchal societies except a bit more equitable? Should there be a limit to how many spouses you can have at a given time?
I'm also more than a little skeptical about the ability of most people to manage a polyamorous relationship on an emotional level.
On “The Pick-Up Apologist: Kickstarter, Reddit, The Awl, and The Real Problem With Seduction Culture”
This is pretty spot on. If you can touch a woman in away that is somewhat sexual or at least romantically affectionate but at the same time doesn't make her feel awkward or worse than you can create chemistry. A lot of men fear touching women, so you come across as confident. The problem is that a lot of men engage in the wrong sort of touching or don't stop when told to.
"
That would have struck me as super-gross. When I was in my twenties, I could at least appreciate the looks of older women. When I was thirteen or fourteen, it was unspeakable.
"
I'm actually pretty sure that slightly to very immature forty year olds "mentoring" twenty year olds in the ways of romance and love is a really bad idea, it might be worse than PUA in some ways. It doesn't even work in the movies and in the movies the characters have the power of script on their side. ;.
More seriously, its not a good idea for several reasons. For one thing, not everybody wants to be mentored. When I was in my late teens and early twenties, the idea of an older woman mentoring me a la the Graduate would have creeped me out. I wanted to date young women my own age. I'm sure I can't be alone with this. You have some power dynamic issues. Finally, like you noted, a forty something who is constantly dating twenty somethings rather than seeking a steady relationship with anybody is probably not the best tutor for romance or dating. They might be okay on the physical side of the relationship but thats about it.
"
Its not a particularly ideologically correct fantasy.
"
I saw Gosling's character in Crazy, Stupid, Love as a noble but failed attempt to portray a Ladies' Man in a movie.
"
I'd say this fairly accurate. It certainly matches some of my more shameful fantasies. The desire for a hot woman is mainly a status-thing. A hot girlfriend/wife/one-night stand generally is a way to pull rank over other men just like how some men compete over cars. The other half is that most people like physical beauty.
"
I'd say this fairly accurate. It certainly matches some of my more shameful fantasies. The desire for a hot woman is mainly a status-thing. A hot girlfriend/wife/one-night stand generally is a way to pull rank over other men just like how some men compete over cars. The other half is that most people like physical beauty.
"
Not really. Men's magazines, ponorgraphic or not, assume that the audience is really succesful with the ladies and sleeps with a different beautiful woman every night or something. Now this isn't the case but they cater to their readership's perception of themselves. Publications aimed at nerdier men just avoid romantic advise in general and are technically gender-neutral anyway.
Stories in men's magazines tend to be more boasting than anything else. A lot of romantic advise aimed at men that isn't PUA shit is something of a case of the clueless leading the clueless.
"
That was only a few years ago.
"
That was only a few years ago.
"
Wasn't this in the Onion?
"
I think that a lot of women's magazines have all sorts of dating advise. Most of it is not so good and more than a little sexist but it exists. If you compare it with media aimed at men, the assumption is that men know this stuff already.
"
Somebody has to work this line into a movie.
"
Its weird. Women receive all sorts of advise on how to date. A lot of that advise is bad but the market for dating services for women exists. Men are apparently supposed to know intuitively how to date. This is causing a lot of frustration.
"
I'm very skeptical about the success of PUA techniques. They seem designed to work best on people with issues or if a person doesn't have issues, you need to inflict short-term Stockholm Syndrome on an otherwise mentally healthy person. Both of these options are not really that moral. Seducing a person with issues raises some serious concerns about consent. Inflicting short-term Stockholm Syndrome is just a form of mental assault.
On “Survey Says? BZZZZZZZ!”
I think the idea of celebrity role models is interesting in its own right. Do we expect all celebrities to be role models or just ones that kids are more likely to be exposed to than not like the ones who star in media aimed at kids or athletes? If its only the celebrities whose career is based on catering to children to a certain extent, are those celebrities on a twenty-four/seven sort of guard where they always have to be in role model roll. I suppose the equivalent for ordinary people would be to tell teachers that they can never go to a bar or be seen doing anything less than pristine because their students might see it. Is this right or is it asking too much?
On “The Myth of a Man”
I'm not really that much of a fan of May-December Romances. The appeal of the older partner providing romantic and sexual mentoring to a younger partner regardless of the gender always seemed kind of sketchy to me. However, if it happens I don't think that we should really protest it to much, unless the younger partner is under the age of consent or there is a power dynamic abuse, and just kind of accept. Its not really that nice to make snide comments about couples. Protesting wide age ranges makes as much sense as protesting inter-racial couples, none at all.
"
Schwyzer always struck me as the grown up version of the college student that takes Women's Study courses and says the ideologically correct thing in order to get laid. One reason why I couldn't get into The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was because the male protagonist came off like that to. That and I found the female protagonist to be a horrible person rather than a tragic hero in many ways. Sometimes she could be outright petty and evil.
On “Just Read It”
Its a very tricky issue. I'd argue that if a non-violent crime causes a certain amount of monetary damage or involves political corruption of some sort than prison might be appropriate.
On “Rand Paul: Not Aristotle”
I'm not going into Churchill worship, he was absolutely ineffective in peacetime for one thing and in a democracy, politicians should be able to be effective in multiple situtions. I just think the quote is witty.
On “Just Read It”
One thing that any reasonable prison must include is the abolishment of private prisons. There are way too many preverse incentives with private prisons as the infamous case in Pennsylvania demonstrated. Prisons must be owned and run by governments and funded through tax dollars in order to prevent said abuses.
"
I wouldn't go that far but I agree that we jail far too many people. Prison should be for people who commit violent crimes. Putting non-violent criminal in jail, especially if they are very young or old, is cruel and waste of money and resources. Fines, community service, and various programs are better forms of corrections and punishment. Even when jail time is an appropriate punishment, we put people away for way to long. Prison sentences for most crimes need to be dramatically reduced.
The various Scandinavian countries run the best prisons on the planet. They actually make attempts to reform the inmates and rehabilitate them. The problem is that they require a non-vengeful population whose willing to spend the money on doing things right. I don't think we'll ever achieve that in the United States.
On “Rand Paul: Not Aristotle”
I prefer Churchill's version, "democracy isn't the best form of government, its the worse form of government save all others tried."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.