The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Pornographic Dissonance
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This week the COTW is operating under a consul system. Element59 on how pornography makes a mockery of everything Wokeists claim to stand for:

The Left strongly values feminism, strongly condemns heterosexual male sexual aggression, strongly opposes children playing violent video games, strongly opposes men exploiting women, strongly opposes “white” men dominating positions of power and influence… yet pornography strongly contradicts all of these sacred positions.

Tell the Leftist that adolescent and teen boys are now one of the largest consumer demographics of online porn and that they usually have unlimited access to it 24/7 and that it’s a “normalized” behavior these days. What porn does to their still-developing brains and reward systems – rewarding them with massive dopamine hits – for viewing the degradation and domination of women is far more instructive and destructive, than any violent video game ever can be. It teaches that one’s personal gratification at the expense of another is ultimately what sex is about, a truly dehumanizing lesson, and a direct hit on one’s moral values and views towards women.

216 predicts the rise of what he calls “Neo-Victorian Feminism” in the coming decade. My guess is TERFs will continue to get steamrolled (ie JK Rowling), but past performance is no guarantee of future results, so we’ll see.

Intelligent Dasein is intelligently present when it comes to conceptualizing modern Jewishness:

80% of Americans consider Judaism to be a religion yet only 26% of Jews firmly believe in God. Ironic, isn’t it?

I suppose the 80% are right in a sense: Judaism is a religion, just not one that anybody believes anymore.

Yet this was the only thing keeping Jews distinct as a group. Without their religion they will simply fade away into the general population. I venture that, with numbers like these, we have pretty much seen the last of Judaism as an historically significant force in the West.

A corollary is that it cannot be Jews who are causing all the problems, and those who keep bitching about them as if that were the case need to critically reexamine what’s going on.

One nit to pick: Orthodox Jews will remain distinct as a group. What most people will think of when they hear about Jews a couple of generations down the road will be something like an urban, more salient version of the Amish today.

 
Hide 145 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Weren’t you the one who published a survey where 3/4 of Jews think the meaning of being a Jew is remembering the Holocaust? Judaism has morphed many times over the millennia. This is just next gen Judaism—Holocaustism.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    No, at least not that I recall.
    , @Theodore

    survey where 3/4 of Jews think the meaning of being a Jew is remembering the Holocaust
     
    That was Pew actually. See:

    Most important thing about being Jewish: Remembering the "Holocaust"
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12425
  2. Jews marrying gentiles (or not marrying and havung children) is another reason Judaism is in decline and will become rare. As recently as the 1960s when my parents married there was tremendous pressure for Jews to marry other Jews. It seemed by the 80s this changed. When I was a teen in the 80s someone tried to set me up with a Jewish girl but she was only intetested in my tall, athletic gentile friend. My Judaism meant nothing to her, absolutely nothing.

    • Replies: @216
    https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-impact-of-taglit-birthright-israel-marriage-and-family/
    , @neutral

    Jews marrying gentiles (or not marrying and havung children) is another reason Judaism is in decline and will become rare
     
    BS, jews are breeding like crazy, orthodox jews are the source of the secular international jews. This means that there are an endless supply of all the Soros, Zuckerbergs, Marx of this world.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    When I was a teen in the 80s someone tried to set me up with a Jewish girl but she was only intetested in my tall, athletic gentile friend. My Judaism meant nothing to her, absolutely nothing.
     
    Well, according to traditional law, her children are going to be Jewish either way, so why not go for the gentile hottie over the Jewish nerd?
  3. @Jay Fink
    Jews marrying gentiles (or not marrying and havung children) is another reason Judaism is in decline and will become rare. As recently as the 1960s when my parents married there was tremendous pressure for Jews to marry other Jews. It seemed by the 80s this changed. When I was a teen in the 80s someone tried to set me up with a Jewish girl but she was only intetested in my tall, athletic gentile friend. My Judaism meant nothing to her, absolutely nothing.
    • Replies: @Not My Economy
    Will you elaborate more on the characteristics of Neo-Victorian Feminism?

    Is telegram considered safe to register using real mobile number or should we use burners like for twitter?
  4. The main point I would like to emphasize, at the risk of obliterating some nuance, is that what is objectionable about the Jews—their urbanity, perversity, and sophistication with abstract money—are not so much the race-traits of a “people” but the essence of decadent civilization itself. The elites of the Western world, formerly called WASPS (now an antiquated term), but more accurately known as globalists or oligarchs, embody all that was comprehended in the “Judaism” of classical antisemitism. The Jews reached this terminal point of civilization a thousand years before the Christian West did. Maimonides, the Jewish Kant, the plebian explainer and leveler of all things who transfomed a once metaphysical religion into a refined form of intellectual egotism, serves as a rough indicator of when the Jews took the decisive step into worldliness. Now that the Western elites have “caught up,” the distinctiveness of Judaism is growing less and less significant. Thus, while classical antisemitism is entirely right in decrying everything that it does, it is quite wrong in atributing these qualities to Jews as a race. The very WASPy CEOs and govees like the Clintons and the Davos set, along with Chinese and Indian grandees, are the “Jews” of today, with the remnants of ethinic Judaism of course continuing to play a signficant role; but another generation or two, and the history of this ethinic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust.

    There is a religious dimension that the above materialist description fails to capture, but that will need to be discussed in another context.

    • Agree: Old Palo Altan
    • Disagree: Dissident
    • Replies: @iffen
    this ethinic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust.

    Well, it's not like the one drop rule does not work.
    , @dfordoom

    The main point I would like to emphasize, at the risk of obliterating some nuance, is that what is objectionable about the Jews—their urbanity, perversity, and sophistication with abstract money—are not so much the race-traits of a “people” but the essence of decadent civilization itself.
     
    Agreed. Western civilisation has not only achieved Full Decadence, it has achieved levels of decadence that no other civilisation could even have imagined possible.

    There are some questions to which we need answers. Is it possible to have capitalism without ending up with decadence? Was western decadence already baked into the cake of western civilisation by the early 19th century (by which time we had already produced the Marquis de Sade and Lord Byron, surely figures that only an already decadent civilisation could produce)? Was it the Jews who made the West decadent, or was it the West that made Jews decadent? Could monsters like Freud have been produced by the Jews without the corrupting influence of the West? Is urbanisation possible without ending in decadence?
    , @Anon
    Judaism, centered around the synagogue, is newer than Christianity. It developed sometime after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. But that aside, Ashkenazim are not even the same people as the Jews in the Bible.

    The 2013 study co-author Martin Richards, an archaeogeneticist at the University of Huddersfield in England, said that while Ashkenazi Jews have lived in Europe for many centuries, the results of the study using DNA samples show that most European Jews descend from local people who converted to Judaism, not individuals who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago.

    https://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html
     
    Jewish historian and professor Jim Wald in the Times of Israel blog:

    ...It is well known that, sometime in the eighth to ninth centuries, the Khazars, a warlike Turkic people, converted to Judaism and ruled over a vast domain in what became southern Russia and Ukraine. What happened to them after the Russians destroyed that empire around the eleventh century has been a mystery. Many have speculated that the Khazars became the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews.

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/
     
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks very much. I'm quickly coming to see why you're so highly regarded among the commentariat.
  5. It teaches that one’s personal gratification at the expense of another is ultimately what sex is about, a truly dehumanizing lesson, and a direct hit on one’s moral values and views towards women.

    Really? Is porn only about non-consensual sex? Or am I misunderstanding “at the expense of another”?

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    It teaches that one’s personal gratification at the expense of another is ultimately what sex is about, a truly dehumanizing lesson, and a direct hit on one’s moral values and views towards women.
     
    Really? Is porn only about non-consensual sex? Or am I misunderstanding “at the expense of another”?
     
    Is it possible that there's good porn and bad porn? Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be to ask if there is benign porn and destructive porn?

    There is certainly a difference between the older type of softcore porn and most hardcore porn. Old school softcore porn tended to put a great deal of emphasis on the woman's pleasure (movies like Emmanuelle for instance). Hardcore porn emphasises male pleasure. And old school softcore porn did at least acknowledge that sex has an emotional content. I'd say that old-fashioned softcore porn was about people having sex. Hardcore porn is about body parts having sex.

    Maybe we need porn reform. Seriously. Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable maybe we should focus on encouraging the benign stuff and very strongly discouraging if not banning the destructive stuff. Make Porn Great Again.
  6. What most people will think of when they hear about Jews a couple of generations down the road will be something like an urban, more salient version of the Amish today

    Somewhat ironically, that was the image most Europeans had of Jews before the industrial revolution.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  7. Recommended article:

    “The Miseducation of the American Boy” by Peggy Orenstein,

    it’s troubling on several fronts. Not because of the information about boys, but her understanding of what boys were saying. For example, in her survey, she asks boys to define or describe “masculinity” and then is surprised that only 2% of them mentioned “honesty”. I am surprised that it was that high. Masculinity is traditionally understood among males as to the physical trait set: physical strength, height, athleticism prowess, etc. I would not associate honesty with masculinity — nor would most men. Now had she asked about manhood, “what does it mean to be a man?” that is a different question.

    Nothing wrong with women doing research on males and how they are as boys. But it might be a good idea to know how men related the process of becoming men as set down and understood by men.

    She might have spent a year hanging out with men such Dr. Ferral and others who have spent a lifetime on this issue of men and how they boys are taught.

    What is interesting and troubling is that even based on her scanty research, men are being told by women how and who they are — apparently with very little participation by the bots or other men.

    She goes on about the issue of crying — there;s a surprise. Boys don’t cry. Sure they do, but it’s appropriateness is very limited to circumstance based on over a million years of indoctrination of the male role. Which despite the modern age — is still expected even by most women.

    She does stumble onto a very little referred to reality — women are deadly to a boys/men’s reputation — read the section on “W and L’s”. I think the issue of pornography is salient. But I think there are a lot of false assumptions about its impact. Because in my view, for men and boys the pressure is always how to please — and frankly in my experience those pressures are only exacerbated by pornography.

    ———————————

    Her subjects are prep school boys, because she thinks they will be the trend or standard bearers setters of what’s what.

  8. @Intelligent Dasein
    The main point I would like to emphasize, at the risk of obliterating some nuance, is that what is objectionable about the Jews---their urbanity, perversity, and sophistication with abstract money---are not so much the race-traits of a "people" but the essence of decadent civilization itself. The elites of the Western world, formerly called WASPS (now an antiquated term), but more accurately known as globalists or oligarchs, embody all that was comprehended in the "Judaism" of classical antisemitism. The Jews reached this terminal point of civilization a thousand years before the Christian West did. Maimonides, the Jewish Kant, the plebian explainer and leveler of all things who transfomed a once metaphysical religion into a refined form of intellectual egotism, serves as a rough indicator of when the Jews took the decisive step into worldliness. Now that the Western elites have "caught up," the distinctiveness of Judaism is growing less and less significant. Thus, while classical antisemitism is entirely right in decrying everything that it does, it is quite wrong in atributing these qualities to Jews as a race. The very WASPy CEOs and govees like the Clintons and the Davos set, along with Chinese and Indian grandees, are the "Jews" of today, with the remnants of ethinic Judaism of course continuing to play a signficant role; but another generation or two, and the history of this ethinic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust.

    There is a religious dimension that the above materialist description fails to capture, but that will need to be discussed in another context.

    this ethinic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust.

    Well, it’s not like the one drop rule does not work.

  9. @Intelligent Dasein
    The main point I would like to emphasize, at the risk of obliterating some nuance, is that what is objectionable about the Jews---their urbanity, perversity, and sophistication with abstract money---are not so much the race-traits of a "people" but the essence of decadent civilization itself. The elites of the Western world, formerly called WASPS (now an antiquated term), but more accurately known as globalists or oligarchs, embody all that was comprehended in the "Judaism" of classical antisemitism. The Jews reached this terminal point of civilization a thousand years before the Christian West did. Maimonides, the Jewish Kant, the plebian explainer and leveler of all things who transfomed a once metaphysical religion into a refined form of intellectual egotism, serves as a rough indicator of when the Jews took the decisive step into worldliness. Now that the Western elites have "caught up," the distinctiveness of Judaism is growing less and less significant. Thus, while classical antisemitism is entirely right in decrying everything that it does, it is quite wrong in atributing these qualities to Jews as a race. The very WASPy CEOs and govees like the Clintons and the Davos set, along with Chinese and Indian grandees, are the "Jews" of today, with the remnants of ethinic Judaism of course continuing to play a signficant role; but another generation or two, and the history of this ethinic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust.

    There is a religious dimension that the above materialist description fails to capture, but that will need to be discussed in another context.

    The main point I would like to emphasize, at the risk of obliterating some nuance, is that what is objectionable about the Jews—their urbanity, perversity, and sophistication with abstract money—are not so much the race-traits of a “people” but the essence of decadent civilization itself.

    Agreed. Western civilisation has not only achieved Full Decadence, it has achieved levels of decadence that no other civilisation could even have imagined possible.

    There are some questions to which we need answers. Is it possible to have capitalism without ending up with decadence? Was western decadence already baked into the cake of western civilisation by the early 19th century (by which time we had already produced the Marquis de Sade and Lord Byron, surely figures that only an already decadent civilisation could produce)? Was it the Jews who made the West decadent, or was it the West that made Jews decadent? Could monsters like Freud have been produced by the Jews without the corrupting influence of the West? Is urbanisation possible without ending in decadence?

  10. USAian feminism has been characterised by neo-Victorianism for decades. There was even a book called The New Victorians published back in 1995.

    • Replies: @216
    We can speak of feminists coming full circle.

    The original, first wave, of feminism was about suffrage and prohibition. It was led by certain aimless middle class women, then as now; but couched itself in terms of uplifting the lower classes.

    Victorian feminists were against alcohol and prostitution out of their anti-family results. On the former they failed, but achieved considerable restriction in the US on consumption. On the latter they succeded in de-norming prostitution, not merely making it illegal.

    What these restrictions were aimed at, was trying to channel male sexuality back towards provisioning and away from hedonism.

    That however, does not characterize the second and third wave of feminism, nor does it say anything about intersectionality.

    This idea that men are "toxic" and "low value", is quite distinct from "fish/bicycle" (II) or "the future is female" (III).

    There's a difference in telling men what not to do, and telling them what they must do.
  11. @WorkingClass

    It teaches that one’s personal gratification at the expense of another is ultimately what sex is about, a truly dehumanizing lesson, and a direct hit on one’s moral values and views towards women.
     
    Really? Is porn only about non-consensual sex? Or am I misunderstanding "at the expense of another"?

    It teaches that one’s personal gratification at the expense of another is ultimately what sex is about, a truly dehumanizing lesson, and a direct hit on one’s moral values and views towards women.

    Really? Is porn only about non-consensual sex? Or am I misunderstanding “at the expense of another”?

    Is it possible that there’s good porn and bad porn? Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be to ask if there is benign porn and destructive porn?

    There is certainly a difference between the older type of softcore porn and most hardcore porn. Old school softcore porn tended to put a great deal of emphasis on the woman’s pleasure (movies like Emmanuelle for instance). Hardcore porn emphasises male pleasure. And old school softcore porn did at least acknowledge that sex has an emotional content. I’d say that old-fashioned softcore porn was about people having sex. Hardcore porn is about body parts having sex.

    Maybe we need porn reform. Seriously. Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable maybe we should focus on encouraging the benign stuff and very strongly discouraging if not banning the destructive stuff. Make Porn Great Again.

    • Replies: @Dumbo

    Make Porn Great Again.
     
    LOL. The problem is that once you get to the extreme levels it's hard to go back. By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification. You start watching naked ladies and end up watching group sex or violent BDSM.

    Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable
     
    It's not unachievable, it's just that there is no will to do it. Nor much reason in a totally materialistic, non-religious view of the world.

    I haven't watched pr0n in years and don't miss it. On the other hand now I probably waste too much time reading the UR...
    , @Thea
    I’m not familiar enough with genre to refute your facts, but I thought the real issue of porn was its hyper stimulating effects. It’s related to obesity due to highly concentrated sugar and fats.

    “Consent” has replaced the morality surrounding sexual behavior that originated with God’s law. Consent is a perfect concept of the highest morality for a self-centered culture that replaced God with their own ego.

    Back on topic, the cheese coating on Cheetos was invented by a Jew.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Classical, European porn was more satisfying than contemporary porn. True, there was- sometimes- emotional content, but, more important for porn, there was an erotic titillation, gradual heightening of erotic tension. There was, in the best of them, some kind of story & shrewd manipulation with human sexual psychology.

    I never watched much porn, even when in adolescence (I've read more of it then), but from what I see now, porn is dull & dehumanizing. It caters mostly to the lowest elements of human nature: various extreme fetishes, pedophilia, sadism of the most degrading kind, racial & cultural fetishes (Asians, blacks, hijabs,..) etc. Japanese porn is basically a fusion of pedophilia & extreme sadistic degradation.

    The total effect must be some kind of saturation & disgust, combined with unrealistic expectations about female body (I don't know about women & gays).

  12. This article is missing a key point. What percent goes to Temple? Belief is secondary.

  13. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201803/surprising-new-data-the-world-s-most-popular-porn-site

    [I]f we focus only on sites that publish other content, then PornHub ranks number four behind only Wikipedia, Microsoft, and Netflix. … PornHub says its audience is 75 percent men and 25 percent women. This comes as a surprise. …I emailed PornHub asking how they came up with their gender breakdown. A spokesperson replied that the site relies on Google Analytics, a service of the giant search company that parses web traffic a zillion different ways. I use Google Analytics myself…. The depth and breadth of information are astonishing—and I use only the services available for free. Sites that pay get much, much more. So I’m (almost) ready to believe that women comprise around 25 percent of PornHub’s audience. I’m guessing that a significant proportion of PornHub’s women audience is bisexual or lesbian. Among women, “lesbian” is the #1 search category (below). […] The Internet porn audience skews younger, but still, 24 percent are 45 or older.

    The 2018 Pornhub report showed the proportion of female visitors increased by 3 percentage points over 2017.

    My guess is TERFs will continue to get steamrolled (ie JK Rowling),

    https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2018-year-in-review
    Interest in ‘trans’ (aka transgender) porn saw significant gains in 2018, in particular with a 167% increase in searches by men and more than 200% with visitors over the age of 45 (becoming the fifth most searched terms by those aged 45 to 64)

    The most views for a porn performer on Pornhub in 2018 was Riley Reid, and although they don’t say it, she is an interracial (ie sex with black men) specialist. I think the site is avoiding mentioning interracial, but it is very very popular judging by her and the other top girls view stats including the Kardashians’. My conclusion is the female opposition to male chauvinist libertinism, and white male opposition to black male on white female interracial sex and men in women’s clothes being accepted as real women will slowly but surely collapse as a result of these highly professionally produced genres that men seem more and more inclined to mastrubate to. Scott Adams has written about just how hypnotically sophisticated the state of the art in porn has got, and he thinks the ground zero is in Canada, which is where Pornhub is based.

    One nit to pick: Orthodox Jews will remain distinct as a group. What most people will think of when they hear about Jews a couple of generations down the road will be something like an urban, more salient version of the Amish today.

    Secular and liberal Jews today were sloughed off by ultra orthodox communities of Haredi Judaism from which they all descended. I see no reason to think that as the non-Haredi Jews disappear by intermarriage and low birth rate the special mental qualities of pure Jews will not be in great demand. By a process of osmosis a portion of the Haredi will be drawn off into the secular and liberal lifestyle. No matter if you live to 150 years old, forget about bidding farewell to domination of science, politics and especially culture in the West by Jews. Killing yourself will be the only way to get away from that spectacle.

    • Replies: @Dumbo

    By a process of osmosis a portion of the Haredi will be drawn off into the secular and liberal lifestyle.

     

    Yes, this is true. Many liberal Jews are born in Haredim families, just as SJW liberals come from families that were once traditional Christian.

    No matter if you live to 150 years old, forget about bidding farewell to domination of science, politics and especially culture in the West by Jews. Killing yourself will be the only way to get away from that spectacle.

     

    This, not necessarily. You can separate yourself from Jews. But for that to happen you need two things, that used to exist in Medieval Europe. One is for secular jews to dwindle and be replaced by the exclusively religious Haredim Jews. This is what is happening now. But there is a second thing that existed then, which is the exclusion or separation (or ghettoization) of Jews from regular Western society. Since the Haredim to a large extent isolate or "ghettify" themselves, this may become easier than with a large secular population, also it is likely that anti-semitism at some point will grow in the former West, especially if there is a world economic crisis or war.

    Besides, it is likely that if the Chinese really end up dominating the world as many fear, they will at some point try to "ghettify" the Jews to avoid competition. Of course the Jews are already predicting this and so many are marrying Asian hoes like crazy.
    , @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Most Canadian men have given up, and either hook up with as many girls as possible, or cope with being an incel.

    Canadian women are either roasties or miserable professional women who are 35 and still haven't found the one.

    Maybe that is the end game of the porn industry.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Secular and liberal Jews today were sloughed off by ultra orthodox communities of Haredi Judaism from which they all descended."
     
    Yes, this is what Intelligent Dasein (PBUH) misses when he says things like,

    "another generation or two, and the history of this ethnic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust"
     
    or

    "we have pretty much seen the last of Judaism as an historically significant force in the West."
     
    Most HBD things are questions of degree or rates of change, (or as Steve likes to say, glasses simultaneously half empty and half full), so it can be difficult for hard-nosed objective thinkers to conceptualize this fluid environment accurately.

    At the moment, about an eighth of "Jews" are the orthodox (i.e., really actually Jews). These people breed like crazy, on par with the Amish. Now, as with the Amish, not all of those born to them go on to remain orthodox. Enough do to maintain and increase the numbers of the orthodox, but there is still a large surplus who "slough off" to become the people whom one still thinks of as "Jews".

    In essence, there is a kind of half-life from the orthodox community. If you have a fertility rate of about six, as I understand the Orthodox Jews do, and, for example, a third of the offspring "slough off" to something less orthodox, well, you still double the base population each generation while throwing off a whole extra surplus generation of secularizing descendants.

    So when you look at today's population of Jews, you are seeing a one-eighth high-fertility core, "sloughing off" a trail lower fertility but more materially productive secularizers, who in turn produce lower fertility and higher secularity offspring until you arrive the edge, full of prominent but terminal cases like Andrea Dworkin and Woody Allen.

    The fact that the core matrix population is not the majority creates the illusion of irrelevance, but this as false as saying that because the head of a comet is only a very small part of what you see, the head is irrelevant to the comet. In fact, the head is the source of the whole comet, irrespective of its visibility. To extend the comet metaphor, at times of higher or lower solar wind, the comet's visible tail may grow more or less prominent, but this does not mean the comet itself is about to go extinct.

    As regards the comparison with Amish for white gentiles, it is valid, but there are at least a couple of distinctions to make. One is that though a minority, the Orthodox Jewish population if still a substantial minority of Jews, about an eighth, as mentioned. So much so, that most Jews can probably name their most recent Orthodox ancestor, who probably lived only a generation or three ago. By contrast, Amish are a tiny tiny minority of gentile whites, from whom no recognizable ethnic group descend. The Amish:white gentile ratio is two or three orders of magnitude smaller than the Orthodox:Jewish ratio.
    This matters. Another distinction is the different cultural orientation, made by John Gruskos, above.

  14. @Jay Fink
    Jews marrying gentiles (or not marrying and havung children) is another reason Judaism is in decline and will become rare. As recently as the 1960s when my parents married there was tremendous pressure for Jews to marry other Jews. It seemed by the 80s this changed. When I was a teen in the 80s someone tried to set me up with a Jewish girl but she was only intetested in my tall, athletic gentile friend. My Judaism meant nothing to her, absolutely nothing.

    Jews marrying gentiles (or not marrying and havung children) is another reason Judaism is in decline and will become rare

    BS, jews are breeding like crazy, orthodox jews are the source of the secular international jews. This means that there are an endless supply of all the Soros, Zuckerbergs, Marx of this world.

    • Agree: druid55
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Orthodox Jews are far more likely to be Trump supporting Republicans than non-Orthodox Jews. That's not necessarily the opposite of being secular and international, but they are much less cosmopolitan.

    One strange aspect of the contemporary political landscape is how younger blacks and Jews are more pro-Trump/pro-Republican than older blacks and Jews are.
  15. @dfordoom


    It teaches that one’s personal gratification at the expense of another is ultimately what sex is about, a truly dehumanizing lesson, and a direct hit on one’s moral values and views towards women.
     
    Really? Is porn only about non-consensual sex? Or am I misunderstanding “at the expense of another”?
     
    Is it possible that there's good porn and bad porn? Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be to ask if there is benign porn and destructive porn?

    There is certainly a difference between the older type of softcore porn and most hardcore porn. Old school softcore porn tended to put a great deal of emphasis on the woman's pleasure (movies like Emmanuelle for instance). Hardcore porn emphasises male pleasure. And old school softcore porn did at least acknowledge that sex has an emotional content. I'd say that old-fashioned softcore porn was about people having sex. Hardcore porn is about body parts having sex.

    Maybe we need porn reform. Seriously. Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable maybe we should focus on encouraging the benign stuff and very strongly discouraging if not banning the destructive stuff. Make Porn Great Again.

    Make Porn Great Again.

    LOL. The problem is that once you get to the extreme levels it’s hard to go back. By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification. You start watching naked ladies and end up watching group sex or violent BDSM.

    Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable

    It’s not unachievable, it’s just that there is no will to do it. Nor much reason in a totally materialistic, non-religious view of the world.

    I haven’t watched pr0n in years and don’t miss it. On the other hand now I probably waste too much time reading the UR…

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    "By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification. You start watching naked ladies and end up watching group sex or violent BDSM."

    What, pray tell, is porn's logic?

    How does porn demand more and more extreme content?

    Does "porn" have agency?

    Do you have irrefutable factual support for your assertions?

    Your asseveration that those who start watching naked ladies inevitably graduate to watching group sex or violent BDSM is even more laughable than the marijuana is a gateway drug peddled by white FBI, white big conservative, Inc., and white socialist types often found feeding at the public trough.

    OF course, it was the white man who has given us the welfare state, the warfare state, the administrative state, the income tax, the estate tax, the excise tax, the gift tax, empire, and all the rest.

