Trump suggested there should be a "rating system" for video games and movies....

Haha he really did, wow. How is it possible for a human being to be this far gone from reality?

It's like, hellllooo, ever heard of rotten tomatoes?

(heh.)

Is Peterson more right here than wrong? I do think that when it comes to sex in American society, liberals aren't owning up to the fact that their ideas about sex have been dangerously flawed. There is a kind of self-overcoming happening, where the idea of sexual liberation behind the sexual revolution of the 60s is revealing its own inherent contradictions. Ultimately, our culture needs to provide more definite guidelines for sexual activity than "do anything, as longs as its consensual."

I am not sure sure that 'liberals' are the ones who responsible for casual sex. Well, maybe they were, at a some point? I suppose I've lost track of just how far we've come as a society in terms of sexual customs compared to less than a century ago.

But this feels like the usual tilting at windmills that social conservatives seem fond of doing on this issue: once people find out it's not the end of the world to have casual sex, do you really think it's going to be easy to take that away from them? You'd just as soon succeed in convincing society to forget that completely covering up a woman's body isn't necessary to prevent rape. I don't think people will buy it.

I do have a question for Dr. Peterson, though: if young men and teens aren't supposed to have casual sex AND they aren't supposed to consume pornography (in the very likely chance that they don't easily find a meaningful relationship), how are they possibly NOT going to wind up sexually frustrated? And is it really Dr. Peterson's goal to create sexually frustrated young men that he can mold into agents of social change, through his online influence? I feel that all social conservatives ultimately want to start a tribe of sorts around their conservationism.

He says alot of things about sex that are true, but he frames them in such a bull**** context it's hard to take seriously. The idea that sexual liberation and casual sex are the cause of assault, and telling students not to have sex on the first date being a solution for sexual assault, is just wrong. As is the very obvious MRA talking points he's repeating.

The real problem IMO is American work culture is so severe it makes it really hard for people to stay committed to long term relationships. But that would require analyses that contradict JP's reactionary world view.

He's not wrong about the alcohol part, though, from what I imagine. And doesn't drunken sex at parties fall under the category of casual sex?

But how does this pertain to college students, who don't necessarily suffer yet from this work culture, since they very likely have yet to work a full time job, yet are going to frat parties in between studying?

Are you saying that they look down the horizon, and predict that college will be their last chance for casual sex in reaction to said harsh work conditions?

For instance, if JP's hypothesis was correct, you'd expect to see correlations between prevalence of casual sex and sexual assault.

I can find no evidence that the correlation he's implying makes sense. If there's not even a correlation, supposing causation is just an extra-wrong step.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure more college students today have jobs than ever before.

And this is making them have casual sex?

A part time job working at the university library is not what I would call severe.

People aren't having casual sex because their work is hard, they're having casual sex because their work is boring and provides ample time to use Tinder or to trawl Facebook for their next hookup.

I would be surprised if drunken casual sex weren't correlated with sexual assault.

Casual sex in general? Probably not, and his rant against it sounds like your typical social conservative talking points.

I think his general argument is that sex, as one activity amongst many that can happen between people, requires a degree of mutual intimacy and understanding that can't possibly be acquired after one date. Sexual assault is something that happens when people don't know each other well enough to communicate their desires to each other, or it's something that happens in a context where one night stands and promiscuity are encouraged. Hold on, problem...

In my view, this is just another instance of technology replacing social moors leading to a single connected, primitive, tribal society, where we are just a bunch of angry horny primates throwing **** at each other (Twitter) between intercourse (Tinder).

Not "just" that, it's part of American culture now. We spend more time isolated, spend more time in education, spend more time commuting and less time working. When you're always busy it's harder to maintain healthy relationships.



Agreed. Getting really drunk and having sex is usually a bad idea. It's just not clear to me if this is even an increasing trend.

Sexual assault is more likely to occur between people who are acquainted.

Wouldn't that still count as casual, though?

If "less time working" and "more time isolated" is what you meant by "severe work culture", then sure.

Yes, but the idea that most sexual assault occurs because strangers meet in a bar, get drunk and something bad happens deeply misunderstands sexual assault. So what JP is arguing is essentially a myth.

I would imagine it to be a pretty constant trend throughout history, actually.

American work culture sucks. Americans are worked to death. The only country I think that has a worse work culture is Japan.

I think he's just pissed that he grew up in a world without Tinder.

Ok, continuing.

I think what JP is saying about casual sex actually isn't too far from the idea of toxic masculinity; that is, he thinks society has trained people to have defective and destructive views about sex, and they aren't quite aware of how destructive those views are, yet they still condition people's behaviours. In a society where sex is something that is seen as a trifle, and something that can be gotten (or should be gotten easily), where it's something that can be desired like a consumer gratification, people will pursue it as if it were a commodity, as if it didn't require intimacy and the greater context of a close relationship. If you divest sex from its association with relationships, then it becomes a matter of individual gratification, and that mindset drives individuals to coerce others to satisfy their personal desires at the expense of others.

OK, so by this you mean, "people don't have time for anything in a relationship beyond the bare minimum, which ultimately boils down simply to the sex, whereas more time for healthy social interaction would have permitted the chance to develop more meaningful relationships".

People aren’t having casual sex because work is unfulfilling, they’re having casual sex because of contraceptives and antibiotics.

People had drunken sex at parties during the Roman Republic under similar conditions: A monoculture with limited exposure to foreign pathogens (they even shared ass-wiping sponges), and some sources suggest they may have had access to effective birth control (silphium among others).

England and offspring cultures by comparison were highly cosmopolitan, had no access to effective contraception, and imposed relatively harsh economic penalties for unintended reproduction.

Edit: said birth control twice, meant antibiotics.

I don't know if it's more likely to happen under those circumstances, but it certainly happens a non-trivial proportion of the time. See my second post.

Have I told you guys about my adventures on Tinder with a Jim Morrison profile?

So in other words, these men are looking for more meaning in their lives, and perhaps regret the comparatively unfulfilling rewards of convenience that modern society affords.

You had got cat fished by someone claiming to be Jim Morrison

He he he

Or the other way around.

Hadn't thought about it in those terms but it sounds consistent with the sort of critique which I'm trying to outline

I know I was trying to get him with a real zinger

Not trying to flatter Spook here, but I mean just look at his photo in the camhoez thread. I think he might pass as a Jim Morrison. Lol

Sounds kind of like Reid's a bit, too?

Although I wonder if those Romans ever got depressed by partying too much.

I think the birth control part is important. In particular, when social conservatives complain about liberals promoting casual sex in the `60's, I think we can assume that what they are really upset about is the availability of contraception that enabled the sexual revolution, thereby upsetting the social moors which they still subscribe to.

Hmm. Yeah, to an extent, although instead of pinning the problem on not having enough leisure time, I'm pinning the problem on unstated assumptions about the nature of sexual gratification (although I should say I don't know if I believe any of this stuff). I think that someone advocating this view would probably want to say sex outside of relationships is not meaningful and people who think it is are fooling themselves.



I think this is definitely how some conservatives think about this. Birth control makes casual sex possible, by disassociating sex from its most obvious and weighty consequence, namely, reproduction, and from family life, which is the social context within which reproduction is supposed to occur, in their view.

I don't think that Reid's hypothesis is necessary for the idea you're playing with to be true. I think the mechanism he proposed could simply be one contributing cause, but not necessarily the only one.