Food as Antonym for Disdain
You get the best use of a technology when you can use it to separate actions from consequences.
Food as Antonym for Disdain
You get the best use of a technology when you can use it to separate actions from consequences. Like abortion and contraceptives for pregnancy, social media to avoid a punch in the face for unruly behavior, and when going to the store to "buy milk" allows you to become an absentee father.
Language too, and the ability to rationalise also fulfills the duty – although not always efficient – of separating actions from consequences.
Like this lady:
She uses soothing bunkum to rewrite the fundamentals of casual sex.
As is in the label, casual sex is primarily about sex. Everything else is luxury. “Primarily about sex” means that you are 100/100 if you tick the box labeled "sex" only. If you decide to draw other boxes and label them as "buy them gifts," "send them flowers," and "send food and money," you are straying into territories not covered by ‘casual.’
Casual (sex) as in “relaxed and unconcerned (adj),” “not regular or permanent (adj),” “a person who does something irregularly (noun),” lacks effort on other features not called "sex."
Expert Paul Joannides, Psy.D., examines three different types of casual relationships that paint a bigger picture: No strings attached, friends with benefits, and even sex with your ex. "Sex with no strings attached is as casual as casual sex gets," Joannides says. "It often involves sex with a total stranger whom you might have only met in the last hour. Or you may have been on each other’s radar for weeks or months before opportunity knocked. It might be a one-night stand, or it may have its own jagged lifeline."
Now, this does not mean you have to treat a partner with disdain. It does not mean treating them with disgust. However, my arguments are:
(1) there is a gulf between disdain and buying someone flowers; the antonym for disdain is not “send them money” and all that stuff. "Unconcerned" is enough qualification. “No disdain” means “do no harm.”
(2) a casual sex arrangement has a lack of effort and the absence of commitment signals woven into its fabrics.
I summarise the two arguments thus: “all adherents of the hookup culture are primarily sexual objects, with no obligation for anyone to care for the other's wellbeing. (Emphasis on “no obligation). And even if there are traces of such, the closest metaphor to describing this relationship will be how I tended for a chick until it became a big cock just so I could slaughter it for Christmas.”
She further tried to argue that:
She tries to conflate all those Instagram-exhibition courting activities – food, money, flowers – with "basic human" treatment. With everything she stated, many people will not qualify as basic human beings.
In the end, I have my grouse with the fact that arrangements have benefits and downsides. But there are people who resort to rationalisations and other devices in order to enjoy the benefits of their chosen arrangement while avoiding the downsides. Desist.
Louise Perry on Common Sense With Bari Weiss
In her insightful post — an excerpt from her new book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century — Lousie Perry, a feminist, writes about the unspoken horrors of the sexual revolution. She wrote:
Remove the progressive goggles, and the history of the last 60 years looks different. The sexual revolution isn’t only a story of women freed from the burdens of chastity and motherhood. It is also a story about the triumph of the playboy.
The new sexual culture isn’t so much about the liberation of women, as so many feminists would have us believe, but the adaptation of women to the expectations of a familiar character: Don Juan, Casanova, or, more recently, Hugh Hefner.
Having lived in the hinterlands of casual sex and hookup culture, she is worth listening to, and her points are worth considering. Read the essay here
Diversity of Hammers
Diversity hammersity. Diversity is everywhere; except for diversity of perspectives and talents.
I wrote that:
My case for a diversity of hammers is this: let everyone bring their diverse Maslow’s hammer to the construction site. We have a nail for everyone. Let everyone collaborate with their various hammers. There is no need to deride an other’s hammer as less. We live in a complex world where every interaction births something new. Hence, we will need more and more hammers.
Read the entire essay here
And here is your picture:
Have a pleasant week.
The reason why such a Twitter post would anger most, is because most see it in the lens of "casual concession of existence" and which the sex is often the secondary. This is the central tenant of "simps" (pushovers of romanticism). The weird polarization between casual sex and casual concession within hookup culture at large, is that "alpha fux, beta bux", or to be less crass: either one treat oneself as a sexual object for mensch with bodily valor/privilege, and no obligations can be demanded on the self-objectifying; or that one treat oneself as entitled to superior treatment from suitors who can only provide wealth, which often times is made through hard effort. No obligation can be formed when one realizes that physicality is orthogonal to material wealth, and that lack of compromising leads to the hulling of obligational power.
Of course this behavior has existed in times of war and instability, first comes sex with military men who often die in battle, then use civilian rich as surrogate fathers, mediated by cultural taboo of paternity. In the current age, this inverts into the military wives getting pregnant to male escorts or other presentable males, whilst living on the war chest. If this behavior of hypergamy predates technology as an evolutionary mechanism, then how can it be fixed through luddism? The terror, the terror.