    In order to save our civilization, we white folk need to shed ourselves of the deplorable totalitarian tendencies we have so often unleashed upon ourselves.
    , @MBlanc46
    Draconian enough punishments—decades of incarceration, amputation of body parts—and porn would go away.
    , @silviosilver

    By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification.
     
    What complete crap.

    All that's happened is that pornographers discovered that some people's tastes ran to more extreme forms of sex and they set out to provide the product.

    Perhaps my own experiences are unique (though I highly doubt it), but I've never felt anything except deeply revolted whenever something more extreme than I'm comfortable with has flashed across my screen.

    With porn we run into the same issues as with other vices, namely that some people form harmful addictions and then cries go out to deny the product to society as a whole - alcohol and recreational drugs being the two biggies.
  16. Feminism was originally about increasing female choice. This meant women should be able to pursue an education or enter any career they wanted to or marry who they wanted. They may not have approved of something like women entering various forms of sex work like the porn industry or becoming strippers but since they believed women should have choice in picking careers they were willing to tolerate that sort of thing. In recent years, though, feminism has turned into a belief that women should become more like men. This means encouraging them to go into traditionally male careers they have little interest in. It also means discouraging them from traditionally female careers or not having a career at all.

    Now any form of sex work was always looked down on and women were discouraged from entering it (rightly so) but sex related work itself was always largely a traditionally female career. Women don’t have the same level of interest as being consumers in this area as men. There was a strip club that opened here in Indianapolis in the nineties where half the club was a male strip club for women and the other half was a strip club with female strippers for men. After six months would you like to guess which half shut down for lack of business? So since any kind of sex related work was seldom a male career and modern day feminists want women to pursue traditionally male careers that gives them a reason there to instinctively be against pornography since men are the primary buyers and women are the highly paid actors and stars. So the accusation of exploitation of women may very well be true but feminists have this additional reason to oppose porn and other forms of sex related work and the increase in feminist opposition to porn may have as much to do with this switch in feminist belief from increasing female choice to restricting female choice to try to get women to act more like men and enter traditionally male careers.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    and the increase in feminist opposition to porn may have as much to do with this switch in feminist belief from increasing female choice to restricting female choice
     
    There's an extremely interesting point which feminists always (deliberately) overlook. The increasing numbers of men getting sexual gratification from porn has been paralleled by an enormous explosion in the number of women getting their sexual gratification from vibrators.

    Is it possible that people are having less real sex and fewer children because more and more women are choosing vibrators as their main source of sexual pleasure?

    I suspect that while masturbation might be more common among males today than half a century ago, masturbation is now more common among women by several orders of magnitude compared to fifty years ago. Why aren't right-wingers pushing to ban vibrators?

    I should add that I personally am not advocating banning vibrators!
  17. @Sean

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201803/surprising-new-data-the-world-s-most-popular-porn-site

    [I]f we focus only on sites that publish other content, then PornHub ranks number four behind only Wikipedia, Microsoft, and Netflix. ... PornHub says its audience is 75 percent men and 25 percent women. This comes as a surprise. ...I emailed PornHub asking how they came up with their gender breakdown. A spokesperson replied that the site relies on Google Analytics, a service of the giant search company that parses web traffic a zillion different ways. I use Google Analytics myself.... The depth and breadth of information are astonishing—and I use only the services available for free. Sites that pay get much, much more. So I’m (almost) ready to believe that women comprise around 25 percent of PornHub’s audience. I’m guessing that a significant proportion of PornHub’s women audience is bisexual or lesbian. Among women, “lesbian” is the #1 search category (below). [...] The Internet porn audience skews younger, but still, 24 percent are 45 or older.
     

    The 2018 Pornhub report showed the proportion of female visitors increased by 3 percentage points over 2017.

    My guess is TERFs will continue to get steamrolled (ie JK Rowling),
     

    https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2018-year-in-review
    Interest in ‘trans’ (aka transgender) porn saw significant gains in 2018, in particular with a 167% increase in searches by men and more than 200% with visitors over the age of 45 (becoming the fifth most searched terms by those aged 45 to 64)
     
    The most views for a porn performer on Pornhub in 2018 was Riley Reid, and although they don't say it, she is an interracial (ie sex with black men) specialist. I think the site is avoiding mentioning interracial, but it is very very popular judging by her and the other top girls view stats including the Kardashians'. My conclusion is the female opposition to male chauvinist libertinism, and white male opposition to black male on white female interracial sex and men in women's clothes being accepted as real women will slowly but surely collapse as a result of these highly professionally produced genres that men seem more and more inclined to mastrubate to. Scott Adams has written about just how hypnotically sophisticated the state of the art in porn has got, and he thinks the ground zero is in Canada, which is where Pornhub is based.

    One nit to pick: Orthodox Jews will remain distinct as a group. What most people will think of when they hear about Jews a couple of generations down the road will be something like an urban, more salient version of the Amish today.
     
    Secular and liberal Jews today were sloughed off by ultra orthodox communities of Haredi Judaism from which they all descended. I see no reason to think that as the non-Haredi Jews disappear by intermarriage and low birth rate the special mental qualities of pure Jews will not be in great demand. By a process of osmosis a portion of the Haredi will be drawn off into the secular and liberal lifestyle. No matter if you live to 150 years old, forget about bidding farewell to domination of science, politics and especially culture in the West by Jews. Killing yourself will be the only way to get away from that spectacle.

    By a process of osmosis a portion of the Haredi will be drawn off into the secular and liberal lifestyle.

    Yes, this is true. Many liberal Jews are born in Haredim families, just as SJW liberals come from families that were once traditional Christian.

    No matter if you live to 150 years old, forget about bidding farewell to domination of science, politics and especially culture in the West by Jews. Killing yourself will be the only way to get away from that spectacle.

    This, not necessarily. You can separate yourself from Jews. But for that to happen you need two things, that used to exist in Medieval Europe. One is for secular jews to dwindle and be replaced by the exclusively religious Haredim Jews. This is what is happening now. But there is a second thing that existed then, which is the exclusion or separation (or ghettoization) of Jews from regular Western society. Since the Haredim to a large extent isolate or “ghettify” themselves, this may become easier than with a large secular population, also it is likely that anti-semitism at some point will grow in the former West, especially if there is a world economic crisis or war.

    Besides, it is likely that if the Chinese really end up dominating the world as many fear, they will at some point try to “ghettify” the Jews to avoid competition. Of course the Jews are already predicting this and so many are marrying Asian hoes like crazy.

    • Replies: @Sean
    I think demographic growth in Haredi communities means there are on the verge of outgrowing their niche. Politically they are too visible to get their own constituencies (the NYC one was broken up I believe). Furthermore, there will be be a huge pull factor for significant numbers of American Haredi Jews as the liberal Jews fade away. The Haredim are an untapped reservoir of exceptional intellectual ability. The marriage practices encouraging the mating of the most intelligent Jews to each other and then having many children that MacDonald described in APSTDA are been ongoing in the large and growing UltraOrthodox community for a long time. If you are looking for the “homozygous fringe” genius Jews that is where to look, and such kids are online nowadays looking at the world and its power, money and sex in a way that their community cannot easily police,

    By occupational profile and vested interest, Jewry is and will continue to be relatively unaffected by declining productive capacity. China can leave Jewish domination of culture in place to pacefy Western society with mass entertainment (Hollywood, porn, sitcoms, sports and the controlled media). Given the received wisdom of shareholder value, which only Elizabeth Warren and a few others question, hardly any basic R&D is being done. Paul Singer ect will be asset stripping the most innovative companies before they get off the launch pad. Government funded research is money down the drain, because to keep their jobs the CEOs will have to get into the Chinese market, and they are not being let in without handing over technology to China. Fearful of blacklisting, Western companies daren't complain about the shakedowns.


    FORMER Senator Jim Webb, in 2012, introduced a bill that would have prohibited U.S. firms from transferring technologies that were developed with U.S. government assistance to China without the express permission of the U.S. government. In doing so, he noted that General Electric transferred valuable avionics technology to the Aviation Industry Corporation of China even though the transferred technology had been developed as a beneficiary of federal research projects.
     
    Jews were selected not so much for understanding and controlling nature, but rather for mastery over other human beings. It will not take many of them to keep the West going in the same direction.
  18. Anon[851] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    The main point I would like to emphasize, at the risk of obliterating some nuance, is that what is objectionable about the Jews---their urbanity, perversity, and sophistication with abstract money---are not so much the race-traits of a "people" but the essence of decadent civilization itself. The elites of the Western world, formerly called WASPS (now an antiquated term), but more accurately known as globalists or oligarchs, embody all that was comprehended in the "Judaism" of classical antisemitism. The Jews reached this terminal point of civilization a thousand years before the Christian West did. Maimonides, the Jewish Kant, the plebian explainer and leveler of all things who transfomed a once metaphysical religion into a refined form of intellectual egotism, serves as a rough indicator of when the Jews took the decisive step into worldliness. Now that the Western elites have "caught up," the distinctiveness of Judaism is growing less and less significant. Thus, while classical antisemitism is entirely right in decrying everything that it does, it is quite wrong in atributing these qualities to Jews as a race. The very WASPy CEOs and govees like the Clintons and the Davos set, along with Chinese and Indian grandees, are the "Jews" of today, with the remnants of ethinic Judaism of course continuing to play a signficant role; but another generation or two, and the history of this ethinic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust.

    There is a religious dimension that the above materialist description fails to capture, but that will need to be discussed in another context.

    Judaism, centered around the synagogue, is newer than Christianity. It developed sometime after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. But that aside, Ashkenazim are not even the same people as the Jews in the Bible.

    The 2013 study co-author Martin Richards, an archaeogeneticist at the University of Huddersfield in England, said that while Ashkenazi Jews have lived in Europe for many centuries, the results of the study using DNA samples show that most European Jews descend from local people who converted to Judaism, not individuals who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago.

    https://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html

    Jewish historian and professor Jim Wald in the Times of Israel blog:

    …It is well known that, sometime in the eighth to ninth centuries, the Khazars, a warlike Turkic people, converted to Judaism and ruled over a vast domain in what became southern Russia and Ukraine. What happened to them after the Russians destroyed that empire around the eleventh century has been a mystery. Many have speculated that the Khazars became the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews.

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    The Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi origins has been pretty thoroughly refuted by modern genomics, as your LiveScience linked article mentions in passing. OTOH, LiveScience somewhat glosses over and misstates what the genomics actually do show when it says:

    "most European Jews descend from local people who converted to Judaism, not individuals who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago"
     
    It would be more correct to say most European Jews descend from local women who converted to Judaism, and from men who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago.
  19. I have a Jewish friend who practices his religion but is an ardent atheist, it is only a contradiction if you don’t understand Judaism.

    • Agree: Anonymousse
    • Replies: @druid55
    Their religion is themselves!!!!
    , @Dissident

    I have a Jewish friend who practices his religion but is an ardent atheist, it is only a contradiction if you don’t understand Judaism.
     
    Just the opposite; only one profoundly ignorant of Judaism or disingenuous could suggest what you did. In Judaism, ritual observance and commandments fulfilled by a non-believer have no intrinsic value. The only value would be if such observance ultimately leads to belief (i.e., acceptance of the core tenets of the faith), or serves as training for future observance that will be accompanied with faith.

    The misconception here, which would appear to be at least somewhat common, may arise from Judaism's great emphasis on practice and the numerous, highly rigorous strictures and demands that it places on one's daily life. But it is belief that is actually paramount. As bad as the worse sinner may be viewed, a heretic is viewed as worse, and an atheist worst still.

    (The logic and justice of this is questioned. After all, to sin despite belief can be seen as inherently hypocritical. And can belief really be compelled? The answer is that we believe that every man, on an instinctive level, knows that the Creator must exist. And those who deny His existence are, in truth, deceiving themselves. What motivates such self-deception? The desire to be free to pursue one's passions and whims, unimpeded by the constraints and burdens of conscience that would otherwise impose themselves.)

  20. Judaism is a religion, just not one that anybody believes anymore.

    Yet this was the only thing keeping Jews distinct as a group.

    Says who? They’ve got a language, country, history, distinct appearance, distinct value system, and distinct cultural identifiers to identify with, not to even mention the sometimes associated religion which is in some cases vestigial but nonetheless culturally salient. They’ve got big money and big popular plus elite international social support behind keeping that thing together.

    They are about as distinct as a group gets and the only people who think otherwise are oblivious non jews when it’s convenient for jews. There’s every reason to pessimistically believe they’ll outlive the hollowed out and much thinner collapsing identities of post christian post national western european nations

    Big portions of global jewry have been non religious for a long long time and yet here they are… an identifiable ethnic group self consciously sitting right on top of the pile once again.

    This seems like just being obtuse because I can’t believe an educated person would believe this.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  21. If globalizer Jews are prominent in the porn industry, then forcibly expel those Jews and keep expelling Jews till the porn industry subsides a bit.

    Most honest Jews know that their days as subversive nation wreckers in European Christian nations are coming to an end, that is why Israel must be used as a receptacle for all the newly expelled Jews that will be leaving European Christian nations.

    Jews currently in France, Canada, England and the USA can be expelled first to determine which methods are the best and then mass expulsions can be used to minimize such concerns as the proliferation of porn and cultural degeneracy in general.

    The new political party called White Core America will ban the ownership or control of any and all elements of the mass media by Jews or non-Whites, and that will solve the propaganda problem on the internet or the newspapers or radio or movies or TV and the like.

    Let the Jews be heart surgeons or rug merchants, and tell them that globalization is ending and their services are no longer required.

    If someone has a quicker way to topple the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire than by raising the federal funds rate to 20 percent, please feel free to share it.

    Debt and demography, you damn dumb apes!

    COMCAST and Viacom and Disney and the New York Times and the Jew compliant antipodean scum in the Murdoch Mob who control Fox News and the Wall Street Journal can all be dealt with if you want it enough!

    It’s always about the ruling class and the mass media and the monetary system and the demography.

    Debt repudiations and debt liquidations and the implosion of the asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate will solve the problem of the ever widening sewer of the mass media.

    Attention all White Core Americans born after 1965: Implode the asset bubbles and refuse to pay the debts and you’ll get your land and territory and power back.

    The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is using monetary extremism and porno extremism to stay in power.

  22. Being a porn scold is not healthy.

  23. The atheist jews I know respect jewish traditions and holidays more than many nominal christians for whom the extent of their religious practice is celebrating Santa and the Easter bunny with a shopping spree.
    A jew will practice jewish traditions despite being an atheist, a christian will claim to be a believer despite rarely putting a foot in a church. They are different ways to define oneself.
    Intermarriage often results in conversion to judaism. See Ivanka Trump, the first jewish member of a First Family ever.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    Intermarriage often results in conversion to judaism. See Ivanka Trump, the first jewish member of a First Family ever.
     
    In order to be valid, conversion must be free of any ulterior motive.
    ~ ~ ~
    In response to many of the comments:
    https://media.aish.com/documents/will+your+grandchildren+be+jewish-revisited.pdf

    https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/WillYourGrandchildrenBeJews/

    In the first iteration of our article, we concluded that short of a major change in the choices made with respect to their commitment to Judaism, the vast majority of American Jews between the ages of 18-29 will not have Jewish descendants within the next three decades. [Emphasis mine- Dis.] The conspicuous exception to this trend is American Jews or their descendants who identify themselves as being Orthodox. In this updated version of our article, we have utilized a similar format to its namesake published after the culmination of the NJPS 2000-2001.
     
    Requisite disclaimer: Citing, linking-to or quoting ≠ endorsing. I specifically disavow the Zionism found on the sites I linked above.
  24. @Dumbo

    Make Porn Great Again.
     
    LOL. The problem is that once you get to the extreme levels it's hard to go back. By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification. You start watching naked ladies and end up watching group sex or violent BDSM.

    Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable
     
    It's not unachievable, it's just that there is no will to do it. Nor much reason in a totally materialistic, non-religious view of the world.

    I haven't watched pr0n in years and don't miss it. On the other hand now I probably waste too much time reading the UR...

    “By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification. You start watching naked ladies and end up watching group sex or violent BDSM.”

    What, pray tell, is porn’s logic?

    How does porn demand more and more extreme content?

    Does “porn” have agency?

    Do you have irrefutable factual support for your assertions?

    Your asseveration that those who start watching naked ladies inevitably graduate to watching group sex or violent BDSM is even more laughable than the marijuana is a gateway drug peddled by white FBI, white big conservative, Inc., and white socialist types often found feeding at the public trough.

    OF course, it was the white man who has given us the welfare state, the warfare state, the administrative state, the income tax, the estate tax, the excise tax, the gift tax, empire, and all the rest.

    In order to save our civilization, we white folk need to shed ourselves of the deplorable totalitarian tendencies we have so often unleashed upon ourselves.

    • Replies: @Dumbo

    "How does porn demand more and more extreme content?"
     
    Porn watchers, and therefore, porn producers.

    If visual sexual stimulation didn't need new material each time, then you could just fap to the same video or picture over and over again and there would be no need to produce new, more radical stuff.

    There are several experiments about this but I'm too lazy to Google now.

    OF course, it was the white man who has given us the welfare state, the warfare state, the administrative state, the income tax, the estate tax, the excise tax, the gift tax, empire, and all the rest
     

    What about the pornware state? If it is true that there is not much money nowadays in selling porn, as most is given away for free, then who is paying to make it?

    Anyway, what is it about libertarians and drugs and porn? Is this really the "ultimate liberty"? I don't consume porn, so, I don't mind if it is totally censored or prohibited, and the same goes for most drugs. I think most people will agree that porn and drugs are, at best, an individual waste of time, and at worst, social evils.

  25. @Liberty Mike
    "By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification. You start watching naked ladies and end up watching group sex or violent BDSM."

    What, pray tell, is porn's logic?

    How does porn demand more and more extreme content?

    Does "porn" have agency?

    Do you have irrefutable factual support for your assertions?

    Your asseveration that those who start watching naked ladies inevitably graduate to watching group sex or violent BDSM is even more laughable than the marijuana is a gateway drug peddled by white FBI, white big conservative, Inc., and white socialist types often found feeding at the public trough.

    OF course, it was the white man who has given us the welfare state, the warfare state, the administrative state, the income tax, the estate tax, the excise tax, the gift tax, empire, and all the rest.

    In order to save our civilization, we white folk need to shed ourselves of the deplorable totalitarian tendencies we have so often unleashed upon ourselves.

    “How does porn demand more and more extreme content?”

    Porn watchers, and therefore, porn producers.

    If visual sexual stimulation didn’t need new material each time, then you could just fap to the same video or picture over and over again and there would be no need to produce new, more radical stuff.

    There are several experiments about this but I’m too lazy to Google now.

    OF course, it was the white man who has given us the welfare state, the warfare state, the administrative state, the income tax, the estate tax, the excise tax, the gift tax, empire, and all the rest

    What about the pornware state? If it is true that there is not much money nowadays in selling porn, as most is given away for free, then who is paying to make it?

    Anyway, what is it about libertarians and drugs and porn? Is this really the “ultimate liberty”? I don’t consume porn, so, I don’t mind if it is totally censored or prohibited, and the same goes for most drugs. I think most people will agree that porn and drugs are, at best, an individual waste of time, and at worst, social evils.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    How do you know porn watchers demand more and more extreme content? Assuming, arguendo, that there are porn watchers who do demand such escalation of extreme content, what percentage of porn viewers do they constitute?

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?

    The pornware state? Again, assuming arguendo the existence of such an entity, has the state compelled you to be a patron of porn? Has the pornware state forcibly confiscated your assets under color of law? Has the pornware state, like the empire, murdered hundreds of thousands of people in foreign lands?

    The ultimate liberty is being let alone, undisturbed by blacks and browns, busy-bodies, cucky-conservatives, do-gooders, feminists, good government types, and scolds.

    Do you own any firearms? There are many people who take the position that they don't care if guns are regulated or prohibited because they do not own them.

    Guns don't kill people; neither do pictures of naked ladies.
    , @Mark G.
    "Anyway, what is it about libertarians and drugs and porn?"

    Libertarians just think the primary purpose of government is to protect individuals against crimes committed by others, not to protect individuals from the consequences of their own bad choices. A study was once done that showed that the three leading causes of death in the U.S. are 1.) smoking, 2.) poor diet and 3.) alcohol. So if you really think the purpose of government is to protect people from themselves then the first three things the government should do is 1.) ban all tobacco products and prosecute both sellers and users, 2.) ban all junk food and prosecute all sellers and users and 3.) ban alcohol and prosecute all sellers and users. I believe we tried number three already. If it didn't work before why would it work now? If you actually did all this it would require a massive police state to enforce it all. This would not only be highly expensive and intrusive but it would take police focus away from crimes like murder, theft and rape. It would also lead to corruption of the police as sellers of these goods attempted to bribe them, a crime wave as sellers fought over sales territory, and a widespread flouting of the law which would engender a disrespect for the law in general.

    So it's not so much that libertarians want to defend porn and drugs as that they want to defend the general principle that the government shouldn't engage in massive intervention in people's personal habits because they foresee the negative results that would flow from that.

  26. @Dumbo

    By a process of osmosis a portion of the Haredi will be drawn off into the secular and liberal lifestyle.

     

    Yes, this is true. Many liberal Jews are born in Haredim families, just as SJW liberals come from families that were once traditional Christian.

    No matter if you live to 150 years old, forget about bidding farewell to domination of science, politics and especially culture in the West by Jews. Killing yourself will be the only way to get away from that spectacle.

     

    This, not necessarily. You can separate yourself from Jews. But for that to happen you need two things, that used to exist in Medieval Europe. One is for secular jews to dwindle and be replaced by the exclusively religious Haredim Jews. This is what is happening now. But there is a second thing that existed then, which is the exclusion or separation (or ghettoization) of Jews from regular Western society. Since the Haredim to a large extent isolate or "ghettify" themselves, this may become easier than with a large secular population, also it is likely that anti-semitism at some point will grow in the former West, especially if there is a world economic crisis or war.

    Besides, it is likely that if the Chinese really end up dominating the world as many fear, they will at some point try to "ghettify" the Jews to avoid competition. Of course the Jews are already predicting this and so many are marrying Asian hoes like crazy.

    I think demographic growth in Haredi communities means there are on the verge of outgrowing their niche. Politically they are too visible to get their own constituencies (the NYC one was broken up I believe). Furthermore, there will be be a huge pull factor for significant numbers of American Haredi Jews as the liberal Jews fade away. The Haredim are an untapped reservoir of exceptional intellectual ability. The marriage practices encouraging the mating of the most intelligent Jews to each other and then having many children that MacDonald described in APSTDA are been ongoing in the large and growing UltraOrthodox community for a long time. If you are looking for the “homozygous fringe” genius Jews that is where to look, and such kids are online nowadays looking at the world and its power, money and sex in a way that their community cannot easily police,

    By occupational profile and vested interest, Jewry is and will continue to be relatively unaffected by declining productive capacity. China can leave Jewish domination of culture in place to pacefy Western society with mass entertainment (Hollywood, porn, sitcoms, sports and the controlled media). Given the received wisdom of shareholder value, which only Elizabeth Warren and a few others question, hardly any basic R&D is being done. Paul Singer ect will be asset stripping the most innovative companies before they get off the launch pad. Government funded research is money down the drain, because to keep their jobs the CEOs will have to get into the Chinese market, and they are not being let in without handing over technology to China. Fearful of blacklisting, Western companies daren’t complain about the shakedowns.

    FORMER Senator Jim Webb, in 2012, introduced a bill that would have prohibited U.S. firms from transferring technologies that were developed with U.S. government assistance to China without the express permission of the U.S. government. In doing so, he noted that General Electric transferred valuable avionics technology to the Aviation Industry Corporation of China even though the transferred technology had been developed as a beneficiary of federal research projects.

    Jews were selected not so much for understanding and controlling nature, but rather for mastery over other human beings. It will not take many of them to keep the West going in the same direction.

  27. @Dumbo

    "How does porn demand more and more extreme content?"
     
    Porn watchers, and therefore, porn producers.

    If visual sexual stimulation didn't need new material each time, then you could just fap to the same video or picture over and over again and there would be no need to produce new, more radical stuff.

    There are several experiments about this but I'm too lazy to Google now.

    OF course, it was the white man who has given us the welfare state, the warfare state, the administrative state, the income tax, the estate tax, the excise tax, the gift tax, empire, and all the rest
     

    What about the pornware state? If it is true that there is not much money nowadays in selling porn, as most is given away for free, then who is paying to make it?

    Anyway, what is it about libertarians and drugs and porn? Is this really the "ultimate liberty"? I don't consume porn, so, I don't mind if it is totally censored or prohibited, and the same goes for most drugs. I think most people will agree that porn and drugs are, at best, an individual waste of time, and at worst, social evils.

    How do you know porn watchers demand more and more extreme content? Assuming, arguendo, that there are porn watchers who do demand such escalation of extreme content, what percentage of porn viewers do they constitute?

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?

    The pornware state? Again, assuming arguendo the existence of such an entity, has the state compelled you to be a patron of porn? Has the pornware state forcibly confiscated your assets under color of law? Has the pornware state, like the empire, murdered hundreds of thousands of people in foreign lands?

    The ultimate liberty is being let alone, undisturbed by blacks and browns, busy-bodies, cucky-conservatives, do-gooders, feminists, good government types, and scolds.

    Do you own any firearms? There are many people who take the position that they don’t care if guns are regulated or prohibited because they do not own them.

    Guns don’t kill people; neither do pictures of naked ladies.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    How do you know porn watchers demand more and more extreme content? Assuming, arguendo, that there are porn watchers who do demand such escalation of extreme content, what percentage of porn viewers do they constitute?

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?
     
    I'm not convinced by the "users demand more and more extreme material" argument either. New material certainly. That's why people used to subscribe to girlie magazines rather than just buying one copy ever. They didn't want to look at the same pictures of the same girls over and over but were quite happy when next month's issue included different photos of different girls. The material was no more extreme, just different. Different girls, different faces, different bodies.

    The only reason why escalation to more extreme material is now something of a problem is that the extreme material is too easy to access. There's too much temptation to try the more extreme stuff. Fifty years ago users were very unlikely to escalate beyond girlie magazines and softcore movies because obtaining more extreme material was very expensive, very difficult and usually illegal. Most people were simply not prepared to put themselves to that amount of aggravation and expense.

    Which is why I seriously believe that access to the softcore material should be made easier (possibly even unrestricted), while access to the harder stuff should be made very difficult indeed (if not impossible). The vast majority of porn consumers will choose the easy option and stick to softcore.

    And if you look at old school girlie-magazine type porn there's absolutely no hostility towards women involved. If anything it's as much a celebration of female beauty as Velázquez's Rokeby Venus or Titian's Venus of Urbino. I find it difficult to see anything sinister about this.
    , @silviosilver

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?
     
    His argument doesn't hold water.

    It's like saying that since nobody would watch the same football game over and over, people demand more and more extreme football games.

  28. Interesting pairing of COTWs.

    Attempts at trapping the leftist in their own pseudo logic is not the way to go. Especially it the tactic is aimed at helping boys and men.

    Convincing the left to ban one part of commercial degeneracy is pushing on a rope. Leftism is wrought with degeneracy.

    The rise of pron is not some coincidence; pron is essential to the efforts to normalize ugliness; the indulgence in unbridled hedonistic impulses, and decoupling of sex from forming healthy relationships and families.

    Moreover, if the framing of this argument is that it is hurting boys, then expect even more resistance.

    To the left, boys are part of the problem impeding progress. Evidence how their fledgling masculinity has been a massive target for the social engineering of the left for decades. Killing healthy masculinity in the cradle is the goal, not something to be avoided.

    To the left, the problem with pron is that boys are attracted to it. It exists because boys are natural abusers of women. Everything can be reduced to the lefts first position vis a vis boys.

    Women are the real victims of war. Remember that when framing arguments around sex with the zero-sum identity-hierarchy driven leftist.

    A better – but still retarded, attempt would be to appeal to the natural victim-oppressor narrative and go after pron because it objectifies young women and encourages the idea that men using women for pleasure is ok.

    After all, something like 50% of young women use porn. Most have sent nudes of themselves to boys. Pron is not a ‘male problem’.

    Just table for a moment the fact that most of the left also hates natural femininity and that the bulk of entertainment and what else passes for culture openly encourages young women to degrade themselves and objectify themselves on the regular. Its empowerment. See Tinder, Instagram, tumblr, facebook, and tv and film.

    I get the appeal of turning the puritanical impulses of the leftist religion against things like porn in order to carve out a win for civilization, but leftism is femcentric; appealing to the interest of ‘our boys’ just knocks up against the rigid hierarchy of leftism’s identity politics.

    A central tenet of leftism in our culture is that our boys are inherently flawed and thus need to be educated by women, civilized by manifold social constraints and thought policing, and ultimately handicapped such that women can be made equal.

    The badness of boys should be nauseating to any who commits even misdemeanor notice crimes.

    To the left: pron is bad because boys want to view pron. The solution of the left to this pron problem would be chemical castration long before they banned pron. For a facsimile see ritalin and the education ‘problem’ of young boys.

    Pron is a problem because the left has won the culture war. Our boys can’t be saved by going after one channel of progressive degeneracy head-on, for the sake of boys and nothing else. There is no negotiating with the left. Especially if net he appeal is to restore a pro-civilization cultural component centered around male wellness.

    The fact that pron is so easily framed as a ‘problem with boys’ without looking upstream, without addressing the totality of the users, producers, and channels of pron is telling on its own.

    If pron is attacked, I am sure all the good and concerned parents would also attack the multiple sources of dopamine addiction with young women, eg smart phones, social media, and the obvious corollary that those sources have with of young men experience viewing pron.

    The kids are not okay. The left hates kids. Especially boys. Start there.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The rise of pron is not some coincidence; pron is essential to the efforts to normalize ugliness; the indulgence in unbridled hedonistic impulses, and decoupling of sex from forming healthy relationships and families.
     
    The normalisation of ugliness started long before porn was a major thing. Take a look at western art in the first two decades of the 20th century. The campaign to celebrate ugliness and depravity had already hit top gear.

    Hedonism was already becoming the major driving force of civilisation.

    And the traditional family was starting to fall apart 60 years ago, long before the porn explosion.

    You're looking for an easy answer to something quite complicated. Western society was showing definite signs of unhealthiness before the First World War. Urbanisation, the decay of religion, the breaking up of traditional communities by the Industrial Revolution, mass entertainment, the capitalist emphasis on greed and on money as the only measure of value, the pointless butchery of the First World War, democracy (a system of political prostitution).

    By the early 60s you could add the removal of the social stigma on divorce and the invention of the contraceptive pill, plus feminism and an increasingly aggressive homosexual lobby.

    You're free to find porn distasteful but blaming it for our social collapse is going way too far.

    A far as the relatively recent boom in internet porn is concerned, I'd argue that social media is at least as harmful, probably more so.
  29. @Dumbo

    "How does porn demand more and more extreme content?"
     
    Porn watchers, and therefore, porn producers.

    If visual sexual stimulation didn't need new material each time, then you could just fap to the same video or picture over and over again and there would be no need to produce new, more radical stuff.

    There are several experiments about this but I'm too lazy to Google now.

    OF course, it was the white man who has given us the welfare state, the warfare state, the administrative state, the income tax, the estate tax, the excise tax, the gift tax, empire, and all the rest
     

    What about the pornware state? If it is true that there is not much money nowadays in selling porn, as most is given away for free, then who is paying to make it?

    Anyway, what is it about libertarians and drugs and porn? Is this really the "ultimate liberty"? I don't consume porn, so, I don't mind if it is totally censored or prohibited, and the same goes for most drugs. I think most people will agree that porn and drugs are, at best, an individual waste of time, and at worst, social evils.

    “Anyway, what is it about libertarians and drugs and porn?”

    Libertarians just think the primary purpose of government is to protect individuals against crimes committed by others, not to protect individuals from the consequences of their own bad choices. A study was once done that showed that the three leading causes of death in the U.S. are 1.) smoking, 2.) poor diet and 3.) alcohol. So if you really think the purpose of government is to protect people from themselves then the first three things the government should do is 1.) ban all tobacco products and prosecute both sellers and users, 2.) ban all junk food and prosecute all sellers and users and 3.) ban alcohol and prosecute all sellers and users. I believe we tried number three already. If it didn’t work before why would it work now? If you actually did all this it would require a massive police state to enforce it all. This would not only be highly expensive and intrusive but it would take police focus away from crimes like murder, theft and rape. It would also lead to corruption of the police as sellers of these goods attempted to bribe them, a crime wave as sellers fought over sales territory, and a widespread flouting of the law which would engender a disrespect for the law in general.

    So it’s not so much that libertarians want to defend porn and drugs as that they want to defend the general principle that the government shouldn’t engage in massive intervention in people’s personal habits because they foresee the negative results that would flow from that.

    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.

    It is the role of the church, the family, traditional communities, and nations to guard against degradation of the spirit and ugliness, and maintain a world of beauty and dignity.

    Libertarians use government as a tool to shackle church, family, community, and nation, and thus prevent them from fulfilling their traditional role of guiding and disciplining the individual.

    Is this because libertarians tend to be high IQ individuals who want to live a "Ant & Grasshopper" fantasy? Do they want lower IQ individuals to be "liberated" from the support of traditional communities, so that those low IQ individuals can then make foolish choices and live in misery, while the libertarian, who is intelligent enough to make wiser decisions without the support of traditional communities, can smugly observe the misery of his inferiors, which adds extra relish to his own success?
  30. @LondonBob
    I have a Jewish friend who practices his religion but is an ardent atheist, it is only a contradiction if you don't understand Judaism.

    Their religion is themselves!!!!

  31. @Sean

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201803/surprising-new-data-the-world-s-most-popular-porn-site

    [I]f we focus only on sites that publish other content, then PornHub ranks number four behind only Wikipedia, Microsoft, and Netflix. ... PornHub says its audience is 75 percent men and 25 percent women. This comes as a surprise. ...I emailed PornHub asking how they came up with their gender breakdown. A spokesperson replied that the site relies on Google Analytics, a service of the giant search company that parses web traffic a zillion different ways. I use Google Analytics myself.... The depth and breadth of information are astonishing—and I use only the services available for free. Sites that pay get much, much more. So I’m (almost) ready to believe that women comprise around 25 percent of PornHub’s audience. I’m guessing that a significant proportion of PornHub’s women audience is bisexual or lesbian. Among women, “lesbian” is the #1 search category (below). [...] The Internet porn audience skews younger, but still, 24 percent are 45 or older.
     

    The 2018 Pornhub report showed the proportion of female visitors increased by 3 percentage points over 2017.

    My guess is TERFs will continue to get steamrolled (ie JK Rowling),
     

    https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2018-year-in-review
    Interest in ‘trans’ (aka transgender) porn saw significant gains in 2018, in particular with a 167% increase in searches by men and more than 200% with visitors over the age of 45 (becoming the fifth most searched terms by those aged 45 to 64)
     
    The most views for a porn performer on Pornhub in 2018 was Riley Reid, and although they don't say it, she is an interracial (ie sex with black men) specialist. I think the site is avoiding mentioning interracial, but it is very very popular judging by her and the other top girls view stats including the Kardashians'. My conclusion is the female opposition to male chauvinist libertinism, and white male opposition to black male on white female interracial sex and men in women's clothes being accepted as real women will slowly but surely collapse as a result of these highly professionally produced genres that men seem more and more inclined to mastrubate to. Scott Adams has written about just how hypnotically sophisticated the state of the art in porn has got, and he thinks the ground zero is in Canada, which is where Pornhub is based.

    One nit to pick: Orthodox Jews will remain distinct as a group. What most people will think of when they hear about Jews a couple of generations down the road will be something like an urban, more salient version of the Amish today.
     
    Secular and liberal Jews today were sloughed off by ultra orthodox communities of Haredi Judaism from which they all descended. I see no reason to think that as the non-Haredi Jews disappear by intermarriage and low birth rate the special mental qualities of pure Jews will not be in great demand. By a process of osmosis a portion of the Haredi will be drawn off into the secular and liberal lifestyle. No matter if you live to 150 years old, forget about bidding farewell to domination of science, politics and especially culture in the West by Jews. Killing yourself will be the only way to get away from that spectacle.

    Most Canadian men have given up, and either hook up with as many girls as possible, or cope with being an incel.

    Canadian women are either roasties or miserable professional women who are 35 and still haven’t found the one.

    Maybe that is the end game of the porn industry.

    • Replies: @Talha
    https://twitter.com/DuneQuoteBot/status/1146633684537290752

    Peace.
    , @Toronto Russian
    I saw before that feminists were in contradiction with reality ("1 out of 4 women are raped!"), but manospherians are no less so. At 35 years old, 69% of men and 72% of women in Quebec live in couples (Le bilan démographique du Québec Edition 2017, Chapitre 5). These numbers have been stable since 1996. 40% of 25-year-old men and over 60% of 30-year-olds are coupled, so incels are nowhere near the majority. And Quebec is the most libertine province after the "Quiet Revolution."

    https://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/bilan2017.pdf#page=97

    It seems you don't believe people can like to be in committed relationships on their own free will, without a tyranny forcing them, and if you give them choice they will only have mechanical sex with random strangers. But it's part of human nature to form deep personal connections. It's been around before classic religions and states, the Epic of Gilgamesh already celebrates it.

    Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man.
     
    It doesn't say "Bang a ton of hot Ishtar priestesses no strings attached; for this too is the lot of Chad"!

    There is a small ethnic minority in China said to not have marriage in their culture; I've heard they made a website to discourage foreign tourists who visit them hoping to find promiscuity and unlimited free sex. The natives explained even without marriage ceremonies, they mosty live in stable couples and don't want foreign pervs intruding into their life, thank you very much. The supposed promiscuity of Pacific island tribes has also been proven false, a product of sailors' tales (who had a status of almost gods to the primitive islanders and enjoyed special sexual privileges) and erotic fantasies of European scientists.

    And Canadian couples formed on mutual deep affection (not because "it's time, shameful to be an old maid, everyone is doing it and you should fit in") are so obviously satisfied and attentive to their kids only the blind don't see it.

    P. S. A profession can make one miserable if it's a soulless drudge for money or make a lifetime's happiness if it is one's passion, but that's independent of sex.
  32. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Most Canadian men have given up, and either hook up with as many girls as possible, or cope with being an incel.

    Canadian women are either roasties or miserable professional women who are 35 and still haven't found the one.

    Maybe that is the end game of the porn industry.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Beautiful.
  33. Hey audacious new census state population growth data is up.

    WSJ reports on likely House seat shifts per new Census data

    ADDING 2 SEATS
    Texas

    ADDING 1 SEAT
    Arizona
    Colorado
    Florida
    Montana
    North Carolina
    Oregon

    LOSING 1 SEAT
    California
    Illinois
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    New York
    Pennsylvania
    Rhode Island
    West Virginia

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Ostensibly good for the GOP.

    That is assuming Texas doesn't flip, of course. An assumption based on, uh, ...
  34. @216
    https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-impact-of-taglit-birthright-israel-marriage-and-family/

    Will you elaborate more on the characteristics of Neo-Victorian Feminism?

    Is telegram considered safe to register using real mobile number or should we use burners like for twitter?

    • Replies: @216
    https://www.techjunkie.com/use-telegram-without-phone-number/

    ---

    Neo-Victorian Feminism, or what might be called "conservative feminism" or "fifth wave feminism".

    Imagine a feminism that recognized that most of its followers weren't lesbians, and weren't interested in promiscuity. Rather, that bourgeois family formation is something most actually want, even if previous versions of feminism looked down on it.

    This decade is going to see the first Millennial women hit 40, after which a lot of them will find out they will never be married. These women will be angry at two groups: men and earlier "sex positive" feminists.

    The specific term "Neo-Victorian" was created by Conservative Inc writers in relation to the backlash against "Yes Means Yes". Being a slut is apparently a conservative value.

    The short version is that these feminists will be against trans, sex workers, pron, and any kind of sexual coercion (BDSM). They further want to regulate male lifestyles, first by social shaming, and second by legislation. Last, which will become much more apparent in the future, they are going to regulate the lives of younger women, steering them to avoid the mistakes they made.

    What most, and indeed what r/FDS, are confused by, is that this isn't rehased second-wave "radical feminism". The key difference is in the rather pro-marriage stance.

    Another part, which many in the manosphere won't like, is the strong backlash against older unmarried/divorced men that this feminism is going to bring.
  35. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:

    216 predicts the rise of what he calls “Neo-Victorian Feminism” in the coming decade.

    This makes sense to me.

    1. Women have always been the restraining force on sex. They need moral restraints on sex to protect themselves and their children from male betrayal of the family.

    2. Women are bred by evolution to want the protection of strong moral males. Feminism ostensibly rejects this but Feminists seek indirect ways to restore male dominance within the moral framework. They crave a strong male for protection as much other women do.

    3. Feminists have been very quick to accept Islam in the US, under the guise of equality. In fact Feminist women are relieved to have a group of strong, dominating males coming to the country. Feminists covering their faces with burquas and submitting to their new Muslim husbands in the years ahead makes perfect sense.

    • Replies: @Dumbo

    3. Feminists have been very quick to accept Islam in the US, under the guise of equality. In fact Feminist women are relieved to have a group of strong, dominating males coming to the country. Feminists covering their faces with burquas and submitting to their new Muslim husbands in the years ahead makes perfect sense.
     
    The idea that Muslims are a group of strong, dominating males is risible. Not all of them are ISIS fighters. The average Muslim guy is a Beta nagged all day by his veil-wearing wife. I've seen them, I know. What they do have, however, is a traditional social structure that is still less ravaged by globalism (even though they are also pozzed as they immigrate and get more and more in contact with pop culture). So women have a social constraint to behave better, ant they suffer consequences if they get out of line.

    The problem is that contemporary culture tell Western women to be free, to be independent, to be sluts, to be ugly and vulgar, to not have children, to focus on their career and on sucking a different cock every night, in short, to be like men. And women are obviously unhappy this way, even if they don't accept it.

    I knew a feminist like that, blabbering about empowerment and whatnot, eventually she married a Muslim, got stuck in a burka and shut her trap. But then he took her to Egypt or some other ugly Muslim country where he was from, and the family was horrible, she was miserable again, but then, she could not even leave or would lose all contact with her children. So she stayed. The end.
    , @Jim Christian

    1. Women have always been the restraining force on sex. They need moral restraints on sex to protect themselves and their children from male betrayal of the family.
     
    Women pass out their sex where it will gain them the most, period. Morality doesn't EVEN play into it. Where the hell have YOU been? As for betrayal, that's a laugher. The betrayal of the family is from the female side with Cash & Prizes no-fault divorce policies in the decidedly feminist courts.
  36. @Liberty Mike
    How do you know porn watchers demand more and more extreme content? Assuming, arguendo, that there are porn watchers who do demand such escalation of extreme content, what percentage of porn viewers do they constitute?

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?

    The pornware state? Again, assuming arguendo the existence of such an entity, has the state compelled you to be a patron of porn? Has the pornware state forcibly confiscated your assets under color of law? Has the pornware state, like the empire, murdered hundreds of thousands of people in foreign lands?

    The ultimate liberty is being let alone, undisturbed by blacks and browns, busy-bodies, cucky-conservatives, do-gooders, feminists, good government types, and scolds.

    Do you own any firearms? There are many people who take the position that they don't care if guns are regulated or prohibited because they do not own them.

    Guns don't kill people; neither do pictures of naked ladies.

    How do you know porn watchers demand more and more extreme content? Assuming, arguendo, that there are porn watchers who do demand such escalation of extreme content, what percentage of porn viewers do they constitute?

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?

    I’m not convinced by the “users demand more and more extreme material” argument either. New material certainly. That’s why people used to subscribe to girlie magazines rather than just buying one copy ever. They didn’t want to look at the same pictures of the same girls over and over but were quite happy when next month’s issue included different photos of different girls. The material was no more extreme, just different. Different girls, different faces, different bodies.

    The only reason why escalation to more extreme material is now something of a problem is that the extreme material is too easy to access. There’s too much temptation to try the more extreme stuff. Fifty years ago users were very unlikely to escalate beyond girlie magazines and softcore movies because obtaining more extreme material was very expensive, very difficult and usually illegal. Most people were simply not prepared to put themselves to that amount of aggravation and expense.

    Which is why I seriously believe that access to the softcore material should be made easier (possibly even unrestricted), while access to the harder stuff should be made very difficult indeed (if not impossible). The vast majority of porn consumers will choose the easy option and stick to softcore.

    And if you look at old school girlie-magazine type porn there’s absolutely no hostility towards women involved. If anything it’s as much a celebration of female beauty as Velázquez’s Rokeby Venus or Titian’s Venus of Urbino. I find it difficult to see anything sinister about this.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
    The more society has become PC, the more degrading porn has become. Not sure if there's a direct link but while in porn women are degraded, insulted, and molested, IRL they have to be respected and shown more consideration than ever.
    , @Not My Economy
    Users demand more extreme material because they're edging themselves on the tube sites. Deliberately holding back and constantly stopping just short of cumming, while scrolling through an endless chain of clips, for an hour or multiple hours even. This desensitizes and (literally) makes people numb. Normal sex content ceases to be erotic.

    To deal with the porn problem, a simple good-cop approach:

    First, implement KYC and require identity verification. Fines, jail time and loss of business license for people who provide porn to minors. This system works reasonably well for alcohol control. Yes I know that high schoolers drink, but 8 year olds don't.

    Second, legalize prostitution
  37. @Screwtape
    Interesting pairing of COTWs.

    Attempts at trapping the leftist in their own pseudo logic is not the way to go. Especially it the tactic is aimed at helping boys and men.

    Convincing the left to ban one part of commercial degeneracy is pushing on a rope. Leftism is wrought with degeneracy.

    The rise of pron is not some coincidence; pron is essential to the efforts to normalize ugliness; the indulgence in unbridled hedonistic impulses, and decoupling of sex from forming healthy relationships and families.

    Moreover, if the framing of this argument is that it is hurting boys, then expect even more resistance.

    To the left, boys are part of the problem impeding progress. Evidence how their fledgling masculinity has been a massive target for the social engineering of the left for decades. Killing healthy masculinity in the cradle is the goal, not something to be avoided.

    To the left, the problem with pron is that boys are attracted to it. It exists because boys are natural abusers of women. Everything can be reduced to the lefts first position vis a vis boys.

    Women are the real victims of war. Remember that when framing arguments around sex with the zero-sum identity-hierarchy driven leftist.

    A better - but still retarded, attempt would be to appeal to the natural victim-oppressor narrative and go after pron because it objectifies young women and encourages the idea that men using women for pleasure is ok.

    After all, something like 50% of young women use porn. Most have sent nudes of themselves to boys. Pron is not a ‘male problem’.

    Just table for a moment the fact that most of the left also hates natural femininity and that the bulk of entertainment and what else passes for culture openly encourages young women to degrade themselves and objectify themselves on the regular. Its empowerment. See Tinder, Instagram, tumblr, facebook, and tv and film.

    I get the appeal of turning the puritanical impulses of the leftist religion against things like porn in order to carve out a win for civilization, but leftism is femcentric; appealing to the interest of ‘our boys’ just knocks up against the rigid hierarchy of leftism’s identity politics.

    A central tenet of leftism in our culture is that our boys are inherently flawed and thus need to be educated by women, civilized by manifold social constraints and thought policing, and ultimately handicapped such that women can be made equal.

    The badness of boys should be nauseating to any who commits even misdemeanor notice crimes.

    To the left: pron is bad because boys want to view pron. The solution of the left to this pron problem would be chemical castration long before they banned pron. For a facsimile see ritalin and the education ‘problem’ of young boys.

    Pron is a problem because the left has won the culture war. Our boys can’t be saved by going after one channel of progressive degeneracy head-on, for the sake of boys and nothing else. There is no negotiating with the left. Especially if net he appeal is to restore a pro-civilization cultural component centered around male wellness.

    The fact that pron is so easily framed as a ‘problem with boys’ without looking upstream, without addressing the totality of the users, producers, and channels of pron is telling on its own.

    If pron is attacked, I am sure all the good and concerned parents would also attack the multiple sources of dopamine addiction with young women, eg smart phones, social media, and the obvious corollary that those sources have with of young men experience viewing pron.

    The kids are not okay. The left hates kids. Especially boys. Start there.

    The rise of pron is not some coincidence; pron is essential to the efforts to normalize ugliness; the indulgence in unbridled hedonistic impulses, and decoupling of sex from forming healthy relationships and families.

    The normalisation of ugliness started long before porn was a major thing. Take a look at western art in the first two decades of the 20th century. The campaign to celebrate ugliness and depravity had already hit top gear.

    Hedonism was already becoming the major driving force of civilisation.

    And the traditional family was starting to fall apart 60 years ago, long before the porn explosion.

    You’re looking for an easy answer to something quite complicated. Western society was showing definite signs of unhealthiness before the First World War. Urbanisation, the decay of religion, the breaking up of traditional communities by the Industrial Revolution, mass entertainment, the capitalist emphasis on greed and on money as the only measure of value, the pointless butchery of the First World War, democracy (a system of political prostitution).

    By the early 60s you could add the removal of the social stigma on divorce and the invention of the contraceptive pill, plus feminism and an increasingly aggressive homosexual lobby.

    You’re free to find porn distasteful but blaming it for our social collapse is going way too far.

    A far as the relatively recent boom in internet porn is concerned, I’d argue that social media is at least as harmful, probably more so.

    • Replies: @Screwtape
    Re-read for comprehension.
  38. @Mark G.
    Feminism was originally about increasing female choice. This meant women should be able to pursue an education or enter any career they wanted to or marry who they wanted. They may not have approved of something like women entering various forms of sex work like the porn industry or becoming strippers but since they believed women should have choice in picking careers they were willing to tolerate that sort of thing. In recent years, though, feminism has turned into a belief that women should become more like men. This means encouraging them to go into traditionally male careers they have little interest in. It also means discouraging them from traditionally female careers or not having a career at all.

    Now any form of sex work was always looked down on and women were discouraged from entering it (rightly so) but sex related work itself was always largely a traditionally female career. Women don't have the same level of interest as being consumers in this area as men. There was a strip club that opened here in Indianapolis in the nineties where half the club was a male strip club for women and the other half was a strip club with female strippers for men. After six months would you like to guess which half shut down for lack of business? So since any kind of sex related work was seldom a male career and modern day feminists want women to pursue traditionally male careers that gives them a reason there to instinctively be against pornography since men are the primary buyers and women are the highly paid actors and stars. So the accusation of exploitation of women may very well be true but feminists have this additional reason to oppose porn and other forms of sex related work and the increase in feminist opposition to porn may have as much to do with this switch in feminist belief from increasing female choice to restricting female choice to try to get women to act more like men and enter traditionally male careers.

    and the increase in feminist opposition to porn may have as much to do with this switch in feminist belief from increasing female choice to restricting female choice

    There’s an extremely interesting point which feminists always (deliberately) overlook. The increasing numbers of men getting sexual gratification from porn has been paralleled by an enormous explosion in the number of women getting their sexual gratification from vibrators.

    Is it possible that people are having less real sex and fewer children because more and more women are choosing vibrators as their main source of sexual pleasure?

    I suspect that while masturbation might be more common among males today than half a century ago, masturbation is now more common among women by several orders of magnitude compared to fifty years ago. Why aren’t right-wingers pushing to ban vibrators?

    I should add that I personally am not advocating banning vibrators!

  39. The malignant obfuscation of practiced by the likes of Intelligent Dasein leads directly to the puzzlement of the likes of Element 59.

    If the various aspects of the sexual revolution are viewed as components of a coherent and sincerely held ideology, it makes no sense.

    If, on the other hand, the various aspects of the sexual revolution are viewed as series of ethnically motivated attacks by powerful Jews against white Christian men, then it makes perfect sense.

    The ethos of porn may be directly contrary to the ethos of feminism, but both porn and feminism cause disproportionate harm to white Christian men, which is why the same powerful Jews (lawyers, big donors, media moguls, academics) feverishly support both of these tactics of ethnic warfare.

  40. What most people will think of when they hear about Jews a couple of generations down the road will be something like an urban, more salient version of the Amish today.

    Can you name a single example of the son of an Amish preacher who is a porn mogul, an organized crime boss, a Bolshevik revolutionary, a ponzi schemer, the founder of a self-serving pseudo-scientific intellectual movement, a Russophobic conspiracy theorist, the author of open-borders legislation, or a pundit who constantly demands wars in the Middle East?

    How about the sons of rabbis?

    Can you name any Amish preachers convicted of organ smuggling, or systematic welfare fraud, or being a slum lord, or harassing and intimidating non-Amish to move out of the neighborhood, or exploiting illegal immigrants in their meat processing plant?

  41. @Mark G.
    "Anyway, what is it about libertarians and drugs and porn?"

    Libertarians just think the primary purpose of government is to protect individuals against crimes committed by others, not to protect individuals from the consequences of their own bad choices. A study was once done that showed that the three leading causes of death in the U.S. are 1.) smoking, 2.) poor diet and 3.) alcohol. So if you really think the purpose of government is to protect people from themselves then the first three things the government should do is 1.) ban all tobacco products and prosecute both sellers and users, 2.) ban all junk food and prosecute all sellers and users and 3.) ban alcohol and prosecute all sellers and users. I believe we tried number three already. If it didn't work before why would it work now? If you actually did all this it would require a massive police state to enforce it all. This would not only be highly expensive and intrusive but it would take police focus away from crimes like murder, theft and rape. It would also lead to corruption of the police as sellers of these goods attempted to bribe them, a crime wave as sellers fought over sales territory, and a widespread flouting of the law which would engender a disrespect for the law in general.

    So it's not so much that libertarians want to defend porn and drugs as that they want to defend the general principle that the government shouldn't engage in massive intervention in people's personal habits because they foresee the negative results that would flow from that.

    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.

    It is the role of the church, the family, traditional communities, and nations to guard against degradation of the spirit and ugliness, and maintain a world of beauty and dignity.

    Libertarians use government as a tool to shackle church, family, community, and nation, and thus prevent them from fulfilling their traditional role of guiding and disciplining the individual.

    Is this because libertarians tend to be high IQ individuals who want to live a “Ant & Grasshopper” fantasy? Do they want lower IQ individuals to be “liberated” from the support of traditional communities, so that those low IQ individuals can then make foolish choices and live in misery, while the libertarian, who is intelligent enough to make wiser decisions without the support of traditional communities, can smugly observe the misery of his inferiors, which adds extra relish to his own success?

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    "Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food."

    You can make the argument that porn leads to degradation of the spirit but you can also make the same argument about various works of literature and also nonfiction works. So if porn should be banned then these should too. You would then need to toss out the U.S. Bill of Rights since that includes freedom of speech and press.

    You are also assuming here the government censor will want to censor exactly the same things you want to censor. What is the probability that an individual identical to you will assume that role? The reality is that the government censor will censor anything that whoever holds political power disapproves of. What if you have a leftwing government in charge? Did censors in the Soviet Union help protect the "church, the family, traditional communities" that you listed?

    Libertarians understand not just the importance of the individual but also the importance of intermediate institutions that exist between the individual and the state. These institutions include the family, churches, and private organizations engaging in charitable work or trying to achieve various social goals. Libertarians have traditionally seen that the state causes the withering away of these intermediate institutions as it takes over their functions in an effort to achieve total power. The government is more likely to be a threat to these institutions than a protector of them. Government censors will follow the beliefs of those in power and will also be a threat to the continuation of these institutions.
    , @dfordoom

    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.
     
    Most of the arguments made here against porn come down to - this is something I don't like and it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should be banned. To justify banning something you have to come up with a real argument.

    Firstly you'd have to establish, convincingly, that the thing you're wanting to ban is actually harmful. You know, actual evidence. And you'd need convincing evidence that it harms a significant proportion of those who consume it.

    We know that alcohol is very bad for a small minority of users but we also know that for the vast majority of consumers it's harmless. In fact it has some benefits - it makes social interactions easier, it makes life slightly more pleasant, it may even have mild health benefits. Very few people today would seriously argue for a ban on alcohol. Why should 95% of alcohol consumers be punished because 5% have problems dealing with alcohol? The generally accepted view is that we should try to help the 5% deal with their problems, but not at the expense of responsible alcohol users.

    In the case of porn, if the vast majority of users suffer no harmful effects should they be punished because a small minority suffer ill effects? We have to ask - is there any even vaguely persuasive evidence that the vast majority of porn consumers suffer any harm? is there any actual evidence of direct social harm? To be honest, I'm not even sure there's really persuasive evidence that any porn users at all are directly affected in a negative way.

    As for social consequences, pretty much all the things that are wrong with our society today were clearly in evidence decades ago, at a time when porn consumption was very very low compared to today.

    If you think you can present some real scientific evidence that porn has had a harmful effect on a significant number of individuals and on society then by all means let's see that evidence. I'll be happy to listen.
  42. @dfordoom

    The rise of pron is not some coincidence; pron is essential to the efforts to normalize ugliness; the indulgence in unbridled hedonistic impulses, and decoupling of sex from forming healthy relationships and families.
     
    The normalisation of ugliness started long before porn was a major thing. Take a look at western art in the first two decades of the 20th century. The campaign to celebrate ugliness and depravity had already hit top gear.

    Hedonism was already becoming the major driving force of civilisation.

    And the traditional family was starting to fall apart 60 years ago, long before the porn explosion.

    You're looking for an easy answer to something quite complicated. Western society was showing definite signs of unhealthiness before the First World War. Urbanisation, the decay of religion, the breaking up of traditional communities by the Industrial Revolution, mass entertainment, the capitalist emphasis on greed and on money as the only measure of value, the pointless butchery of the First World War, democracy (a system of political prostitution).

    By the early 60s you could add the removal of the social stigma on divorce and the invention of the contraceptive pill, plus feminism and an increasingly aggressive homosexual lobby.

    You're free to find porn distasteful but blaming it for our social collapse is going way too far.

    A far as the relatively recent boom in internet porn is concerned, I'd argue that social media is at least as harmful, probably more so.

    Re-read for comprehension.

  43. @Anon
    Weren’t you the one who published a survey where 3/4 of Jews think the meaning of being a Jew is remembering the Holocaust? Judaism has morphed many times over the millennia. This is just next gen Judaism—Holocaustism.

    No, at least not that I recall.

  44. @dfordoom

    How do you know porn watchers demand more and more extreme content? Assuming, arguendo, that there are porn watchers who do demand such escalation of extreme content, what percentage of porn viewers do they constitute?

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?
     
    I'm not convinced by the "users demand more and more extreme material" argument either. New material certainly. That's why people used to subscribe to girlie magazines rather than just buying one copy ever. They didn't want to look at the same pictures of the same girls over and over but were quite happy when next month's issue included different photos of different girls. The material was no more extreme, just different. Different girls, different faces, different bodies.

    The only reason why escalation to more extreme material is now something of a problem is that the extreme material is too easy to access. There's too much temptation to try the more extreme stuff. Fifty years ago users were very unlikely to escalate beyond girlie magazines and softcore movies because obtaining more extreme material was very expensive, very difficult and usually illegal. Most people were simply not prepared to put themselves to that amount of aggravation and expense.

    Which is why I seriously believe that access to the softcore material should be made easier (possibly even unrestricted), while access to the harder stuff should be made very difficult indeed (if not impossible). The vast majority of porn consumers will choose the easy option and stick to softcore.

    And if you look at old school girlie-magazine type porn there's absolutely no hostility towards women involved. If anything it's as much a celebration of female beauty as Velázquez's Rokeby Venus or Titian's Venus of Urbino. I find it difficult to see anything sinister about this.

    The more society has become PC, the more degrading porn has become. Not sure if there’s a direct link but while in porn women are degraded, insulted, and molested, IRL they have to be respected and shown more consideration than ever.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The more society has become PC, the more degrading porn has become. Not sure if there’s a direct link but while in porn women are degraded, insulted, and molested,
     
    The change in the nature of porn tracks almost exactly with the rise of the internet. So maybe the real problem is the internet. The rapid acceleration in the pace of social decay in general tracks almost exactly with the rise of the internet. The internet has a degrading effect on every facet of society.

    IRL they have to be respected and shown more consideration than ever.
     
    Not really true. Look at hook-up culture. That's much more degrading to women than porn. Look at the rise of quick and easy divorce - that turned women into commodities to be upgraded every few years. The contraceptive pill and legal abortion encouraged women to see themselves as little more than sperm receptacles. Women are less respected today than they were in 1960.

    The PC thing, like feminism, benefits a few privileged middle-class women. Most women are worse off in every way that counts.

    Blaming porn for all this is just looking for a simplistic answer to a complex problem.

    I really don't think porn is the root cause of our social ills. A great deal of modern porn is distasteful, but then most of modern popular culture is degenerate and disgusting. Maybe the increasing distastefulness of modern porn merely reflects our society's continuing slide into the abyss of nihilism and consumerism.
  45. @Dumbo

    Make Porn Great Again.
     
    LOL. The problem is that once you get to the extreme levels it's hard to go back. By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification. You start watching naked ladies and end up watching group sex or violent BDSM.

    Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable
     
    It's not unachievable, it's just that there is no will to do it. Nor much reason in a totally materialistic, non-religious view of the world.

    I haven't watched pr0n in years and don't miss it. On the other hand now I probably waste too much time reading the UR...

    Draconian enough punishments—decades of incarceration, amputation of body parts—and porn would go away.

  46. @dfordoom

    How do you know porn watchers demand more and more extreme content? Assuming, arguendo, that there are porn watchers who do demand such escalation of extreme content, what percentage of porn viewers do they constitute?

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?
     
    I'm not convinced by the "users demand more and more extreme material" argument either. New material certainly. That's why people used to subscribe to girlie magazines rather than just buying one copy ever. They didn't want to look at the same pictures of the same girls over and over but were quite happy when next month's issue included different photos of different girls. The material was no more extreme, just different. Different girls, different faces, different bodies.

    The only reason why escalation to more extreme material is now something of a problem is that the extreme material is too easy to access. There's too much temptation to try the more extreme stuff. Fifty years ago users were very unlikely to escalate beyond girlie magazines and softcore movies because obtaining more extreme material was very expensive, very difficult and usually illegal. Most people were simply not prepared to put themselves to that amount of aggravation and expense.

    Which is why I seriously believe that access to the softcore material should be made easier (possibly even unrestricted), while access to the harder stuff should be made very difficult indeed (if not impossible). The vast majority of porn consumers will choose the easy option and stick to softcore.

    And if you look at old school girlie-magazine type porn there's absolutely no hostility towards women involved. If anything it's as much a celebration of female beauty as Velázquez's Rokeby Venus or Titian's Venus of Urbino. I find it difficult to see anything sinister about this.

    Users demand more extreme material because they’re edging themselves on the tube sites. Deliberately holding back and constantly stopping just short of cumming, while scrolling through an endless chain of clips, for an hour or multiple hours even. This desensitizes and (literally) makes people numb. Normal sex content ceases to be erotic.

    To deal with the porn problem, a simple good-cop approach:

    First, implement KYC and require identity verification. Fines, jail time and loss of business license for people who provide porn to minors. This system works reasonably well for alcohol control. Yes I know that high schoolers drink, but 8 year olds don’t.

    Second, legalize prostitution

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Second, legalize prostitution
     
    Every argument that you can make against porn applies even more forcefully to prostitution. I think you'd be replacing a minor evil with a much greater evil. And condemning a lot of women to lives of degradation.
  47. @Commentator Mike
    The more society has become PC, the more degrading porn has become. Not sure if there's a direct link but while in porn women are degraded, insulted, and molested, IRL they have to be respected and shown more consideration than ever.

    The more society has become PC, the more degrading porn has become. Not sure if there’s a direct link but while in porn women are degraded, insulted, and molested,

    The change in the nature of porn tracks almost exactly with the rise of the internet. So maybe the real problem is the internet. The rapid acceleration in the pace of social decay in general tracks almost exactly with the rise of the internet. The internet has a degrading effect on every facet of society.

    IRL they have to be respected and shown more consideration than ever.

    Not really true. Look at hook-up culture. That’s much more degrading to women than porn. Look at the rise of quick and easy divorce – that turned women into commodities to be upgraded every few years. The contraceptive pill and legal abortion encouraged women to see themselves as little more than sperm receptacles. Women are less respected today than they were in 1960.

    The PC thing, like feminism, benefits a few privileged middle-class women. Most women are worse off in every way that counts.

    Blaming porn for all this is just looking for a simplistic answer to a complex problem.

    I really don’t think porn is the root cause of our social ills. A great deal of modern porn is distasteful, but then most of modern popular culture is degenerate and disgusting. Maybe the increasing distastefulness of modern porn merely reflects our society’s continuing slide into the abyss of nihilism and consumerism.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm a little skeptical of the putative hook up culture. There just isn't good evidence anywhere that young people are having more sex now than in the past. If anything, the evidence points to them having less.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    The internet angle is the right path to pursue here; this is where the true load-bearing ore lies, and where the fascinating hints and insights emerge. In order to understand what the internet has done to human sexual psychology via pornography, we can look at what it has done to finance, to shopping, to socializing, and to reading. A definite pattern emerges.

    In the domain of finance, the internet was instumental in creating the appearance of a global financial network that actually worked as advertised, efficiently allocating capital from anywhere on the planet to wherever else it was needed. It sold the idea that private individuals from all over the world could now play in the markets with the new trading software platforms, while it enabled the big boys to spin Rumplestiltskin-like profits out of nothingness with high-frequency trades executed in microseconds. The original idea was that this massive influx of new capital, along with the new industries required by the tech build-out itself, along with the possibility of streamlining existing industries and trade patterns through tech-enabled efficiency gains, was about to unleash a golden age of wealth creation such as the world had never seen. But this was perception rather than reality. In real life, the efficiency gains turned out to be largely illusory, and any short-term revenue that was saved (e.g. the elimination of personnel in favor of automation) was more than offset by the capital demands of the tech build-out itself, while the negative externalities (e.g. the loss of experienced workers) led to the etiolation of industry and the destruction of settled, local economies. It did, however, precipitate the sharpest and most overvalued bubble in known history, the legendary dot.com boom. What was missed in all this frenzie is that the emergence of the internet did nothing to increase the stock of real investable funds or worthwhile collateral in the world. It was simply a massive transfer of purchasing power from those who traditionally produced wealth to those who moved money. The internet was their creation and their tool for the liquidation of stored value and the asset-stripping of the globe.

    In the domain of shopping, i.e. one particular subset of the aforementioned financial revolution, we see the rise of the click-and-ship culture as developed by its most emblematic avatar, Amazon. This wretched company, which in its entire existence has never realized a profit from core operations, has made its disgusting worm of a CEO, Jeff Bezos, into the richest man in the world---as clear a case of asset-stripping as ever there could be. Amazon markets the promise of convenience, delivering consumer goods to people who are too lazy or otherwise indisposed to go to the store. This is a value-added service which, in the normal course of events, would incur a shipping surcharge that would add significantly to the price of each purchased item, thereby rendering the business model unattractive for most ordinary transactions. But Amazon notoriously underpices its shipping, in effect selling the added service of convenience for nothing. But, there being no such thing as a free lunch in the concrete world of matter and energy, this missing value must materialize somewhere. It does so in the accelerated depreciation curve of the infrastructure which Bezos exploits to provide his "service," notably the preexisting logistical network of the US Postal Service, which is most apallingly underpaid by Amazon. The "convenience" of online shopping does nothing to reduce the amount of energy required to produce items or to move them from place to place. It is essentially a pseudo-service, existing entirely in the hyperreality of the computer's graphic interface, while the infrastructure of the world outside progressively crumbles with the passage of each penis-painted ProMaster.

    In the domain of socializing, we have the rise of the great social media titans, about whom I shall speak only obliquely, having never personally participated in them. What is significant here is the commodification of social interaction, its dissolution and reconstitution into what are called memes, tweets, selfies, posts, texts, gifs, and whatnot. By these we mean images, short videos, brief written comments, or various combinations thereof, the unifying feature of which is that their effect depends entirely (and often unconsciously) upon thier ironic content. The classic meme, for example, is a still frame from some instantly recognizable movie or television show, depicting a character wearing an intense expression of contempt, astonishment, disbelief, amazement, ar some other strong emotion, the original context of which is meant to be recalled by the audience. This image is then overlaid with a text that explitly refers to the contemporary event that the author is attempting to link to this iconic image, often in an offhand or irreverant way. The juxtaposition works only poorly or not at all if the viewer is not aware of the original context; indeed, the author of the meme depends on just this tension to make his point. Those who worry that the spread of social media results in atomized individuals have not taken appropriate notice of the fact that the meme---the internet's now standard expression form---presumes a greater standard of cultural homogeneity than perhaps anything but religious iconography. The meme-language would be, in effect, a sealed book to those who had never seen The Big Lebowski, The Princess Bride, Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek. What we have here is the recycling of old culture, an expression-medium which does to old movies what Uber ride sharing does to other people's cars---monetizes their downtime. Becoming ever more self-referential and artless, they eventually lose their ability to express anything. A similar analysis can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to "cute" Facebook posts and selfies, etc.

    In the domain of reading, or one should rather say news gathering in general, the internet has resulted in an almost complete degradation of the activity and its material. What was once billed as an "information superhighway" in the early years of its development has in reality become a CliffsNotes Cafe at the end of the road. Just as MPEG files are compressed to facilitate the ease of transmission (this very fact bearing witness to how the needs of the medium rather than the audience rose to dominance), so also do we now "skim" articles for their content. Nobody reads a book anymore, and correspondingly the ability of people to write long, complex, grammatically correct sentences and paragraphs is everywhere on the wane. Furthermore, nobody now feels the slightest shame at being nothing more than an emoji-spewing semi-literate. That which can be communicated with as little effort as possible turns out to be the preferred idiom of the internet age, conditioned as it is by the visible and immediate. Great profusions of messages are exchanged every moment and forgotten about the next, leaving as the sole monument to their existence a small quantum of waste heat. This remarkable state of affairs will one day affect the most paradxical condition of all: The "Information Age," that pivotal moment when man in his hubris thought himself poised to embark on an unprecedented upward trajectory, will turn out to be an historical "dark" age, because no record of it will remain. One the server farms are powered down an overgrown by weeds, once the communications satellites decay in their orbits and come crashing out of the sky, there will be no written words anywhere to speak of any of this weirdness. Every text, tweet, meme, broadcast, video---gone, with future generations left to wonder what illiterate pigs once inhabited these sprawling suburbs, the ruins of which do not even merit a nod of artistic consideration.

    In synthesis, the picture that emerges of the internet age is that of great value extraction. The internet polarizes, not opinion, but experience itself. It syphons off the liquid fraction of experience---all that is immediately perceived by the eye and parsed by the intellect---and reduces it to "information," its only digestible food. This information, being a sort of after-image of substance, goes off to its own inevitable fate of nothingness, meanwhile the full and substantial reality of that from which it was abstracted alters in another direction. To extend the analysis, then, the rise of internet pornography has become for sex what abstract money is to real property, what irony is to culture, what tittilation is to service, what information is to knowledge---the shadow without the substance. Has pornography not done to the sex market exactly what QE has done to the stock market, what Amazon has done to the retail market? Sex is not looking at pictures and getting off; it is a concrete physical and psychological act, the end of which is procreation. It is the substance, the solid fraction, that we neglect. Today we have stock market bubbles and zombie corporations; we have free porn and no children.

    There are those who would interpret the internet age as something like the Industrial Revolution, and who foresee ahead similar leaps in productivity and the standard of living. I maintain that it is quite the opposite. The internet is the great physical-social Carnot engine that is burning up the surplus capital of the industrial age. Its net effect is dissipative, not consturctive. I believe that anyone who seriously thinks bout what I have stated above will never unsee the truth of it.
  48. @Not My Economy
    Users demand more extreme material because they're edging themselves on the tube sites. Deliberately holding back and constantly stopping just short of cumming, while scrolling through an endless chain of clips, for an hour or multiple hours even. This desensitizes and (literally) makes people numb. Normal sex content ceases to be erotic.

    To deal with the porn problem, a simple good-cop approach:

    First, implement KYC and require identity verification. Fines, jail time and loss of business license for people who provide porn to minors. This system works reasonably well for alcohol control. Yes I know that high schoolers drink, but 8 year olds don't.

    Second, legalize prostitution

    Second, legalize prostitution

    Every argument that you can make against porn applies even more forcefully to prostitution. I think you’d be replacing a minor evil with a much greater evil. And condemning a lot of women to lives of degradation.

    • Agree: iffen
  49. @anon

    216 predicts the rise of what he calls “Neo-Victorian Feminism” in the coming decade.
     
    This makes sense to me.

    1. Women have always been the restraining force on sex. They need moral restraints on sex to protect themselves and their children from male betrayal of the family.

    2. Women are bred by evolution to want the protection of strong moral males. Feminism ostensibly rejects this but Feminists seek indirect ways to restore male dominance within the moral framework. They crave a strong male for protection as much other women do.

    3. Feminists have been very quick to accept Islam in the US, under the guise of equality. In fact Feminist women are relieved to have a group of strong, dominating males coming to the country. Feminists covering their faces with burquas and submitting to their new Muslim husbands in the years ahead makes perfect sense.

    3. Feminists have been very quick to accept Islam in the US, under the guise of equality. In fact Feminist women are relieved to have a group of strong, dominating males coming to the country. Feminists covering their faces with burquas and submitting to their new Muslim husbands in the years ahead makes perfect sense.

    The idea that Muslims are a group of strong, dominating males is risible. Not all of them are ISIS fighters. The average Muslim guy is a Beta nagged all day by his veil-wearing wife. I’ve seen them, I know. What they do have, however, is a traditional social structure that is still less ravaged by globalism (even though they are also pozzed as they immigrate and get more and more in contact with pop culture). So women have a social constraint to behave better, ant they suffer consequences if they get out of line.

    The problem is that contemporary culture tell Western women to be free, to be independent, to be sluts, to be ugly and vulgar, to not have children, to focus on their career and on sucking a different cock every night, in short, to be like men. And women are obviously unhappy this way, even if they don’t accept it.

    I knew a feminist like that, blabbering about empowerment and whatnot, eventually she married a Muslim, got stuck in a burka and shut her trap. But then he took her to Egypt or some other ugly Muslim country where he was from, and the family was horrible, she was miserable again, but then, she could not even leave or would lose all contact with her children. So she stayed. The end.

    • Replies: @216

    The idea that Muslims are a group of strong, dominating males is risible. Not all of them are ISIS fighters. The average Muslim guy is a Beta nagged all day by his veil-wearing wife. I’ve seen them, I know.
     
    A lot of people confused the Cologne mass sexual assault with "Muslim virility". In reality, this was a group of beta males unmoored from the constraints of traditional elders. These were men running away from a combat zone, hardly evidence of masculinity.
  50. @anon

    216 predicts the rise of what he calls “Neo-Victorian Feminism” in the coming decade.
     
    This makes sense to me.

    1. Women have always been the restraining force on sex. They need moral restraints on sex to protect themselves and their children from male betrayal of the family.

    2. Women are bred by evolution to want the protection of strong moral males. Feminism ostensibly rejects this but Feminists seek indirect ways to restore male dominance within the moral framework. They crave a strong male for protection as much other women do.

    3. Feminists have been very quick to accept Islam in the US, under the guise of equality. In fact Feminist women are relieved to have a group of strong, dominating males coming to the country. Feminists covering their faces with burquas and submitting to their new Muslim husbands in the years ahead makes perfect sense.

    1. Women have always been the restraining force on sex. They need moral restraints on sex to protect themselves and their children from male betrayal of the family.

    Women pass out their sex where it will gain them the most, period. Morality doesn’t EVEN play into it. Where the hell have YOU been? As for betrayal, that’s a laugher. The betrayal of the family is from the female side with Cash & Prizes no-fault divorce policies in the decidedly feminist courts.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  51. @Dumbo

    Make Porn Great Again.
     
    LOL. The problem is that once you get to the extreme levels it's hard to go back. By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification. You start watching naked ladies and end up watching group sex or violent BDSM.

    Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable
     
    It's not unachievable, it's just that there is no will to do it. Nor much reason in a totally materialistic, non-religious view of the world.

    I haven't watched pr0n in years and don't miss it. On the other hand now I probably waste too much time reading the UR...

    By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification.

    What complete crap.

    All that’s happened is that pornographers discovered that some people’s tastes ran to more extreme forms of sex and they set out to provide the product.

    Perhaps my own experiences are unique (though I highly doubt it), but I’ve never felt anything except deeply revolted whenever something more extreme than I’m comfortable with has flashed across my screen.

    With porn we run into the same issues as with other vices, namely that some people form harmful addictions and then cries go out to deny the product to society as a whole – alcohol and recreational drugs being the two biggies.

    • Replies: @Dumbo

    With porn we run into the same issues as with other vices, namely that some people form harmful addictions and then cries go out to deny the product to society as a whole – alcohol and recreational drugs being the two biggies.
     
    Alcohol and drugs at least have some useful value if you don't abuse them, while porn... I don't know, maybe it helps to reduce rape and prostitution? Or does it increase them? Are there any studies about that?

    All that’s happened is that pornographers discovered that some people’s tastes ran to more extreme forms of sex and they set out to provide the product.
     
    It's not just "some people". There's more extreme porn than ever before, watched by more people than ever before. Google "2 girls 1 cup". This was watched by millions. Granted, probably not for sexual gratification, but still the fact that this became part of "popular culture", as well as many, many other even worse things that were normally very much in the margin, is a sign that there is something very wrong with our society. It's like tattoos, once just criminals and sailors had them, now it's almost everyone.
  52. @Liberty Mike
    How do you know porn watchers demand more and more extreme content? Assuming, arguendo, that there are porn watchers who do demand such escalation of extreme content, what percentage of porn viewers do they constitute?

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?

    The pornware state? Again, assuming arguendo the existence of such an entity, has the state compelled you to be a patron of porn? Has the pornware state forcibly confiscated your assets under color of law? Has the pornware state, like the empire, murdered hundreds of thousands of people in foreign lands?

    The ultimate liberty is being let alone, undisturbed by blacks and browns, busy-bodies, cucky-conservatives, do-gooders, feminists, good government types, and scolds.

    Do you own any firearms? There are many people who take the position that they don't care if guns are regulated or prohibited because they do not own them.

    Guns don't kill people; neither do pictures of naked ladies.

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?

    His argument doesn’t hold water.

    It’s like saying that since nobody would watch the same football game over and over, people demand more and more extreme football games.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    I believe his point is that habitual viewing of porn desensitizes the viewer to it, requiring more viewing or more "extreme" versions of it.

    This would be similar to narcotics use, where habitual use creates a tolerance that can only be overcome by an increase in dosage.

    Since both narcotics and sex involve the release of dopamine, there is something to it.
  53. @John Gruskos
    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.

    It is the role of the church, the family, traditional communities, and nations to guard against degradation of the spirit and ugliness, and maintain a world of beauty and dignity.

    Libertarians use government as a tool to shackle church, family, community, and nation, and thus prevent them from fulfilling their traditional role of guiding and disciplining the individual.

    Is this because libertarians tend to be high IQ individuals who want to live a "Ant & Grasshopper" fantasy? Do they want lower IQ individuals to be "liberated" from the support of traditional communities, so that those low IQ individuals can then make foolish choices and live in misery, while the libertarian, who is intelligent enough to make wiser decisions without the support of traditional communities, can smugly observe the misery of his inferiors, which adds extra relish to his own success?

    “Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.”

    You can make the argument that porn leads to degradation of the spirit but you can also make the same argument about various works of literature and also nonfiction works. So if porn should be banned then these should too. You would then need to toss out the U.S. Bill of Rights since that includes freedom of speech and press.

    You are also assuming here the government censor will want to censor exactly the same things you want to censor. What is the probability that an individual identical to you will assume that role? The reality is that the government censor will censor anything that whoever holds political power disapproves of. What if you have a leftwing government in charge? Did censors in the Soviet Union help protect the “church, the family, traditional communities” that you listed?

    Libertarians understand not just the importance of the individual but also the importance of intermediate institutions that exist between the individual and the state. These institutions include the family, churches, and private organizations engaging in charitable work or trying to achieve various social goals. Libertarians have traditionally seen that the state causes the withering away of these intermediate institutions as it takes over their functions in an effort to achieve total power. The government is more likely to be a threat to these institutions than a protector of them. Government censors will follow the beliefs of those in power and will also be a threat to the continuation of these institutions.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    I'm not a supporter of authoritarian or big governments, but libertarianism seems to me pretty naive in some aspects. Drugs (and increasingly porn) are not merely individual vices, but massive weapons used to control people. In many cases enforced by the (deep) state or by large private enterprises. Like with the opium wars in China.
    , @dfordoom

    You can make the argument that porn leads to degradation of the spirit but you can also make the same argument about various works of literature and also nonfiction works. So if porn should be banned then these should too.
     
    Yep. If we banned everything that leads to degradation of the spirit we'd have to ban almost all of not only modern pop culture but modern high culture as well. Pretty much the whole of western art since the beginning of the 20th century. All current pop music. Nearly all modern Hollywood movies.

    And consumerism leads to degradation of the spirit so we'd have to ban that too.
  54. @silviosilver

    By its own logic, porn demands more and more extreme content to obtain the same level of gratification.
     
    What complete crap.

    All that's happened is that pornographers discovered that some people's tastes ran to more extreme forms of sex and they set out to provide the product.

    Perhaps my own experiences are unique (though I highly doubt it), but I've never felt anything except deeply revolted whenever something more extreme than I'm comfortable with has flashed across my screen.

    With porn we run into the same issues as with other vices, namely that some people form harmful addictions and then cries go out to deny the product to society as a whole - alcohol and recreational drugs being the two biggies.

    With porn we run into the same issues as with other vices, namely that some people form harmful addictions and then cries go out to deny the product to society as a whole – alcohol and recreational drugs being the two biggies.

    Alcohol and drugs at least have some useful value if you don’t abuse them, while porn… I don’t know, maybe it helps to reduce rape and prostitution? Or does it increase them? Are there any studies about that?

    All that’s happened is that pornographers discovered that some people’s tastes ran to more extreme forms of sex and they set out to provide the product.

    It’s not just “some people”. There’s more extreme porn than ever before, watched by more people than ever before. Google “2 girls 1 cup”. This was watched by millions. Granted, probably not for sexual gratification, but still the fact that this became part of “popular culture”, as well as many, many other even worse things that were normally very much in the margin, is a sign that there is something very wrong with our society. It’s like tattoos, once just criminals and sailors had them, now it’s almost everyone.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    There’s more extreme porn than ever before, watched by more people than ever before.
     
    There's also more tasteful porn than ever before. Go to any major porn site and run a search for babes dot kom (spell it with a c), 21naturals, or x-art. Sample the offerings and I think you'll agree that it's something a girl could legitimately enjoy watching with her boyfriend in order to increase the erotic atmosphere in the bedroom. The first time I watched porn with a girl I only suggested it in jest, not expecting her to say yes. But when I asked her "wanna watch some porn?" and she became visibly excited and said "okay!" All I had was some crappy VHS offering - nothing even close to the quality of the aforementioned suggestions - and yet she still got turned on by watching it with me. (I dated this girl for a while. She had a high sex drive, but she wasn't in any way kinky.)

    Granted, probably not for sexual gratification, but still the fact that this became part of “popular culture”, as well as many, many other even worse things that were normally very much in the margin, is a sign that there is something very wrong with our society.
     
    I'm not sure that porn (much less extreme porn) can be said to have become part of "popular culture" to an appreciably greater degree than it already was before the internet. I can't recall a single instance in real life in which someone has brought up a particular porn scene as a topic of conversation or even simply to recommend it. "So, what kind of porn are you into?" or any variation on that is not something I have ever heard said - and I spend a lot of time around the kind of people that the more socially conservative posters on this thread would be certain to describe as degenerates.

    The one time I can recall somebody mentioning a porn actress by name who was well known enough that he felt no need to have to explain who she was was when a friend informed me that a mutual acquaintance of ours (some D-list celebrity) had banged her. People don't talk about porn even remotely as much as they talk about sportsball or pop stars or movies - or even video games or comic books. Hell, you're much more likely hear someone bring up masturbation or sex toys as a conversational topic than you are porn specifically. As far as I'm aware, mainstream entertainment journalism completely ignore porn and the private lives of porn stars. In other words, although the popularity of porn has grown, its impact on popular culture is negligible.

    The most I'm prepared to concede is that today "everyone knows that everyone" has watched a bit of porn (and more likely a lot of porn) to a much greater degree than was true in the 80s and 90s. I attach about the same social significance to people being more open about watching porn in the 2010s compared to the 1980s as I would to the fact that people in the 1980s were more open about sex than they were in the 1950s - which is to say, that to the extent that it's socially significant, it's more indicative of social progress than it is of social degeneracy.
  55. @Mark G.
    "Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food."

    You can make the argument that porn leads to degradation of the spirit but you can also make the same argument about various works of literature and also nonfiction works. So if porn should be banned then these should too. You would then need to toss out the U.S. Bill of Rights since that includes freedom of speech and press.

    You are also assuming here the government censor will want to censor exactly the same things you want to censor. What is the probability that an individual identical to you will assume that role? The reality is that the government censor will censor anything that whoever holds political power disapproves of. What if you have a leftwing government in charge? Did censors in the Soviet Union help protect the "church, the family, traditional communities" that you listed?

    Libertarians understand not just the importance of the individual but also the importance of intermediate institutions that exist between the individual and the state. These institutions include the family, churches, and private organizations engaging in charitable work or trying to achieve various social goals. Libertarians have traditionally seen that the state causes the withering away of these intermediate institutions as it takes over their functions in an effort to achieve total power. The government is more likely to be a threat to these institutions than a protector of them. Government censors will follow the beliefs of those in power and will also be a threat to the continuation of these institutions.

    I’m not a supporter of authoritarian or big governments, but libertarianism seems to me pretty naive in some aspects. Drugs (and increasingly porn) are not merely individual vices, but massive weapons used to control people. In many cases enforced by the (deep) state or by large private enterprises. Like with the opium wars in China.

  56. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:

    A rarely discussed aspect of porn is the growing disconnect between amateur porn and professionally-produced porn.

    This may disappoint some scolds on here, but most amateur porn consists of semi-monogamous couples getting kinky in their spare time. Granted much of the content leans towards the wilder side of things, but it’s also much less sensationalized, less cartoonish and less degrading towards women. Most of it is 20 and 40-somethings having a good time with their SO’s. Personally, if society drifted more towards individuals having fewer but more monogamous and kinkier partners — as opposed to random hookup culture — we would be better off. Both men and women would enjoy it more.

    OTOH, most professionally-produced porn skews towards degrading women, multiple black dudes railing white women, etc. Basically, the stuff that is increasingly rare in the amateur world, which leads me to believe the content curators are lazy or are pushing an agenda. The resolution on much of the extreme misogynistic stuff is often grainy and obviously dated, which is a likely sign people are turned off by it.

    * I’ve always thought there was a rarely discussed correlation between the extreme misogynistic porn of the early 2000’s and #MeToo a decade later.

  57. Porn doesn’t appeal to me because it is too rough for my tastes and too savagely male dominant. It doesn’t emphasize beauty something I have great appreciation for. I would rather look at fully clothed beautiful women on Instagram (almost exclusively from Europe for my tastes) than anything porn. As much as I don’t like porn personally and can see how it harms men and society I still wouldn’t ban it (if that could even be done). I’m not a banning kind of person in general.

  58. @Intelligent Dasein
    The main point I would like to emphasize, at the risk of obliterating some nuance, is that what is objectionable about the Jews---their urbanity, perversity, and sophistication with abstract money---are not so much the race-traits of a "people" but the essence of decadent civilization itself. The elites of the Western world, formerly called WASPS (now an antiquated term), but more accurately known as globalists or oligarchs, embody all that was comprehended in the "Judaism" of classical antisemitism. The Jews reached this terminal point of civilization a thousand years before the Christian West did. Maimonides, the Jewish Kant, the plebian explainer and leveler of all things who transfomed a once metaphysical religion into a refined form of intellectual egotism, serves as a rough indicator of when the Jews took the decisive step into worldliness. Now that the Western elites have "caught up," the distinctiveness of Judaism is growing less and less significant. Thus, while classical antisemitism is entirely right in decrying everything that it does, it is quite wrong in atributing these qualities to Jews as a race. The very WASPy CEOs and govees like the Clintons and the Davos set, along with Chinese and Indian grandees, are the "Jews" of today, with the remnants of ethinic Judaism of course continuing to play a signficant role; but another generation or two, and the history of this ethinic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust.

    There is a religious dimension that the above materialist description fails to capture, but that will need to be discussed in another context.

    Thanks very much. I’m quickly coming to see why you’re so highly regarded among the commentariat.

  59. @neutral

    Jews marrying gentiles (or not marrying and havung children) is another reason Judaism is in decline and will become rare
     
    BS, jews are breeding like crazy, orthodox jews are the source of the secular international jews. This means that there are an endless supply of all the Soros, Zuckerbergs, Marx of this world.

    Orthodox Jews are far more likely to be Trump supporting Republicans than non-Orthodox Jews. That’s not necessarily the opposite of being secular and international, but they are much less cosmopolitan.

    One strange aspect of the contemporary political landscape is how younger blacks and Jews are more pro-Trump/pro-Republican than older blacks and Jews are.

    • Replies: @Thea
    I think he means the ones that go off the res. Those seem to always become rootless cosmopolitan and angry feminist types. Every generation will have some.

    Some sort of reaction against their parents.

  60. @Talha
    https://twitter.com/DuneQuoteBot/status/1146633684537290752

    Peace.

    Beautiful.

  61. @Oblivionrecurs
    Hey audacious new census state population growth data is up.

    WSJ reports on likely House seat shifts per new Census data

    ADDING 2 SEATS
    Texas

    ADDING 1 SEAT
    Arizona
    Colorado
    Florida
    Montana
    North Carolina
    Oregon

    LOSING 1 SEAT
    California
    Illinois
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    New York
    Pennsylvania
    Rhode Island
    West Virginia

    Ostensibly good for the GOP.

    That is assuming Texas doesn’t flip, of course. An assumption based on, uh, …

  62. @dfordoom

    The more society has become PC, the more degrading porn has become. Not sure if there’s a direct link but while in porn women are degraded, insulted, and molested,
     
    The change in the nature of porn tracks almost exactly with the rise of the internet. So maybe the real problem is the internet. The rapid acceleration in the pace of social decay in general tracks almost exactly with the rise of the internet. The internet has a degrading effect on every facet of society.

    IRL they have to be respected and shown more consideration than ever.
     
    Not really true. Look at hook-up culture. That's much more degrading to women than porn. Look at the rise of quick and easy divorce - that turned women into commodities to be upgraded every few years. The contraceptive pill and legal abortion encouraged women to see themselves as little more than sperm receptacles. Women are less respected today than they were in 1960.

    The PC thing, like feminism, benefits a few privileged middle-class women. Most women are worse off in every way that counts.

    Blaming porn for all this is just looking for a simplistic answer to a complex problem.

    I really don't think porn is the root cause of our social ills. A great deal of modern porn is distasteful, but then most of modern popular culture is degenerate and disgusting. Maybe the increasing distastefulness of modern porn merely reflects our society's continuing slide into the abyss of nihilism and consumerism.

    I’m a little skeptical of the putative hook up culture. There just isn’t good evidence anywhere that young people are having more sex now than in the past. If anything, the evidence points to them having less.

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Yeah I almost think that hookup culture is a total media fabrication.

    Only about 15% of my peers participate in "hook up culture". And these people are unanimously alcoholics, who generally get blackout drunk, high on drugs, and bring a generally below average girl home from the club. 60% sit around feeling bad because they don't "get any pussy". 20% smartly pull out from this altogether

    My conspiracy is that it's designed to make men miserable. Make men feel insecure about their own sex life. Another order from tptb to push it? Maybe not.

    I've dabbled in hookup culture and it sucks. Just go volcel until finding a gf/wife. It also sucks going volcel but it's best to just focus on your own life.
    , @silviosilver
    I agree. But an alternative (or additional) meaning of "hookup culture" could be that merely hooking up without any expectation of developing loving feelings or long-term attachments has come to form a significantly greater proportion of all male-female relationships than before. So even if people are having less sex, it could be that more of the sex they are having is taking place in a hookup context and proportionally less in a dating context.

    Purely anecdotally, in the last 5-10 years I've had far more girls matter of factly disclose to me that they have a "fuck buddy" (argh, hate that term!) or are in an "open relationship", sometimes only minutes after I've approached them, than I can ever recall happening when I was in my late teens/early 20s. Part of the reason for that is almost certainly because I've become better at "game" and at introducing sexual themes into the conversation than when I was younger. But I can't help feeling another significant part of the reason is that girls these days feel more comfortable/secure about divulging their sluthood. (Plenty of girls felt comfortable/secure about that when I was younger too; we're talking about a proportional increase rather than an unprecedented social development.)
    , @dfordoom

    I’m a little skeptical of the putative hook up culture. There just isn’t good evidence anywhere that young people are having more sex now than in the past. If anything, the evidence points to them having less.
     
    It could be like the Sexual Revolution in the late 60s/70s. A small minority of people were having a lot more sex than in the past. Since that minority were having a lot more partners it's quite possible that the average person was having less sex. So I suspect that hookup culture is very real and those who engage it in are probably having an enormous amount of sex while at the same time they may well be reducing the number of available partners for non-participants in that culture.

    The trend in our society seems to be that those at the top of heap in terms of wealth and attractiveness gain a near-monopoly in the sexual marketplace while those at the bottom of the heap get pushed out of that marketplace altogether.

    Also, surveys on sexual behaviour are notoriously unreliable. Even worse, people will lie in multiple ways - some will wildly exaggerate the amount of sex they have, some will just as wildly underestimate it. Most such surveys either have very very low response rates or they're essentially self-selected and therefore worthless. I suspect that back in the 70s Boomers were outrageously exaggerating the amount of sex they were getting while I suspect that Milllennials may be understating the matter (part of Millennial Self Pity Syndrome - we don't get any sex and it's all the fault of the Boomers).
    , @216
    This claim interacts with the AF/BB claim of 80/20.

    The "top 20%" of men have a glide path via Tinder & Friends to more sex.

    But at the same time, the data did show a smaller uptick in female sexlessness.
  63. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm a little skeptical of the putative hook up culture. There just isn't good evidence anywhere that young people are having more sex now than in the past. If anything, the evidence points to them having less.

    Yeah I almost think that hookup culture is a total media fabrication.

    Only about 15% of my peers participate in “hook up culture”. And these people are unanimously alcoholics, who generally get blackout drunk, high on drugs, and bring a generally below average girl home from the club. 60% sit around feeling bad because they don’t “get any pussy”. 20% smartly pull out from this altogether

    My conspiracy is that it’s designed to make men miserable. Make men feel insecure about their own sex life. Another order from tptb to push it? Maybe not.

    I’ve dabbled in hookup culture and it sucks. Just go volcel until finding a gf/wife. It also sucks going volcel but it’s best to just focus on your own life.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I’ve dabbled in hookup culture and it sucks.
     
    It can be enormously frustrating and dispiriting, and sometimes the successes themselves are so lame they don't begin to make up for it.

    If a guy goes into it thinking that (a) he'll be getting consistent and regular lays, and in the event that this happens (b) find fulfillment from it, he is in the overwhelming majority of cases seriously deluding himself.

    But if a guy goes into it understanding that consistency and regularity are chimeras, and that it's most fulfilling when you see the same girl (or girls, if you're good enough) for a while and build up some intimacy - even if you don't actually "fall in love" or establish exclusivity - then it's quite possible to find satisfaction in this lifestyle.

    That said, the vast majority of guys would be much better served finding one girl to build a relationship with and taking that relationship as far as it will go.

    Lastly, don't believe the PUA seminar/boot camp hucksters' hype of "looks don't matter." Lol, the hell they don't. Being minimally good looking is virtually mandatory for doing well in hookup culture. I'd say 7/10 and up on the guy scale, which probably equates to being in the 80th percentile in looks (and the higher, the exponentially better).

    If you're unattractive, you'd better have a killer body (decent muscle size, visible abs leanness) and a killer game/personality (especially being exciting and interesting company, with the social repertoire to handle the assortment of personality types you'll encounter) or else serious cash (blowing a few grand on a night out should be inconsequential to you) or else serious fame (speaks for itself) - none of which is easily achieved.

    If you have neither good looks, nor killer body, nor killer personality, nor serious cash, nor serious fame, it's still quite possible that in all your endeavors you'll score some slut or two, even a decent looking one, but it's exceedingly unlikely you'll do better than that without lowering your standards to war pigs. However, there's no way that will compensate you for the crushing amount of rejections, the thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars wasted on alcohol/drugs, the horrible hangovers/recoveries, the revolting amount of degeneracy you'll witness, and the countless dark nights of the soul you'll experience as you wonder what the hell you're wasting your life on.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Whatever it's designed to do, one inevitable outcome for both men and women who participate is an incorrigible growth in a lack of trust and respect for members of the opposite sex.
    , @JohnnyWalker123

    bring a generally below average girl home from the club
     
    Maybe back in 2007. Nightlife is pretty weak these days. A generation raised with smartphones find real-life interaction to be scary. Lots of men are approach-averse (and lots of women are scared of "creepy" guys), so the club scene is weak to nonexistent.

    Here's an article about all the clubs closing down in Toronto. This is happening everywhere these days.

    https://www.thestar.com/business/2015/01/25/guvernment-nightclub-closure-signals-death-of-superclubs-in-the-city.html

    These days, it's all about Tinder and online dating. People spend hours customizing their profiles so they can get swipes. If you're willing to spend endless amounts of time playing the game, you might get an occasional hookup with a 5/10. Lots of girls just go on Tinder to get attention from men, without any intention of meeting anybody.

    That's why only 15% of men are doing okay in this sexual environment. Back pre-smartphones, it was a lot higher than 15%. Smartphones killed much of the casual hookup scene.
  64. @silviosilver

    Does new material = more and more extreme content?
     
    His argument doesn't hold water.

    It's like saying that since nobody would watch the same football game over and over, people demand more and more extreme football games.

    I believe his point is that habitual viewing of porn desensitizes the viewer to it, requiring more viewing or more “extreme” versions of it.

    This would be similar to narcotics use, where habitual use creates a tolerance that can only be overcome by an increase in dosage.

    Since both narcotics and sex involve the release of dopamine, there is something to it.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I believe his point is that habitual viewing of porn desensitizes the viewer to it, requiring more viewing or more “extreme” versions of it.
     
    I see no reason to believe that that's true.

    That sounds a bit like suggesting that once a guy has had sex with a female of, say, 6/10 attractiveness for a while, he becomes "desensitized" to that level of beauty, and he then requires 7/10 attractiveness or greater to achieve the same stimulation. Does that sound like an accurate description of the way men are?

    Or would be it more accurate to say that if a guy gets bored of a particular girl, he remains perfectly capable of getting excited by a new girl of the same level of attractiveness (or even lower attractiveness)? In other words, it's simply novelty that is sought, not added intensity.
  65. @Dumbo

    With porn we run into the same issues as with other vices, namely that some people form harmful addictions and then cries go out to deny the product to society as a whole – alcohol and recreational drugs being the two biggies.
     
    Alcohol and drugs at least have some useful value if you don't abuse them, while porn... I don't know, maybe it helps to reduce rape and prostitution? Or does it increase them? Are there any studies about that?

    All that’s happened is that pornographers discovered that some people’s tastes ran to more extreme forms of sex and they set out to provide the product.
     
    It's not just "some people". There's more extreme porn than ever before, watched by more people than ever before. Google "2 girls 1 cup". This was watched by millions. Granted, probably not for sexual gratification, but still the fact that this became part of "popular culture", as well as many, many other even worse things that were normally very much in the margin, is a sign that there is something very wrong with our society. It's like tattoos, once just criminals and sailors had them, now it's almost everyone.

    There’s more extreme porn than ever before, watched by more people than ever before.

    There’s also more tasteful porn than ever before. Go to any major porn site and run a search for babes dot kom (spell it with a c), 21naturals, or x-art. Sample the offerings and I think you’ll agree that it’s something a girl could legitimately enjoy watching with her boyfriend in order to increase the erotic atmosphere in the bedroom. The first time I watched porn with a girl I only suggested it in jest, not expecting her to say yes. But when I asked her “wanna watch some porn?” and she became visibly excited and said “okay!” All I had was some crappy VHS offering – nothing even close to the quality of the aforementioned suggestions – and yet she still got turned on by watching it with me. (I dated this girl for a while. She had a high sex drive, but she wasn’t in any way kinky.)

    Granted, probably not for sexual gratification, but still the fact that this became part of “popular culture”, as well as many, many other even worse things that were normally very much in the margin, is a sign that there is something very wrong with our society.

    I’m not sure that porn (much less extreme porn) can be said to have become part of “popular culture” to an appreciably greater degree than it already was before the internet. I can’t recall a single instance in real life in which someone has brought up a particular porn scene as a topic of conversation or even simply to recommend it. “So, what kind of porn are you into?” or any variation on that is not something I have ever heard said – and I spend a lot of time around the kind of people that the more socially conservative posters on this thread would be certain to describe as degenerates.

    The one time I can recall somebody mentioning a porn actress by name who was well known enough that he felt no need to have to explain who she was was when a friend informed me that a mutual acquaintance of ours (some D-list celebrity) had banged her. People don’t talk about porn even remotely as much as they talk about sportsball or pop stars or movies – or even video games or comic books. Hell, you’re much more likely hear someone bring up masturbation or sex toys as a conversational topic than you are porn specifically. As far as I’m aware, mainstream entertainment journalism completely ignore porn and the private lives of porn stars. In other words, although the popularity of porn has grown, its impact on popular culture is negligible.

    The most I’m prepared to concede is that today “everyone knows that everyone” has watched a bit of porn (and more likely a lot of porn) to a much greater degree than was true in the 80s and 90s. I attach about the same social significance to people being more open about watching porn in the 2010s compared to the 1980s as I would to the fact that people in the 1980s were more open about sex than they were in the 1950s – which is to say, that to the extent that it’s socially significant, it’s more indicative of social progress than it is of social degeneracy.

  66. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I believe his point is that habitual viewing of porn desensitizes the viewer to it, requiring more viewing or more "extreme" versions of it.

    This would be similar to narcotics use, where habitual use creates a tolerance that can only be overcome by an increase in dosage.

    Since both narcotics and sex involve the release of dopamine, there is something to it.

    I believe his point is that habitual viewing of porn desensitizes the viewer to it, requiring more viewing or more “extreme” versions of it.

    I see no reason to believe that that’s true.

    That sounds a bit like suggesting that once a guy has had sex with a female of, say, 6/10 attractiveness for a while, he becomes “desensitized” to that level of beauty, and he then requires 7/10 attractiveness or greater to achieve the same stimulation. Does that sound like an accurate description of the way men are?

    Or would be it more accurate to say that if a guy gets bored of a particular girl, he remains perfectly capable of getting excited by a new girl of the same level of attractiveness (or even lower attractiveness)? In other words, it’s simply novelty that is sought, not added intensity.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Or would be it more accurate to say that if a guy gets bored of a particular girl, he remains perfectly capable of getting excited by a new girl of the same level of attractiveness (or even lower attractiveness)? In other words, it’s simply novelty that is sought, not added intensity."

    It would be more accurate if one were to accept the premise that viewing pornography and engaging in sexual intercourse are relatable things. If you think viewing sex is the same as having it, well, all I can tell you is that you might be doing it wrong. :)

    In my observation - viewing porn and its effects more closely resemble those of a habitual drug user, than they do an individual involved in a real sexual relationship.
  67. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm a little skeptical of the putative hook up culture. There just isn't good evidence anywhere that young people are having more sex now than in the past. If anything, the evidence points to them having less.

    I agree. But an alternative (or additional) meaning of “hookup culture” could be that merely hooking up without any expectation of developing loving feelings or long-term attachments has come to form a significantly greater proportion of all male-female relationships than before. So even if people are having less sex, it could be that more of the sex they are having is taking place in a hookup context and proportionally less in a dating context.

    Purely anecdotally, in the last 5-10 years I’ve had far more girls matter of factly disclose to me that they have a “fuck buddy” (argh, hate that term!) or are in an “open relationship”, sometimes only minutes after I’ve approached them, than I can ever recall happening when I was in my late teens/early 20s. Part of the reason for that is almost certainly because I’ve become better at “game” and at introducing sexual themes into the conversation than when I was younger. But I can’t help feeling another significant part of the reason is that girls these days feel more comfortable/secure about divulging their sluthood. (Plenty of girls felt comfortable/secure about that when I was younger too; we’re talking about a proportional increase rather than an unprecedented social development.)

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    You don't ever feel like you should settle down and make white babies?

    At your age it's time to give it up, imo.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    An aside, you bring up another reason I'm pretty confident the decline in sexual activity is real. We know people fudge the numbers on sexual partners, women too low and men too high, but over time the expectation should be that women low-ball less now than they did in the past since there is less shame in a high count now than there was then.
  68. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Yeah I almost think that hookup culture is a total media fabrication.

    Only about 15% of my peers participate in "hook up culture". And these people are unanimously alcoholics, who generally get blackout drunk, high on drugs, and bring a generally below average girl home from the club. 60% sit around feeling bad because they don't "get any pussy". 20% smartly pull out from this altogether

    My conspiracy is that it's designed to make men miserable. Make men feel insecure about their own sex life. Another order from tptb to push it? Maybe not.

    I've dabbled in hookup culture and it sucks. Just go volcel until finding a gf/wife. It also sucks going volcel but it's best to just focus on your own life.

    I’ve dabbled in hookup culture and it sucks.

    It can be enormously frustrating and dispiriting, and sometimes the successes themselves are so lame they don’t begin to make up for it.

    If a guy goes into it thinking that (a) he’ll be getting consistent and regular lays, and in the event that this happens (b) find fulfillment from it, he is in the overwhelming majority of cases seriously deluding himself.

    But if a guy goes into it understanding that consistency and regularity are chimeras, and that it’s most fulfilling when you see the same girl (or girls, if you’re good enough) for a while and build up some intimacy – even if you don’t actually “fall in love” or establish exclusivity – then it’s quite possible to find satisfaction in this lifestyle.

    That said, the vast majority of guys would be much better served finding one girl to build a relationship with and taking that relationship as far as it will go.

    Lastly, don’t believe the PUA seminar/boot camp hucksters’ hype of “looks don’t matter.” Lol, the hell they don’t. Being minimally good looking is virtually mandatory for doing well in hookup culture. I’d say 7/10 and up on the guy scale, which probably equates to being in the 80th percentile in looks (and the higher, the exponentially better).

    If you’re unattractive, you’d better have a killer body (decent muscle size, visible abs leanness) and a killer game/personality (especially being exciting and interesting company, with the social repertoire to handle the assortment of personality types you’ll encounter) or else serious cash (blowing a few grand on a night out should be inconsequential to you) or else serious fame (speaks for itself) – none of which is easily achieved.

    If you have neither good looks, nor killer body, nor killer personality, nor serious cash, nor serious fame, it’s still quite possible that in all your endeavors you’ll score some slut or two, even a decent looking one, but it’s exceedingly unlikely you’ll do better than that without lowering your standards to war pigs. However, there’s no way that will compensate you for the crushing amount of rejections, the thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars wasted on alcohol/drugs, the horrible hangovers/recoveries, the revolting amount of degeneracy you’ll witness, and the countless dark nights of the soul you’ll experience as you wonder what the hell you’re wasting your life on.

  69. @silviosilver
    I agree. But an alternative (or additional) meaning of "hookup culture" could be that merely hooking up without any expectation of developing loving feelings or long-term attachments has come to form a significantly greater proportion of all male-female relationships than before. So even if people are having less sex, it could be that more of the sex they are having is taking place in a hookup context and proportionally less in a dating context.

    Purely anecdotally, in the last 5-10 years I've had far more girls matter of factly disclose to me that they have a "fuck buddy" (argh, hate that term!) or are in an "open relationship", sometimes only minutes after I've approached them, than I can ever recall happening when I was in my late teens/early 20s. Part of the reason for that is almost certainly because I've become better at "game" and at introducing sexual themes into the conversation than when I was younger. But I can't help feeling another significant part of the reason is that girls these days feel more comfortable/secure about divulging their sluthood. (Plenty of girls felt comfortable/secure about that when I was younger too; we're talking about a proportional increase rather than an unprecedented social development.)

    You don’t ever feel like you should settle down and make white babies?

    At your age it’s time to give it up, imo.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    Just last night a 58 year old never married friend of mine was bragging about being a stud "I can get laid anytime I want man, not every guy can do it but I can".

    I found someone that old talking that way to be depressing and disturbing. It sounded like something out of a high school gym locker yet he's approaching old age. I'm quite certain he's exaggerating too as he's overweight and has many chronic health problems which he doesn't take his meds for. He passes out at random times. He doesn't even seem capable of being sexual anymore even if he probably did have a lot of partners earlier in life.

    His mother died over a year ago and he is an absolute wreck over it still. I told him he would have been better off if he had a wife, children and grandchildren right now because he would have a support system (at least ideally assuming the marriage was healthy). He says he never could have done that because he liked sex with multiple women too much. He had all that sex yet has nothing to show for it now and is in a really bad place emotionally.
  70. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t really believe much in the idea that secularization of Jews is a threat to Jewish people in the USA. This idea has been promoted by Jewish leaders for many decades now, and yet, the Jewish population in the USA is still growing:

    “The Jewish population has increased from 6.1 million in 2000 and 6.5 million in 2010.”
    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/trends-in-american-jewish-demography

    Nevertheless, we still see it covered, by people such as Chaim Waxman, https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/it-takes-two-to-tango-mother-father-and-the-future-of-american-jewry/

    He writes about the proportional drop in the Jewish demographic:

    In the late-1970s, the size of the American Jewish population was estimated at 5,781,000, or about 2.67 percent of the total population of the United States. Just several decades earlier, the 1930s, for example, Jews were 3.7% of the total population. The latest figure starkly demonstrated that American Jewry had become an increasingly smaller part of the overall American population. That, however, did not necessarily mean that American Jewry itself was shrinking. Those figures may have been reflective of the traditional pattern of Jews maintaining a lower birth rate than their non-Jewish counterparts, which was not unusual and, in fact, had been the pattern since the 19th century, in Europe, as well.

    For many American Jews, the concern is rooted in possible implications for the well-being of Jews as a group and as a community in American society. Although Jews have always been a small minority in American society, there is concern that the shrinking numbers may result in shrinking influence.

    Fertility is a communal issue and “it takes two to tango.” It means developing explicit and implicit pro-natalist policies for men and women.

    Indeed, Jews have a history of creating pro-natalist policies, as has been done in earlier years in Israel to increase the Jewish percentage of the population vs. the Arabs:

    As explained by Liebler, Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, worked with Italian demographer Roberto Bachi to identify “the most fertile Jewish group” within the country. The “Mizrahi woman,” wrote Liebler, became known as “the national womb” of Israel. In targeting Mizrahi Jews to alter population trends among Jews and Arabs, “a deep ethnic split between two Jewish ethnic groups” was forged.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/numbers-game-do-jewish-leaders-manipulate-existential-fears-with-statistics/

    I wonder how the world would respond if whites tried to create pro-natalist policies to increase our shrinking influence in the USA, and to make the USA a whiter country?

    According to the first source, “Fertility (average number of children ever born per adult age 40-50) is only 1.9 children, compared to 2.2 children for the U.S. general public”

    That is maybe below the US TFR, but it is above the white TFR.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Hungary is trying. The response has been similar to the confused anger at the "it's okay to be white" meme. They know they don't like either but they also realize the difficulty of articulating why they don't without revealing the reality that they just don't like white people.
  71. @Mark G.
    "Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food."

    You can make the argument that porn leads to degradation of the spirit but you can also make the same argument about various works of literature and also nonfiction works. So if porn should be banned then these should too. You would then need to toss out the U.S. Bill of Rights since that includes freedom of speech and press.

    You are also assuming here the government censor will want to censor exactly the same things you want to censor. What is the probability that an individual identical to you will assume that role? The reality is that the government censor will censor anything that whoever holds political power disapproves of. What if you have a leftwing government in charge? Did censors in the Soviet Union help protect the "church, the family, traditional communities" that you listed?

    Libertarians understand not just the importance of the individual but also the importance of intermediate institutions that exist between the individual and the state. These institutions include the family, churches, and private organizations engaging in charitable work or trying to achieve various social goals. Libertarians have traditionally seen that the state causes the withering away of these intermediate institutions as it takes over their functions in an effort to achieve total power. The government is more likely to be a threat to these institutions than a protector of them. Government censors will follow the beliefs of those in power and will also be a threat to the continuation of these institutions.

    You can make the argument that porn leads to degradation of the spirit but you can also make the same argument about various works of literature and also nonfiction works. So if porn should be banned then these should too.

    Yep. If we banned everything that leads to degradation of the spirit we’d have to ban almost all of not only modern pop culture but modern high culture as well. Pretty much the whole of western art since the beginning of the 20th century. All current pop music. Nearly all modern Hollywood movies.

    And consumerism leads to degradation of the spirit so we’d have to ban that too.

  72. @John Gruskos
    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.

    It is the role of the church, the family, traditional communities, and nations to guard against degradation of the spirit and ugliness, and maintain a world of beauty and dignity.

    Libertarians use government as a tool to shackle church, family, community, and nation, and thus prevent them from fulfilling their traditional role of guiding and disciplining the individual.

    Is this because libertarians tend to be high IQ individuals who want to live a "Ant & Grasshopper" fantasy? Do they want lower IQ individuals to be "liberated" from the support of traditional communities, so that those low IQ individuals can then make foolish choices and live in misery, while the libertarian, who is intelligent enough to make wiser decisions without the support of traditional communities, can smugly observe the misery of his inferiors, which adds extra relish to his own success?

    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.

    Most of the arguments made here against porn come down to – this is something I don’t like and it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should be banned. To justify banning something you have to come up with a real argument.

    Firstly you’d have to establish, convincingly, that the thing you’re wanting to ban is actually harmful. You know, actual evidence. And you’d need convincing evidence that it harms a significant proportion of those who consume it.

    We know that alcohol is very bad for a small minority of users but we also know that for the vast majority of consumers it’s harmless. In fact it has some benefits – it makes social interactions easier, it makes life slightly more pleasant, it may even have mild health benefits. Very few people today would seriously argue for a ban on alcohol. Why should 95% of alcohol consumers be punished because 5% have problems dealing with alcohol? The generally accepted view is that we should try to help the 5% deal with their problems, but not at the expense of responsible alcohol users.

    In the case of porn, if the vast majority of users suffer no harmful effects should they be punished because a small minority suffer ill effects? We have to ask – is there any even vaguely persuasive evidence that the vast majority of porn consumers suffer any harm? is there any actual evidence of direct social harm? To be honest, I’m not even sure there’s really persuasive evidence that any porn users at all are directly affected in a negative way.

    As for social consequences, pretty much all the things that are wrong with our society today were clearly in evidence decades ago, at a time when porn consumption was very very low compared to today.

    If you think you can present some real scientific evidence that porn has had a harmful effect on a significant number of individuals and on society then by all means let’s see that evidence. I’ll be happy to listen.

    • Replies: @216
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/
    , @John Gruskos
    https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/15/a-science-based-case-for-ending-the-porn-epidemic/
    , @John Gruskos

    something I don’t like and it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should be banned
     
    It is something which is contrary to Christian religion and ancient Anglo-Saxon customs, therefore it should be banned in the Christian Anglo-Saxon nation of America.

    But as a scientific experiment, lets flood Israel with completely unrestricted porn and opioids and see what happens.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Have there been studies about the relationship between porn usage and things like erectile dysfunction?
  73. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm a little skeptical of the putative hook up culture. There just isn't good evidence anywhere that young people are having more sex now than in the past. If anything, the evidence points to them having less.

    I’m a little skeptical of the putative hook up culture. There just isn’t good evidence anywhere that young people are having more sex now than in the past. If anything, the evidence points to them having less.

    It could be like the Sexual Revolution in the late 60s/70s. A small minority of people were having a lot more sex than in the past. Since that minority were having a lot more partners it’s quite possible that the average person was having less sex. So I suspect that hookup culture is very real and those who engage it in are probably having an enormous amount of sex while at the same time they may well be reducing the number of available partners for non-participants in that culture.

    The trend in our society seems to be that those at the top of heap in terms of wealth and attractiveness gain a near-monopoly in the sexual marketplace while those at the bottom of the heap get pushed out of that marketplace altogether.

    Also, surveys on sexual behaviour are notoriously unreliable. Even worse, people will lie in multiple ways – some will wildly exaggerate the amount of sex they have, some will just as wildly underestimate it. Most such surveys either have very very low response rates or they’re essentially self-selected and therefore worthless. I suspect that back in the 70s Boomers were outrageously exaggerating the amount of sex they were getting while I suspect that Milllennials may be understating the matter (part of Millennial Self Pity Syndrome – we don’t get any sex and it’s all the fault of the Boomers).

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The pity party explanation does have more plausibility than the "women lie" explanation does. Yes, women lie about partner counts, but there is no obvious reason why they should lie more now than they did a generation or two ago. If anything, they should lie less now than they did then. But wanting to feel sorry for themselves meshes well with the wider Victimhood culture. Maybe now they understate the number of partners but overstate the number of those partners who were unwanted!
  74. @Anon
    Judaism, centered around the synagogue, is newer than Christianity. It developed sometime after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. But that aside, Ashkenazim are not even the same people as the Jews in the Bible.

    The 2013 study co-author Martin Richards, an archaeogeneticist at the University of Huddersfield in England, said that while Ashkenazi Jews have lived in Europe for many centuries, the results of the study using DNA samples show that most European Jews descend from local people who converted to Judaism, not individuals who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago.

    https://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html
     
    Jewish historian and professor Jim Wald in the Times of Israel blog:

    ...It is well known that, sometime in the eighth to ninth centuries, the Khazars, a warlike Turkic people, converted to Judaism and ruled over a vast domain in what became southern Russia and Ukraine. What happened to them after the Russians destroyed that empire around the eleventh century has been a mystery. Many have speculated that the Khazars became the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews.

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/
     

    The Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi origins has been pretty thoroughly refuted by modern genomics, as your LiveScience linked article mentions in passing. OTOH, LiveScience somewhat glosses over and misstates what the genomics actually do show when it says:

    “most European Jews descend from local people who converted to Judaism, not individuals who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago”

    It would be more correct to say most European Jews descend from local women who converted to Judaism, and from men who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago.

  75. @Sean

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201803/surprising-new-data-the-world-s-most-popular-porn-site

    [I]f we focus only on sites that publish other content, then PornHub ranks number four behind only Wikipedia, Microsoft, and Netflix. ... PornHub says its audience is 75 percent men and 25 percent women. This comes as a surprise. ...I emailed PornHub asking how they came up with their gender breakdown. A spokesperson replied that the site relies on Google Analytics, a service of the giant search company that parses web traffic a zillion different ways. I use Google Analytics myself.... The depth and breadth of information are astonishing—and I use only the services available for free. Sites that pay get much, much more. So I’m (almost) ready to believe that women comprise around 25 percent of PornHub’s audience. I’m guessing that a significant proportion of PornHub’s women audience is bisexual or lesbian. Among women, “lesbian” is the #1 search category (below). [...] The Internet porn audience skews younger, but still, 24 percent are 45 or older.
     

    The 2018 Pornhub report showed the proportion of female visitors increased by 3 percentage points over 2017.

    My guess is TERFs will continue to get steamrolled (ie JK Rowling),
     

    https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2018-year-in-review
    Interest in ‘trans’ (aka transgender) porn saw significant gains in 2018, in particular with a 167% increase in searches by men and more than 200% with visitors over the age of 45 (becoming the fifth most searched terms by those aged 45 to 64)
     
    The most views for a porn performer on Pornhub in 2018 was Riley Reid, and although they don't say it, she is an interracial (ie sex with black men) specialist. I think the site is avoiding mentioning interracial, but it is very very popular judging by her and the other top girls view stats including the Kardashians'. My conclusion is the female opposition to male chauvinist libertinism, and white male opposition to black male on white female interracial sex and men in women's clothes being accepted as real women will slowly but surely collapse as a result of these highly professionally produced genres that men seem more and more inclined to mastrubate to. Scott Adams has written about just how hypnotically sophisticated the state of the art in porn has got, and he thinks the ground zero is in Canada, which is where Pornhub is based.

    One nit to pick: Orthodox Jews will remain distinct as a group. What most people will think of when they hear about Jews a couple of generations down the road will be something like an urban, more salient version of the Amish today.
     
    Secular and liberal Jews today were sloughed off by ultra orthodox communities of Haredi Judaism from which they all descended. I see no reason to think that as the non-Haredi Jews disappear by intermarriage and low birth rate the special mental qualities of pure Jews will not be in great demand. By a process of osmosis a portion of the Haredi will be drawn off into the secular and liberal lifestyle. No matter if you live to 150 years old, forget about bidding farewell to domination of science, politics and especially culture in the West by Jews. Killing yourself will be the only way to get away from that spectacle.

    “Secular and liberal Jews today were sloughed off by ultra orthodox communities of Haredi Judaism from which they all descended.”

    Yes, this is what Intelligent Dasein (PBUH) misses when he says things like,

    “another generation or two, and the history of this ethnic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust”

    or

    “we have pretty much seen the last of Judaism as an historically significant force in the West.”

    Most HBD things are questions of degree or rates of change, (or as Steve likes to say, glasses simultaneously half empty and half full), so it can be difficult for hard-nosed objective thinkers to conceptualize this fluid environment accurately.

    At the moment, about an eighth of “Jews” are the orthodox (i.e., really actually Jews). These people breed like crazy, on par with the Amish. Now, as with the Amish, not all of those born to them go on to remain orthodox. Enough do to maintain and increase the numbers of the orthodox, but there is still a large surplus who “slough off” to become the people whom one still thinks of as “Jews”.

    In essence, there is a kind of half-life from the orthodox community. If you have a fertility rate of about six, as I understand the Orthodox Jews do, and, for example, a third of the offspring “slough off” to something less orthodox, well, you still double the base population each generation while throwing off a whole extra surplus generation of secularizing descendants.

    So when you look at today’s population of Jews, you are seeing a one-eighth high-fertility core, “sloughing off” a trail lower fertility but more materially productive secularizers, who in turn produce lower fertility and higher secularity offspring until you arrive the edge, full of prominent but terminal cases like Andrea Dworkin and Woody Allen.

    The fact that the core matrix population is not the majority creates the illusion of irrelevance, but this as false as saying that because the head of a comet is only a very small part of what you see, the head is irrelevant to the comet. In fact, the head is the source of the whole comet, irrespective of its visibility. To extend the comet metaphor, at times of higher or lower solar wind, the comet’s visible tail may grow more or less prominent, but this does not mean the comet itself is about to go extinct.

    As regards the comparison with Amish for white gentiles, it is valid, but there are at least a couple of distinctions to make. One is that though a minority, the Orthodox Jewish population if still a substantial minority of Jews, about an eighth, as mentioned. So much so, that most Jews can probably name their most recent Orthodox ancestor, who probably lived only a generation or three ago. By contrast, Amish are a tiny tiny minority of gentile whites, from whom no recognizable ethnic group descend. The Amish:white gentile ratio is two or three orders of magnitude smaller than the Orthodox:Jewish ratio.
    This matters. Another distinction is the different cultural orientation, made by John Gruskos, above.

    • Agree: Thea
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The comparison with Mormons and other white gentiles might be better, then, though they're not keeping anything like the TFRs that orthodox Jews or the Amish are.

    Does the sloughing off continue indefinitely? This is a huge question for what the future will look like (sans a CRISPRed future, anyway). For at least the last three generations in the US, and probably much further back than that, the religious have significantly outbred the irreligious. Yet the society as a whole continues to become less and less religious. At what point, if ever, does that cease being the case?
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    Most HBD things are questions of degree or rates of change, (or as Steve likes to say, glasses simultaneously half empty and half full), so it can be difficult for hard-nosed objective thinkers to conceptualize this fluid environment accurately.
     
    There isn't anything difficult to understand about what you've said. The problem is that it isn't happening. This whole comet/slough metaphor is a tidy and elegant description---of something that does not exist.

    This is not a mechanical process; we aren't talking about diffusion rates here, we're talking about cultures. The behavior of today's secularized Jews is something that emerged out of interaction with the dominant West European culture of today and yesterday. Whatever sloughs off the comet head tomorrow is of no consequence; tomorrow's "secularized Jews" do not form any kind of continuous cultural unit with today's "secularized Jews."

    Or, to put it in your own terminology, the comet metaphor is accurate once you understand that the tail of the comet is not a body but a pseudo-process (like a shadow) that always points away from the Sun. Its unity is apparent, not real.

    The apostate grandsons of tomorrow's orthodox Jewry are not going to become future Harvey Weinsteins and Michael Bloombergs. The cultural dynamics that created these people out of a horde of educated and disbelieving shtetl-dwellers from the old continent no longer exist. There are no more shtetls and shtetl-dwellers, no more influx of ethnic Jewish immigrants, no booming American land of opportunity to grant them easy access to great fortunes, no more religious tension, no antisemetic bigotry, no unifying secular Jewish experience of any kind whatsoever. None of the relevant cultural factors will ever be repeated again, and that is what I meant by historically significant Judaism.

    The rest is mere panache. Just as it makes no difference whatsoever to any American today whether his ancestors 150 years back were Polish or German or English, so tomorrow it will matter not if your ancestors were secular Jews. Only the orthodox, in their unimportant enclaves, will remain Jewish.
  76. I have been following this discussion and I have several observations.

    the Jews are not pointing a gun to anyone’s head to force them to watch this material. And given the core nature of the discussion, has very little resonance with me.

    ———————–

    As someone who is celibate, opposes the material, despite my own dalliances and I include in that the soft material — so referenced, in mainstream films, if the material is making males more violent toward women, the stats don’t support it. Crimes of this nature are down, that in spite of the Justice Departments expanded definitions on what constitutes rape.

    note: for those boys and men I knew exposed to this material, there was no desire to graduate to more extreme material — just the opposite. I cannot speak for others, but even material available that was graphic would be “gross” and “yuck” and unappealing.

    ———————–
    It has been sad to know that some of my favorite actresses have allowed themselves to be used in explicit material in mainstream films — repeatedly.

    painful

    ———————–

    As critical thought — I can not support legalizing prostitution. But the fault line, more like canyon of hypocrisy for liberals rests on this: if one argues that murdering a child in the womb is ok because its her body (and that child s not her body) then, there is no case to prevent women for making a profit from their body as privately owned commodity.

    Laugh: whatever the new fads are volcel, incel . . . hermit, etc one need not be any extreme to be “healthy” in mind body and soul to be celibate

    • Replies: @Pericles

    the Jews are not pointing a gun to anyone’s head to force them to watch this material.

     

    The Jews aren't forcing anyone to take opioids either. They just make it as easy and convenient as possible. And if you need an excuse, they've already made it for you.
  77. @silviosilver

    I believe his point is that habitual viewing of porn desensitizes the viewer to it, requiring more viewing or more “extreme” versions of it.
     
    I see no reason to believe that that's true.

    That sounds a bit like suggesting that once a guy has had sex with a female of, say, 6/10 attractiveness for a while, he becomes "desensitized" to that level of beauty, and he then requires 7/10 attractiveness or greater to achieve the same stimulation. Does that sound like an accurate description of the way men are?

    Or would be it more accurate to say that if a guy gets bored of a particular girl, he remains perfectly capable of getting excited by a new girl of the same level of attractiveness (or even lower attractiveness)? In other words, it's simply novelty that is sought, not added intensity.

    “Or would be it more accurate to say that if a guy gets bored of a particular girl, he remains perfectly capable of getting excited by a new girl of the same level of attractiveness (or even lower attractiveness)? In other words, it’s simply novelty that is sought, not added intensity.”

    It would be more accurate if one were to accept the premise that viewing pornography and engaging in sexual intercourse are relatable things. If you think viewing sex is the same as having it, well, all I can tell you is that you might be doing it wrong. 🙂

    In my observation – viewing porn and its effects more closely resemble those of a habitual drug user, than they do an individual involved in a real sexual relationship.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    In my observation – viewing porn and its effects more closely resemble those of a habitual drug user, than they do an individual involved in a real sexual relationship.
     
    If you've got some hard scientific evidence to back that up then we'll certainly listen.

    What we've got so far from the anti-porn brigade on UR has been a series of assertions with no actual supporting evidence. In fact what we've got so far has been "anything I don't like must be bad so it should be banned" which is hardly an argument. I don't like football and football can result in serious injuries (and occasionally even death) but that doesn't give me a justification for demanding that football should be banned.

    I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong. I'd just like to see some evidence.

    I believe there were some studies done years ago after censorship was liberalised in some of the Scandinavian countries that seemed to indicate that increased availability of porn might be associated with lower rates of rape and other sexual assaults. But that was something I read years ago and I've long since forgotten where I read it.

    Porn seems to be a subject on which people are simply not interested in looking at actual evidence.
  78. @Audacious Epigone
    Orthodox Jews are far more likely to be Trump supporting Republicans than non-Orthodox Jews. That's not necessarily the opposite of being secular and international, but they are much less cosmopolitan.

    One strange aspect of the contemporary political landscape is how younger blacks and Jews are more pro-Trump/pro-Republican than older blacks and Jews are.

    I think he means the ones that go off the res. Those seem to always become rootless cosmopolitan and angry feminist types. Every generation will have some.

    Some sort of reaction against their parents.

    • Replies: @Wency
    That's how I took it.

    If we use the Amish as a guide, the tendency to quit Orthodoxy will likely be increasingly bred out of the population. But some portion will always defect. Perhaps the defecters will maintain some degree of secularized Jewishness for another (low TFR) generation or two.

    But note that most of the famous leftist Ashkenazim with which we are familiar are many generations removed from deeply observant Judaism. They grew up in a semi-assimilated culture that identified itself as deeply Jewish and took pride in Jewishness, despite the lack of observance. That's the culture that is diminishing as it assimilates into mainstream SWPL culture.

    A culture of people 1-2 generations removed from Orthodox Judaism (and somewhat resentful towards it) will probably look different from historical secular Jewish culture.
  79. @dfordoom


    It teaches that one’s personal gratification at the expense of another is ultimately what sex is about, a truly dehumanizing lesson, and a direct hit on one’s moral values and views towards women.
     
    Really? Is porn only about non-consensual sex? Or am I misunderstanding “at the expense of another”?
     
    Is it possible that there's good porn and bad porn? Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be to ask if there is benign porn and destructive porn?

    There is certainly a difference between the older type of softcore porn and most hardcore porn. Old school softcore porn tended to put a great deal of emphasis on the woman's pleasure (movies like Emmanuelle for instance). Hardcore porn emphasises male pleasure. And old school softcore porn did at least acknowledge that sex has an emotional content. I'd say that old-fashioned softcore porn was about people having sex. Hardcore porn is about body parts having sex.

    Maybe we need porn reform. Seriously. Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable maybe we should focus on encouraging the benign stuff and very strongly discouraging if not banning the destructive stuff. Make Porn Great Again.

    I’m not familiar enough with genre to refute your facts, but I thought the real issue of porn was its hyper stimulating effects. It’s related to obesity due to highly concentrated sugar and fats.

    “Consent” has replaced the morality surrounding sexual behavior that originated with God’s law. Consent is a perfect concept of the highest morality for a self-centered culture that replaced God with their own ego.

    Back on topic, the cheese coating on Cheetos was invented by a Jew.

  80. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm a little skeptical of the putative hook up culture. There just isn't good evidence anywhere that young people are having more sex now than in the past. If anything, the evidence points to them having less.

    This claim interacts with the AF/BB claim of 80/20.

    The “top 20%” of men have a glide path via Tinder & Friends to more sex.

    But at the same time, the data did show a smaller uptick in female sexlessness.

  81. @dfordoom

    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.
     
    Most of the arguments made here against porn come down to - this is something I don't like and it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should be banned. To justify banning something you have to come up with a real argument.

    Firstly you'd have to establish, convincingly, that the thing you're wanting to ban is actually harmful. You know, actual evidence. And you'd need convincing evidence that it harms a significant proportion of those who consume it.

    We know that alcohol is very bad for a small minority of users but we also know that for the vast majority of consumers it's harmless. In fact it has some benefits - it makes social interactions easier, it makes life slightly more pleasant, it may even have mild health benefits. Very few people today would seriously argue for a ban on alcohol. Why should 95% of alcohol consumers be punished because 5% have problems dealing with alcohol? The generally accepted view is that we should try to help the 5% deal with their problems, but not at the expense of responsible alcohol users.

    In the case of porn, if the vast majority of users suffer no harmful effects should they be punished because a small minority suffer ill effects? We have to ask - is there any even vaguely persuasive evidence that the vast majority of porn consumers suffer any harm? is there any actual evidence of direct social harm? To be honest, I'm not even sure there's really persuasive evidence that any porn users at all are directly affected in a negative way.

    As for social consequences, pretty much all the things that are wrong with our society today were clearly in evidence decades ago, at a time when porn consumption was very very low compared to today.

    If you think you can present some real scientific evidence that porn has had a harmful effect on a significant number of individuals and on society then by all means let's see that evidence. I'll be happy to listen.
  82. 216 says: • Website
    @Not My Economy
    Will you elaborate more on the characteristics of Neo-Victorian Feminism?

    Is telegram considered safe to register using real mobile number or should we use burners like for twitter?

    https://www.techjunkie.com/use-telegram-without-phone-number/

    Neo-Victorian Feminism, or what might be called “conservative feminism” or “fifth wave feminism”.

    Imagine a feminism that recognized that most of its followers weren’t lesbians, and weren’t interested in promiscuity. Rather, that bourgeois family formation is something most actually want, even if previous versions of feminism looked down on it.

    This decade is going to see the first Millennial women hit 40, after which a lot of them will find out they will never be married. These women will be angry at two groups: men and earlier “sex positive” feminists.

    The specific term “Neo-Victorian” was created by Conservative Inc writers in relation to the backlash against “Yes Means Yes”. Being a slut is apparently a conservative value.

    The short version is that these feminists will be against trans, sex workers, pron, and any kind of sexual coercion (BDSM). They further want to regulate male lifestyles, first by social shaming, and second by legislation. Last, which will become much more apparent in the future, they are going to regulate the lives of younger women, steering them to avoid the mistakes they made.

    What most, and indeed what r/FDS, are confused by, is that this isn’t rehased second-wave “radical feminism”. The key difference is in the rather pro-marriage stance.

    Another part, which many in the manosphere won’t like, is the strong backlash against older unmarried/divorced men that this feminism is going to bring.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "The short version is that these feminists will be against trans, sex workers, pron, and any kind of sexual coercion (BDSM). They further want to regulate male lifestyles, first by social shaming, and second by legislation."
     
    Yes, these are always popular objectives with women.

    "Last, which will become much more apparent in the future, they are going to regulate the lives of younger women, steering them to avoid the mistakes they made."
     
    Skeptometer rising...

    My own observations are that, e.g., cougars and other sexual market detritus want to justify their errors by getting as many youths as possible to follow them into their slough of despond.


    "What most, and indeed what r/FDS, are confused by, is that this isn’t rehased second-wave “radical feminism”. The key difference is in the rather pro-marriage stance. Another part, which many in the manosphere won’t like, is the strong backlash against older unmarried/divorced men that this feminism is going to bring."
     
    So, now that prior feminists have transformed the marriage contract into death trap for productive men, the new feminist imperative will be to chase men into it? Interesting.

    I find a reliable forecast is that feminists will always advocate minimum restraint for women, maximum restraint for men.

    P.S. I'm not sure how the TechJunkie link related to the thread, but thanks for the tip!

    , @Not My Economy
    Thanks, this is an interesting theory and I think it will probably work out as you say. But, from reading reddit Female Dating Strategy, I'm not sure it supports the theory. I see some self improvement posts, a lot of mocking men, a lot of complaining and putting down other women. There is post which mentions looksmaxxing, I'm sure they talk about spinning plates too. Something to keep an eye on.
  83. “Based on the findings of historical studies cited earlier, older men would be expected to have far higher ED rates than the negligible rates of younger men [2,7].”

    From the referenced study, the noted dysfunction occurs in men as they age regardless.

    Take a look at the military references — if I wanted to improve my performance and I knew I could do so various pharmaceuticals available that needed a prescription, you better believe that i would mind telling the “doc”

    “Hey doc, I have been really low performing lately, all this stress about deployments, weird stuff going on in command . . . etc., etc. I would like some help” . . . my lack of performance is really stressing me out, my wife, etc., etc.”

    A researcher who is not looking at the details may well conclude the increase in watching pornography is the cause —- in my view that’s a leap without links. It’s not as if the patients are coming in and complaining that watching naked men and women having relations is diminishing their own desire. And yet that is exactly what would be required to support the claims in the study.

    I would read that study very carefully. As any research with integrity would note as they do the following:

    “While correlation studies are easier to conduct, the difficulty in isolating the precise variables at work in the unprecedented rise of sexual dysfunction in men under 40 suggests that intervention studies (in which subjects removed the variable of Internet pornography use) would better establish whether there is a connection between its use and sexual difficulties. The following clinical reports demonstrate how asking patients with diverse and otherwise unexplained dysfunctions to eradicate Internet pornography use helps to isolate its effects on sexual difficulties.”

    It may be a contributing factor but without isolating the specific cause — it’s a correllation, if that.

  84. @dfordoom

    The more society has become PC, the more degrading porn has become. Not sure if there’s a direct link but while in porn women are degraded, insulted, and molested,
     
    The change in the nature of porn tracks almost exactly with the rise of the internet. So maybe the real problem is the internet. The rapid acceleration in the pace of social decay in general tracks almost exactly with the rise of the internet. The internet has a degrading effect on every facet of society.

    IRL they have to be respected and shown more consideration than ever.
     
    Not really true. Look at hook-up culture. That's much more degrading to women than porn. Look at the rise of quick and easy divorce - that turned women into commodities to be upgraded every few years. The contraceptive pill and legal abortion encouraged women to see themselves as little more than sperm receptacles. Women are less respected today than they were in 1960.

    The PC thing, like feminism, benefits a few privileged middle-class women. Most women are worse off in every way that counts.

    Blaming porn for all this is just looking for a simplistic answer to a complex problem.

    I really don't think porn is the root cause of our social ills. A great deal of modern porn is distasteful, but then most of modern popular culture is degenerate and disgusting. Maybe the increasing distastefulness of modern porn merely reflects our society's continuing slide into the abyss of nihilism and consumerism.

    The internet angle is the right path to pursue here; this is where the true load-bearing ore lies, and where the fascinating hints and insights emerge. In order to understand what the internet has done to human sexual psychology via pornography, we can look at what it has done to finance, to shopping, to socializing, and to reading. A definite pattern emerges.

    In the domain of finance, the internet was instumental in creating the appearance of a global financial network that actually worked as advertised, efficiently allocating capital from anywhere on the planet to wherever else it was needed. It sold the idea that private individuals from all over the world could now play in the markets with the new trading software platforms, while it enabled the big boys to spin Rumplestiltskin-like profits out of nothingness with high-frequency trades executed in microseconds. The original idea was that this massive influx of new capital, along with the new industries required by the tech build-out itself, along with the possibility of streamlining existing industries and trade patterns through tech-enabled efficiency gains, was about to unleash a golden age of wealth creation such as the world had never seen. But this was perception rather than reality. In real life, the efficiency gains turned out to be largely illusory, and any short-term revenue that was saved (e.g. the elimination of personnel in favor of automation) was more than offset by the capital demands of the tech build-out itself, while the negative externalities (e.g. the loss of experienced workers) led to the etiolation of industry and the destruction of settled, local economies. It did, however, precipitate the sharpest and most overvalued bubble in known history, the legendary dot.com boom. What was missed in all this frenzie is that the emergence of the internet did nothing to increase the stock of real investable funds or worthwhile collateral in the world. It was simply a massive transfer of purchasing power from those who traditionally produced wealth to those who moved money. The internet was their creation and their tool for the liquidation of stored value and the asset-stripping of the globe.

    In the domain of shopping, i.e. one particular subset of the aforementioned financial revolution, we see the rise of the click-and-ship culture as developed by its most emblematic avatar, Amazon. This wretched company, which in its entire existence has never realized a profit from core operations, has made its disgusting worm of a CEO, Jeff Bezos, into the richest man in the world—as clear a case of asset-stripping as ever there could be. Amazon markets the promise of convenience, delivering consumer goods to people who are too lazy or otherwise indisposed to go to the store. This is a value-added service which, in the normal course of events, would incur a shipping surcharge that would add significantly to the price of each purchased item, thereby rendering the business model unattractive for most ordinary transactions. But Amazon notoriously underpices its shipping, in effect selling the added service of convenience for nothing. But, there being no such thing as a free lunch in the concrete world of matter and energy, this missing value must materialize somewhere. It does so in the accelerated depreciation curve of the infrastructure which Bezos exploits to provide his “service,” notably the preexisting logistical network of the US Postal Service, which is most apallingly underpaid by Amazon. The “convenience” of online shopping does nothing to reduce the amount of energy required to produce items or to move them from place to place. It is essentially a pseudo-service, existing entirely in the hyperreality of the computer’s graphic interface, while the infrastructure of the world outside progressively crumbles with the passage of each penis-painted ProMaster.

    In the domain of socializing, we have the rise of the great social media titans, about whom I shall speak only obliquely, having never personally participated in them. What is significant here is the commodification of social interaction, its dissolution and reconstitution into what are called memes, tweets, selfies, posts, texts, gifs, and whatnot. By these we mean images, short videos, brief written comments, or various combinations thereof, the unifying feature of which is that their effect depends entirely (and often unconsciously) upon thier ironic content. The classic meme, for example, is a still frame from some instantly recognizable movie or television show, depicting a character wearing an intense expression of contempt, astonishment, disbelief, amazement, ar some other strong emotion, the original context of which is meant to be recalled by the audience. This image is then overlaid with a text that explitly refers to the contemporary event that the author is attempting to link to this iconic image, often in an offhand or irreverant way. The juxtaposition works only poorly or not at all if the viewer is not aware of the original context; indeed, the author of the meme depends on just this tension to make his point. Those who worry that the spread of social media results in atomized individuals have not taken appropriate notice of the fact that the meme—the internet’s now standard expression form—presumes a greater standard of cultural homogeneity than perhaps anything but religious iconography. The meme-language would be, in effect, a sealed book to those who had never seen The Big Lebowski, The Princess Bride, Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek. What we have here is the recycling of old culture, an expression-medium which does to old movies what Uber ride sharing does to other people’s cars—monetizes their downtime. Becoming ever more self-referential and artless, they eventually lose their ability to express anything. A similar analysis can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to “cute” Facebook posts and selfies, etc.

    In the domain of reading, or one should rather say news gathering in general, the internet has resulted in an almost complete degradation of the activity and its material. What was once billed as an “information superhighway” in the early years of its development has in reality become a CliffsNotes Cafe at the end of the road. Just as MPEG files are compressed to facilitate the ease of transmission (this very fact bearing witness to how the needs of the medium rather than the audience rose to dominance), so also do we now “skim” articles for their content. Nobody reads a book anymore, and correspondingly the ability of people to write long, complex, grammatically correct sentences and paragraphs is everywhere on the wane. Furthermore, nobody now feels the slightest shame at being nothing more than an emoji-spewing semi-literate. That which can be communicated with as little effort as possible turns out to be the preferred idiom of the internet age, conditioned as it is by the visible and immediate. Great profusions of messages are exchanged every moment and forgotten about the next, leaving as the sole monument to their existence a small quantum of waste heat. This remarkable state of affairs will one day affect the most paradxical condition of all: The “Information Age,” that pivotal moment when man in his hubris thought himself poised to embark on an unprecedented upward trajectory, will turn out to be an historical “dark” age, because no record of it will remain. One the server farms are powered down an overgrown by weeds, once the communications satellites decay in their orbits and come crashing out of the sky, there will be no written words anywhere to speak of any of this weirdness. Every text, tweet, meme, broadcast, video—gone, with future generations left to wonder what illiterate pigs once inhabited these sprawling suburbs, the ruins of which do not even merit a nod of artistic consideration.

    In synthesis, the picture that emerges of the internet age is that of great value extraction. The internet polarizes, not opinion, but experience itself. It syphons off the liquid fraction of experience—all that is immediately perceived by the eye and parsed by the intellect—and reduces it to “information,” its only digestible food. This information, being a sort of after-image of substance, goes off to its own inevitable fate of nothingness, meanwhile the full and substantial reality of that from which it was abstracted alters in another direction. To extend the analysis, then, the rise of internet pornography has become for sex what abstract money is to real property, what irony is to culture, what tittilation is to service, what information is to knowledge—the shadow without the substance. Has pornography not done to the sex market exactly what QE has done to the stock market, what Amazon has done to the retail market? Sex is not looking at pictures and getting off; it is a concrete physical and psychological act, the end of which is procreation. It is the substance, the solid fraction, that we neglect. Today we have stock market bubbles and zombie corporations; we have free porn and no children.

    There are those who would interpret the internet age as something like the Industrial Revolution, and who foresee ahead similar leaps in productivity and the standard of living. I maintain that it is quite the opposite. The internet is the great physical-social Carnot engine that is burning up the surplus capital of the industrial age. Its net effect is dissipative, not consturctive. I believe that anyone who seriously thinks bout what I have stated above will never unsee the truth of it.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Thanks: AaronB
    • LOL: silviosilver
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Has pornography not done to the sex market exactly what QE has done to the stock market"
     
    I've long said that there exists a kind of Gresham's Law for sex. Just as bad (debased) coinage drives good coinage out of circulation, so also bad sex (i.e. impersonal—or virtual!, high STD, non-procreative—or dysgenically procreative) drives out good sex (healthy, wholesome, eugenically procreative). The mechanisms in both cases are manifold. If the debased article is more available than the genuine one, but both have the same nominal value, expect people to trade the debased one much more than the genuine one. Furthermore, even if you personally resolve only to handle the good stuff, you still end up competing in some way with those who traffic in the debased trade and who therefore enjoy a supply advantage.

    "anyone who seriously thinks bout what I have stated above will never unsee the truth of it"
     
    I think you interestingly and poetically describe something this is happening, though I would paint with a finer brush. For example, at the end of the day, Amazon really does deliver something concrete that you sought, unlike pornography, QE, irony, and fake food. But I don't particularly like Jeff either.
    , @Commentator Mike
    I meant AGREE! Sorry, pressed wrong button. Must be the New Year's celebration hangover.

    You're an thoughtful man, Mr. Intelligent, in an increasingly thoughtless world.

  85. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    You don't ever feel like you should settle down and make white babies?

    At your age it's time to give it up, imo.

    Just last night a 58 year old never married friend of mine was bragging about being a stud “I can get laid anytime I want man, not every guy can do it but I can”.

    I found someone that old talking that way to be depressing and disturbing. It sounded like something out of a high school gym locker yet he’s approaching old age. I’m quite certain he’s exaggerating too as he’s overweight and has many chronic health problems which he doesn’t take his meds for. He passes out at random times. He doesn’t even seem capable of being sexual anymore even if he probably did have a lot of partners earlier in life.

    His mother died over a year ago and he is an absolute wreck over it still. I told him he would have been better off if he had a wife, children and grandchildren right now because he would have a support system (at least ideally assuming the marriage was healthy). He says he never could have done that because he liked sex with multiple women too much. He had all that sex yet has nothing to show for it now and is in a really bad place emotionally.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Marriage and family are great when they work well, but there's no guarantee they will, and when they don't they can be one of the greatest sources of distress known to man.

    Of course, someone who has had children but whose family fell apart may bitterly regret the day he ever met "that bitch," but he can always comfort himself with the thought that at he least he "did the right thing," in a way that someone who dedicated himself to sports or to sex or to video games or what have you only to see it all come to naught really couldn't.

    For me the most obvious, but distinctly unsettling conclusion, to draw from these calculations is that a man should, at some point, have children, but not overly concern himself with family life - even his children's upbringing.

    Firstly, we know from studies that a parent's ability to affect the way his children turn out are very limited, and that the vagaries of heredity and peer-group influence will often overwhelm his best efforts. One could well conclude: why even try? Secondly, it never fails to astonish me how even the greatest, most worthless bum of a father, who has not only contributed nothing to his children's welfare but retarded their development in a thousand ways, is still able to exhibit fatherly pride. If you're a guy, why not use this most reliable phenomenon to your advantage?

    As for love and marriage, probably every married man's - if he's honest - experience has been that romance fades and the relationship settles into the grind of routine. Stick it out to the bitter end if you want to - who knows, you may find bliss - but don't say you weren't warned about the dangers, and don't pretend there was no alternative.

  86. 216 says: • Website
    @Dumbo

    3. Feminists have been very quick to accept Islam in the US, under the guise of equality. In fact Feminist women are relieved to have a group of strong, dominating males coming to the country. Feminists covering their faces with burquas and submitting to their new Muslim husbands in the years ahead makes perfect sense.
     
    The idea that Muslims are a group of strong, dominating males is risible. Not all of them are ISIS fighters. The average Muslim guy is a Beta nagged all day by his veil-wearing wife. I've seen them, I know. What they do have, however, is a traditional social structure that is still less ravaged by globalism (even though they are also pozzed as they immigrate and get more and more in contact with pop culture). So women have a social constraint to behave better, ant they suffer consequences if they get out of line.

    The problem is that contemporary culture tell Western women to be free, to be independent, to be sluts, to be ugly and vulgar, to not have children, to focus on their career and on sucking a different cock every night, in short, to be like men. And women are obviously unhappy this way, even if they don't accept it.

    I knew a feminist like that, blabbering about empowerment and whatnot, eventually she married a Muslim, got stuck in a burka and shut her trap. But then he took her to Egypt or some other ugly Muslim country where he was from, and the family was horrible, she was miserable again, but then, she could not even leave or would lose all contact with her children. So she stayed. The end.

    The idea that Muslims are a group of strong, dominating males is risible. Not all of them are ISIS fighters. The average Muslim guy is a Beta nagged all day by his veil-wearing wife. I’ve seen them, I know.

    A lot of people confused the Cologne mass sexual assault with “Muslim virility”. In reality, this was a group of beta males unmoored from the constraints of traditional elders. These were men running away from a combat zone, hardly evidence of masculinity.

  87. “In reality, this was a group of beta males unmoored (Pun intended?) from the constraints of traditional elders. ”

    Like leaving the cage door open at the zoo…

    But as we’ve seen, some groups of beta males are more unmoored-from-the-constraints-of-traditional-elders than others. White betas get together and dress up like stuffed animals. Who knew all the residents of Cologne had to do was introduce these alien orbiters to furry culture? Problem solved!

    • Replies: @216
    If you drop a sizeable number of young Western beta males into an Islamic culture, you'll get similar amounts of mayhem; of a different variety to be sure.

    While Western society is highly individualistic, it is not a society where elders receive no deference.

    The conduct that occurs in anonymous chans would manifest itself IRL if elders were not around to police it.
  88. @EliteCommInc.
    I have been following this discussion and I have several observations.

    the Jews are not pointing a gun to anyone's head to force them to watch this material. And given the core nature of the discussion, has very little resonance with me.

    -----------------------


    As someone who is celibate, opposes the material, despite my own dalliances and I include in that the soft material -- so referenced, in mainstream films, if the material is making males more violent toward women, the stats don't support it. Crimes of this nature are down, that in spite of the Justice Departments expanded definitions on what constitutes rape.


    note: for those boys and men I knew exposed to this material, there was no desire to graduate to more extreme material --- just the opposite. I cannot speak for others, but even material available that was graphic would be "gross" and "yuck" and unappealing.

    -----------------------
    It has been sad to know that some of my favorite actresses have allowed themselves to be used in explicit material in mainstream films -- repeatedly.

    painful


    -----------------------

    As critical thought --- I can not support legalizing prostitution. But the fault line, more like canyon of hypocrisy for liberals rests on this: if one argues that murdering a child in the womb is ok because its her body (and that child s not her body) then, there is no case to prevent women for making a profit from their body as privately owned commodity.


    Laugh: whatever the new fads are volcel, incel . . . hermit, etc one need not be any extreme to be "healthy" in mind body and soul to be celibate

    the Jews are not pointing a gun to anyone’s head to force them to watch this material.

    The Jews aren’t forcing anyone to take opioids either. They just make it as easy and convenient as possible. And if you need an excuse, they’ve already made it for you.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    There is some free will involved. Somebody could make it extremely easy for me to take opioids, like hand them to me for free, and I would have no interest or temptation.
  89. @Photondancer
    USAian feminism has been characterised by neo-Victorianism for decades. There was even a book called The New Victorians published back in 1995.

    We can speak of feminists coming full circle.

    The original, first wave, of feminism was about suffrage and prohibition. It was led by certain aimless middle class women, then as now; but couched itself in terms of uplifting the lower classes.

    Victorian feminists were against alcohol and prostitution out of their anti-family results. On the former they failed, but achieved considerable restriction in the US on consumption. On the latter they succeded in de-norming prostitution, not merely making it illegal.

    What these restrictions were aimed at, was trying to channel male sexuality back towards provisioning and away from hedonism.

    That however, does not characterize the second and third wave of feminism, nor does it say anything about intersectionality.

    This idea that men are “toxic” and “low value”, is quite distinct from “fish/bicycle” (II) or “the future is female” (III).

    There’s a difference in telling men what not to do, and telling them what they must do.

  90. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "In reality, this was a group of beta males unmoored (Pun intended?) from the constraints of traditional elders. "

    Like leaving the cage door open at the zoo...

    But as we've seen, some groups of beta males are more unmoored-from-the-constraints-of-traditional-elders than others. White betas get together and dress up like stuffed animals. Who knew all the residents of Cologne had to do was introduce these alien orbiters to furry culture? Problem solved!

    If you drop a sizeable number of young Western beta males into an Islamic culture, you’ll get similar amounts of mayhem; of a different variety to be sure.

    While Western society is highly individualistic, it is not a society where elders receive no deference.

    The conduct that occurs in anonymous chans would manifest itself IRL if elders were not around to police it.

  91. “The Jews aren’t forcing anyone to take opioids either. They just make it as easy and convenient as possible. And if you need an excuse, they’ve already made it for you.”

    On many occasions here, the issue of agency is referenced. I think that applies to the choices made regarding this material. children are developing agency and they do require the guidance from adults. And I fully support protecting and training children —

    And while there providers who make the material easily available, I still have to take some account for my choices. It is not as if the material or the providers are hiding anything. It is not the same as a drug deal or a service in which someone who is supposed to represent your interests engages in deception.

    Even in the case of prescription medications, there’s an intermediary — the physician. Still, the instructions on the package matter.

  92. @dfordoom

    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.
     
    Most of the arguments made here against porn come down to - this is something I don't like and it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should be banned. To justify banning something you have to come up with a real argument.

    Firstly you'd have to establish, convincingly, that the thing you're wanting to ban is actually harmful. You know, actual evidence. And you'd need convincing evidence that it harms a significant proportion of those who consume it.

    We know that alcohol is very bad for a small minority of users but we also know that for the vast majority of consumers it's harmless. In fact it has some benefits - it makes social interactions easier, it makes life slightly more pleasant, it may even have mild health benefits. Very few people today would seriously argue for a ban on alcohol. Why should 95% of alcohol consumers be punished because 5% have problems dealing with alcohol? The generally accepted view is that we should try to help the 5% deal with their problems, but not at the expense of responsible alcohol users.

    In the case of porn, if the vast majority of users suffer no harmful effects should they be punished because a small minority suffer ill effects? We have to ask - is there any even vaguely persuasive evidence that the vast majority of porn consumers suffer any harm? is there any actual evidence of direct social harm? To be honest, I'm not even sure there's really persuasive evidence that any porn users at all are directly affected in a negative way.

    As for social consequences, pretty much all the things that are wrong with our society today were clearly in evidence decades ago, at a time when porn consumption was very very low compared to today.

    If you think you can present some real scientific evidence that porn has had a harmful effect on a significant number of individuals and on society then by all means let's see that evidence. I'll be happy to listen.
  93. @dfordoom

    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.
     
    Most of the arguments made here against porn come down to - this is something I don't like and it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should be banned. To justify banning something you have to come up with a real argument.

    Firstly you'd have to establish, convincingly, that the thing you're wanting to ban is actually harmful. You know, actual evidence. And you'd need convincing evidence that it harms a significant proportion of those who consume it.

    We know that alcohol is very bad for a small minority of users but we also know that for the vast majority of consumers it's harmless. In fact it has some benefits - it makes social interactions easier, it makes life slightly more pleasant, it may even have mild health benefits. Very few people today would seriously argue for a ban on alcohol. Why should 95% of alcohol consumers be punished because 5% have problems dealing with alcohol? The generally accepted view is that we should try to help the 5% deal with their problems, but not at the expense of responsible alcohol users.

    In the case of porn, if the vast majority of users suffer no harmful effects should they be punished because a small minority suffer ill effects? We have to ask - is there any even vaguely persuasive evidence that the vast majority of porn consumers suffer any harm? is there any actual evidence of direct social harm? To be honest, I'm not even sure there's really persuasive evidence that any porn users at all are directly affected in a negative way.

    As for social consequences, pretty much all the things that are wrong with our society today were clearly in evidence decades ago, at a time when porn consumption was very very low compared to today.

    If you think you can present some real scientific evidence that porn has had a harmful effect on a significant number of individuals and on society then by all means let's see that evidence. I'll be happy to listen.

    something I don’t like and it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should be banned

    It is something which is contrary to Christian religion and ancient Anglo-Saxon customs, therefore it should be banned in the Christian Anglo-Saxon nation of America.

    But as a scientific experiment, lets flood Israel with completely unrestricted porn and opioids and see what happens.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It is something which is contrary to Christian religion and ancient Anglo-Saxon customs, therefore it should be banned in the Christian Anglo-Saxon nation of America.
     
    You might want to do a reality check. Christianity is a minority religion.

    I have no problems with religions imposing rules on their followers. I'm not very comfortable with religions imposing their rules on everybody else.

    You can make an argument that if the overwhelming majority of a nation's inhabitants follow one religion then the non-believing minority will just have to conform. But an argument that social policy should be imposed by a minority religion (especially a steadily declining one) is ludicrous. You seem to be advocating a Christian theocracy. That ain't gonna fly.

    I'd be quite happy to see religious communities having more control at a local level - being able to choose what their children are taught in school, etc. But nation-wide bans at the behest of minority religions - no thanks.
  94. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Yeah I almost think that hookup culture is a total media fabrication.

    Only about 15% of my peers participate in "hook up culture". And these people are unanimously alcoholics, who generally get blackout drunk, high on drugs, and bring a generally below average girl home from the club. 60% sit around feeling bad because they don't "get any pussy". 20% smartly pull out from this altogether

    My conspiracy is that it's designed to make men miserable. Make men feel insecure about their own sex life. Another order from tptb to push it? Maybe not.

    I've dabbled in hookup culture and it sucks. Just go volcel until finding a gf/wife. It also sucks going volcel but it's best to just focus on your own life.

    Whatever it’s designed to do, one inevitable outcome for both men and women who participate is an incorrigible growth in a lack of trust and respect for members of the opposite sex.

  95. @silviosilver
    I agree. But an alternative (or additional) meaning of "hookup culture" could be that merely hooking up without any expectation of developing loving feelings or long-term attachments has come to form a significantly greater proportion of all male-female relationships than before. So even if people are having less sex, it could be that more of the sex they are having is taking place in a hookup context and proportionally less in a dating context.

    Purely anecdotally, in the last 5-10 years I've had far more girls matter of factly disclose to me that they have a "fuck buddy" (argh, hate that term!) or are in an "open relationship", sometimes only minutes after I've approached them, than I can ever recall happening when I was in my late teens/early 20s. Part of the reason for that is almost certainly because I've become better at "game" and at introducing sexual themes into the conversation than when I was younger. But I can't help feeling another significant part of the reason is that girls these days feel more comfortable/secure about divulging their sluthood. (Plenty of girls felt comfortable/secure about that when I was younger too; we're talking about a proportional increase rather than an unprecedented social development.)

    An aside, you bring up another reason I’m pretty confident the decline in sexual activity is real. We know people fudge the numbers on sexual partners, women too low and men too high, but over time the expectation should be that women low-ball less now than they did in the past since there is less shame in a high count now than there was then.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    An aside, you bring up another reason I’m pretty confident the decline in sexual activity is real.
     
    Possibly, but there are literally dozens of major social changes that have happened since around 1960, all of which may have changed sexual behaviour.

    The contraceptive pill. Easy divorce. Legal abortion. A large increase in the number of women in the workforce. Increased urbanisation. The decline of religion. Television. Cable TV. Home video. Social media. Massive increases in drug consumption. A reduction in the incidence of smoking. Dietary changes. More emphasis on consumerism.

    And some less obvious ones - the end of employment security means people live under a lot more stress. People are living with more debt, which again means more stress. Housing is less affordable. Again, more stress. All of these things may have effects on sexual behaviour. The problem is that it's pretty near impossible to figure out which of these things are really having an effect and which aren't. Correlation is not causation. Most of the studies that people have been cited don't seem to have even tried to separate out any of these possible contributory causes. Added to which some of these studies do seem to rely on possibly unrepresentative samples. If you surveyed patients in a cardiologist's waiting rooms you'd probably find that most of them have heart problems.

    It's also worth considering that the decline in sexual activity may be illusory - it may simply be that people are more inclined to admit to such problems today. Fifty years ago how many men do you think would admit to having regular erectile dysfunction? How many men (or even women) would have admitted to being unable to find a sexual partner?
  96. @Anon
    I don't really believe much in the idea that secularization of Jews is a threat to Jewish people in the USA. This idea has been promoted by Jewish leaders for many decades now, and yet, the Jewish population in the USA is still growing:

    "The Jewish population has increased from 6.1 million in 2000 and 6.5 million in 2010."
    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/trends-in-american-jewish-demography


    Nevertheless, we still see it covered, by people such as Chaim Waxman, https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/it-takes-two-to-tango-mother-father-and-the-future-of-american-jewry/

    He writes about the proportional drop in the Jewish demographic:

    In the late-1970s, the size of the American Jewish population was estimated at 5,781,000, or about 2.67 percent of the total population of the United States. Just several decades earlier, the 1930s, for example, Jews were 3.7% of the total population. The latest figure starkly demonstrated that American Jewry had become an increasingly smaller part of the overall American population. That, however, did not necessarily mean that American Jewry itself was shrinking. Those figures may have been reflective of the traditional pattern of Jews maintaining a lower birth rate than their non-Jewish counterparts, which was not unusual and, in fact, had been the pattern since the 19th century, in Europe, as well.

    ...

    For many American Jews, the concern is rooted in possible implications for the well-being of Jews as a group and as a community in American society. Although Jews have always been a small minority in American society, there is concern that the shrinking numbers may result in shrinking influence.

    ...

    Fertility is a communal issue and “it takes two to tango.” It means developing explicit and implicit pro-natalist policies for men and women.
     
    Indeed, Jews have a history of creating pro-natalist policies, as has been done in earlier years in Israel to increase the Jewish percentage of the population vs. the Arabs:

    As explained by Liebler, Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, worked with Italian demographer Roberto Bachi to identify “the most fertile Jewish group” within the country. The “Mizrahi woman,” wrote Liebler, became known as “the national womb” of Israel. In targeting Mizrahi Jews to alter population trends among Jews and Arabs, “a deep ethnic split between two Jewish ethnic groups” was forged.
     
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/numbers-game-do-jewish-leaders-manipulate-existential-fears-with-statistics/

    I wonder how the world would respond if whites tried to create pro-natalist policies to increase our shrinking influence in the USA, and to make the USA a whiter country?

    According to the first source, "Fertility (average number of children ever born per adult age 40-50) is only 1.9 children, compared to 2.2 children for the U.S. general public"

    That is maybe below the US TFR, but it is above the white TFR.

    Hungary is trying. The response has been similar to the confused anger at the “it’s okay to be white” meme. They know they don’t like either but they also realize the difficulty of articulating why they don’t without revealing the reality that they just don’t like white people.

  97. @dfordoom

    Degradation of the spirit is far worse than the death of the body, which is why porn should be outlawed, but not alcohol, tobacco and food.
     
    Most of the arguments made here against porn come down to - this is something I don't like and it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should be banned. To justify banning something you have to come up with a real argument.

    Firstly you'd have to establish, convincingly, that the thing you're wanting to ban is actually harmful. You know, actual evidence. And you'd need convincing evidence that it harms a significant proportion of those who consume it.

    We know that alcohol is very bad for a small minority of users but we also know that for the vast majority of consumers it's harmless. In fact it has some benefits - it makes social interactions easier, it makes life slightly more pleasant, it may even have mild health benefits. Very few people today would seriously argue for a ban on alcohol. Why should 95% of alcohol consumers be punished because 5% have problems dealing with alcohol? The generally accepted view is that we should try to help the 5% deal with their problems, but not at the expense of responsible alcohol users.

    In the case of porn, if the vast majority of users suffer no harmful effects should they be punished because a small minority suffer ill effects? We have to ask - is there any even vaguely persuasive evidence that the vast majority of porn consumers suffer any harm? is there any actual evidence of direct social harm? To be honest, I'm not even sure there's really persuasive evidence that any porn users at all are directly affected in a negative way.

    As for social consequences, pretty much all the things that are wrong with our society today were clearly in evidence decades ago, at a time when porn consumption was very very low compared to today.

    If you think you can present some real scientific evidence that porn has had a harmful effect on a significant number of individuals and on society then by all means let's see that evidence. I'll be happy to listen.

    Have there been studies about the relationship between porn usage and things like erectile dysfunction?

  98. @dfordoom

    I’m a little skeptical of the putative hook up culture. There just isn’t good evidence anywhere that young people are having more sex now than in the past. If anything, the evidence points to them having less.
     
    It could be like the Sexual Revolution in the late 60s/70s. A small minority of people were having a lot more sex than in the past. Since that minority were having a lot more partners it's quite possible that the average person was having less sex. So I suspect that hookup culture is very real and those who engage it in are probably having an enormous amount of sex while at the same time they may well be reducing the number of available partners for non-participants in that culture.

    The trend in our society seems to be that those at the top of heap in terms of wealth and attractiveness gain a near-monopoly in the sexual marketplace while those at the bottom of the heap get pushed out of that marketplace altogether.

    Also, surveys on sexual behaviour are notoriously unreliable. Even worse, people will lie in multiple ways - some will wildly exaggerate the amount of sex they have, some will just as wildly underestimate it. Most such surveys either have very very low response rates or they're essentially self-selected and therefore worthless. I suspect that back in the 70s Boomers were outrageously exaggerating the amount of sex they were getting while I suspect that Milllennials may be understating the matter (part of Millennial Self Pity Syndrome - we don't get any sex and it's all the fault of the Boomers).

    The pity party explanation does have more plausibility than the “women lie” explanation does. Yes, women lie about partner counts, but there is no obvious reason why they should lie more now than they did a generation or two ago. If anything, they should lie less now than they did then. But wanting to feel sorry for themselves meshes well with the wider Victimhood culture. Maybe now they understate the number of partners but overstate the number of those partners who were unwanted!

  99. @Jay Fink
    Just last night a 58 year old never married friend of mine was bragging about being a stud "I can get laid anytime I want man, not every guy can do it but I can".

    I found someone that old talking that way to be depressing and disturbing. It sounded like something out of a high school gym locker yet he's approaching old age. I'm quite certain he's exaggerating too as he's overweight and has many chronic health problems which he doesn't take his meds for. He passes out at random times. He doesn't even seem capable of being sexual anymore even if he probably did have a lot of partners earlier in life.

    His mother died over a year ago and he is an absolute wreck over it still. I told him he would have been better off if he had a wife, children and grandchildren right now because he would have a support system (at least ideally assuming the marriage was healthy). He says he never could have done that because he liked sex with multiple women too much. He had all that sex yet has nothing to show for it now and is in a really bad place emotionally.

    Marriage and family are great when they work well, but there’s no guarantee they will, and when they don’t they can be one of the greatest sources of distress known to man.

    Of course, someone who has had children but whose family fell apart may bitterly regret the day he ever met “that bitch,” but he can always comfort himself with the thought that at he least he “did the right thing,” in a way that someone who dedicated himself to sports or to sex or to video games or what have you only to see it all come to naught really couldn’t.

    For me the most obvious, but distinctly unsettling conclusion, to draw from these calculations is that a man should, at some point, have children, but not overly concern himself with family life – even his children’s upbringing.

    Firstly, we know from studies that a parent’s ability to affect the way his children turn out are very limited, and that the vagaries of heredity and peer-group influence will often overwhelm his best efforts. One could well conclude: why even try? Secondly, it never fails to astonish me how even the greatest, most worthless bum of a father, who has not only contributed nothing to his children’s welfare but retarded their development in a thousand ways, is still able to exhibit fatherly pride. If you’re a guy, why not use this most reliable phenomenon to your advantage?

    As for love and marriage, probably every married man’s – if he’s honest – experience has been that romance fades and the relationship settles into the grind of routine. Stick it out to the bitter end if you want to – who knows, you may find bliss – but don’t say you weren’t warned about the dangers, and don’t pretend there was no alternative.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The subset of people I'm most concerned about are those men who would thoroughly enjoy fatherhood but aren't sure of it beforehand and so delay or forego family formation entirely. I procreated out of a sense of duty and then found out it was the greatest thing that ever happened to me.

    I'm not sure how to help men in a situation similar to mine. Putting them around nieces and nephews may provide some window, but being around children in general probably doesn't.
  100. @Almost Missouri

    "Secular and liberal Jews today were sloughed off by ultra orthodox communities of Haredi Judaism from which they all descended."
     
    Yes, this is what Intelligent Dasein (PBUH) misses when he says things like,

    "another generation or two, and the history of this ethnic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust"
     
    or

    "we have pretty much seen the last of Judaism as an historically significant force in the West."
     
    Most HBD things are questions of degree or rates of change, (or as Steve likes to say, glasses simultaneously half empty and half full), so it can be difficult for hard-nosed objective thinkers to conceptualize this fluid environment accurately.

    At the moment, about an eighth of "Jews" are the orthodox (i.e., really actually Jews). These people breed like crazy, on par with the Amish. Now, as with the Amish, not all of those born to them go on to remain orthodox. Enough do to maintain and increase the numbers of the orthodox, but there is still a large surplus who "slough off" to become the people whom one still thinks of as "Jews".

    In essence, there is a kind of half-life from the orthodox community. If you have a fertility rate of about six, as I understand the Orthodox Jews do, and, for example, a third of the offspring "slough off" to something less orthodox, well, you still double the base population each generation while throwing off a whole extra surplus generation of secularizing descendants.

    So when you look at today's population of Jews, you are seeing a one-eighth high-fertility core, "sloughing off" a trail lower fertility but more materially productive secularizers, who in turn produce lower fertility and higher secularity offspring until you arrive the edge, full of prominent but terminal cases like Andrea Dworkin and Woody Allen.

    The fact that the core matrix population is not the majority creates the illusion of irrelevance, but this as false as saying that because the head of a comet is only a very small part of what you see, the head is irrelevant to the comet. In fact, the head is the source of the whole comet, irrespective of its visibility. To extend the comet metaphor, at times of higher or lower solar wind, the comet's visible tail may grow more or less prominent, but this does not mean the comet itself is about to go extinct.

    As regards the comparison with Amish for white gentiles, it is valid, but there are at least a couple of distinctions to make. One is that though a minority, the Orthodox Jewish population if still a substantial minority of Jews, about an eighth, as mentioned. So much so, that most Jews can probably name their most recent Orthodox ancestor, who probably lived only a generation or three ago. By contrast, Amish are a tiny tiny minority of gentile whites, from whom no recognizable ethnic group descend. The Amish:white gentile ratio is two or three orders of magnitude smaller than the Orthodox:Jewish ratio.
    This matters. Another distinction is the different cultural orientation, made by John Gruskos, above.

    The comparison with Mormons and other white gentiles might be better, then, though they’re not keeping anything like the TFRs that orthodox Jews or the Amish are.

    Does the sloughing off continue indefinitely? This is a huge question for what the future will look like (sans a CRISPRed future, anyway). For at least the last three generations in the US, and probably much further back than that, the religious have significantly outbred the irreligious. Yet the society as a whole continues to become less and less religious. At what point, if ever, does that cease being the case?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "The comparison with Mormons and other white gentiles might be better, then, though they’re not keeping anything like the TFRs that orthodox Jews or the Amish are."
     
    Agree. Also, the Amish and Orthodox Jews have a kind of aesthetic symmetry in wearing black, adhering to a lot of 18th and 19th century customs, not seeking converts, and that they both had founder populations of only a few hundred.

    I think the Mormon TFR is about half the Amish TFR. I suppose one could conceptually construct a white gentile counterpart to the Orthodox Jews out of Amish, other Mennonites, Mormons, and conservative Christians generally. It still wouldn't add up to 1/8 of the world's white population though, and the diluted down TFR would be much lower than the Haredi, probably only about three to the Haredi's six, and given that the TFR fulcrum point is at two rather than one, that means the demographic leverage of the gentiles' Reverse Conservative Breeding Stock is only about a quarter of the Jews' ... and that's before considering that the gentiles' RCBS isn't nearly 1/8 of the white gentile population.

    "Does the sloughing off continue indefinitely?"
     
    Well, it has for the last thousand years, so I see no reason for it not to continue for the next thousand.

    "This is a huge question for what the future will look like (sans a CRISPRed future, anyway). For at least the last three generations in the US, and probably much further back than that, the religious have significantly outbred the irreligious. Yet the society as a whole continues to become less and less religious. At what point, if ever, does that cease being the case?"
     
    Yeah, as mentioned there are several dynamics in play at once. The size of the religious mother population, the growth rate of said population, the slough-off rate from that population, and the decay rate of the slough (i.e., how long before those detached from the mother religion stop breeding?).

    It seems most gentile populations (the significant exceptions I can see are some Muslim societies) have slough rates that exceed their growth rate and have done for a century or so. So yes, all those societies will shrink ... but not indefinitely. As the non-growing shells of the comet slough off, the faster growing core is exposed. So in the case of Euro-populations, as the Episcopalians and Lutherans stop breeding and slough off, creating a spectacularly large cometary tail, the still-growing Amish, Mormon and Baptist layers below come to the surface. If they slough faster than they grow, then they will ultimately evaporate in the cometary tail too. But if they grow faster than they slough, the comet head—and therefore the entire comet—will persist. There is some religious core of white gentiles, even besides the Amish, whose TFR exceeds their slough rate plus two. Exactly who and how many? I dunno, but we'll probably find out later this century.

    The Orthodox Jewish population is unusual in the modern world, because though it has a large slough rate (pretty normal nowadays), it has an even higher growth rate (pretty unusual nowadays). This means that both the mother population and the penumbra secular slough population will continue to grow(!). Would-be Cassandras are misled by looking only at the secular population, which doesn't breed much, and believing that it is in some kind of separate stovepipe of its own. Then they erroneously conclude that the population will die off. It won't. At least not under current conditions [see next paragraph].

    The Haredi population has not always been as prolific as it is now. I don't have the figures to know for sure, but I think that it was only growing slowly before the 1940s. It is since that time that it has been growing at unprecedented rates. Why the change? For the same reason that other materially sub-productive populations experienced a fertility renaissance around that time: 1) the welfare state began subsidizing and incentivizing them to breed, and 2) science (specifically antibiotics and the plant breeding revolution) banished plague and famine.

    Take up the White Man's burden —
    The savage wars of peace —
    Fill full the mouth of Famine
    And bid the sickness cease;
    ...
    Take up the White Man's burden —
    And reap his old reward:
    The blame of those ye better,
    The hate of those ye guard

    — Kipling
  101. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Or would be it more accurate to say that if a guy gets bored of a particular girl, he remains perfectly capable of getting excited by a new girl of the same level of attractiveness (or even lower attractiveness)? In other words, it’s simply novelty that is sought, not added intensity."

    It would be more accurate if one were to accept the premise that viewing pornography and engaging in sexual intercourse are relatable things. If you think viewing sex is the same as having it, well, all I can tell you is that you might be doing it wrong. :)

    In my observation - viewing porn and its effects more closely resemble those of a habitual drug user, than they do an individual involved in a real sexual relationship.

    In my observation – viewing porn and its effects more closely resemble those of a habitual drug user, than they do an individual involved in a real sexual relationship.

    If you’ve got some hard scientific evidence to back that up then we’ll certainly listen.

    What we’ve got so far from the anti-porn brigade on UR has been a series of assertions with no actual supporting evidence. In fact what we’ve got so far has been “anything I don’t like must be bad so it should be banned” which is hardly an argument. I don’t like football and football can result in serious injuries (and occasionally even death) but that doesn’t give me a justification for demanding that football should be banned.

    I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong. I’d just like to see some evidence.

    I believe there were some studies done years ago after censorship was liberalised in some of the Scandinavian countries that seemed to indicate that increased availability of porn might be associated with lower rates of rape and other sexual assaults. But that was something I read years ago and I’ve long since forgotten where I read it.

    Porn seems to be a subject on which people are simply not interested in looking at actual evidence.

    • Replies: @216
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/

    like abnormally low sexual desire when consuming online pornography [28] and erectile dysfunction, which has spiked dramatically among young men in the past few years when compared to a couple decades ago [29,30,31,32,33].
     
    Perhaps we can point to diet, and environmental toxins as causes, but this comes close.

    Erectile dysfunction: while some studies have found little evidence of the association between pornography use and sexual dysfunction [33], others propose that the rise in pornography use may be the key factor explaining the sharp rise in erectile dysfunction among young people [80]. In one study, 60% of patients who suffered sexual dysfunction with a real partner, characteristically did not have this problem with pornography [8]. Some argue that causation between pornography use and sexual dysfunction is difficult to establish, since true controls not exposed to pornography are rare to find [81] and have proposed a possible research design in this regard.
     

    As we mentioned, anonymity is a key risk factor for this sexual behavior to develop into a problem. We need to keep in mind that statistics regarding this problem are obviously limited to people of legal age to engage in sexual activity, online or otherwise; but it does not escape us that sexual activity rarely starts after this threshold, and there is a likely chance that minors still in the process of sexual neurodevelopment are a particularly vulnerable population. The truth is that a stronger consensus on what pathological sexual behavior constitutes, both offline and online, is necessary to adequately measure it in a representative manner and confirm how much of a problem it is in today’s society.
     
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "If you’ve got some hard scientific evidence to back that up then we’ll certainly listen."

    It's admittedly a theory. I have yet to read a decent refutation of it.

    "In fact what we’ve got so far has been “anything I don’t like must be bad so it should be banned” which is hardly an argument."

    I never said it should be banned. What I have said in the past is that classifying the legality of porn as a 1A issue is erroneous. Strictly speaking, porn has no constitutional grounds to continue being produced. I have also recognized the impossibility of banning porn as a realistic deterrent, just like with any other vice such as prostitution, gambling, drug use, etc. As we have seen with the latter examples, massive amounts of resources have been expended enforcing the restriction of those activities, particularly on the consumer as opposed to the provider, with little to show for it.

    The best deterrent to vice is proper education and strong family ties. Poor family relations and excess leisure time lead to a whole lot of poor choices.
  102. @Pericles

    the Jews are not pointing a gun to anyone’s head to force them to watch this material.

     

    The Jews aren't forcing anyone to take opioids either. They just make it as easy and convenient as possible. And if you need an excuse, they've already made it for you.

    There is some free will involved. Somebody could make it extremely easy for me to take opioids, like hand them to me for free, and I would have no interest or temptation.

  103. @John Gruskos

    something I don’t like and it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should be banned
     
    It is something which is contrary to Christian religion and ancient Anglo-Saxon customs, therefore it should be banned in the Christian Anglo-Saxon nation of America.

    But as a scientific experiment, lets flood Israel with completely unrestricted porn and opioids and see what happens.

    It is something which is contrary to Christian religion and ancient Anglo-Saxon customs, therefore it should be banned in the Christian Anglo-Saxon nation of America.

    You might want to do a reality check. Christianity is a minority religion.

    I have no problems with religions imposing rules on their followers. I’m not very comfortable with religions imposing their rules on everybody else.

    You can make an argument that if the overwhelming majority of a nation’s inhabitants follow one religion then the non-believing minority will just have to conform. But an argument that social policy should be imposed by a minority religion (especially a steadily declining one) is ludicrous. You seem to be advocating a Christian theocracy. That ain’t gonna fly.

    I’d be quite happy to see religious communities having more control at a local level – being able to choose what their children are taught in school, etc. But nation-wide bans at the behest of minority religions – no thanks.

    • Replies: @216

    But an argument that social policy should be imposed by a minority religion (especially a steadily declining one) is ludicrous
     
    Um...that's what Jews have been doing for more than a century.

    Christianity is always the majority religion, even if it is in a "notional minority". Both left and right agree on this. The left never accords it the protection of "minority rights" and the Right is supposed to defend its claims as the basis of society.
  104. 216 says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    In my observation – viewing porn and its effects more closely resemble those of a habitual drug user, than they do an individual involved in a real sexual relationship.
     
    If you've got some hard scientific evidence to back that up then we'll certainly listen.

    What we've got so far from the anti-porn brigade on UR has been a series of assertions with no actual supporting evidence. In fact what we've got so far has been "anything I don't like must be bad so it should be banned" which is hardly an argument. I don't like football and football can result in serious injuries (and occasionally even death) but that doesn't give me a justification for demanding that football should be banned.

    I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong. I'd just like to see some evidence.

    I believe there were some studies done years ago after censorship was liberalised in some of the Scandinavian countries that seemed to indicate that increased availability of porn might be associated with lower rates of rape and other sexual assaults. But that was something I read years ago and I've long since forgotten where I read it.

    Porn seems to be a subject on which people are simply not interested in looking at actual evidence.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/

    like abnormally low sexual desire when consuming online pornography [28] and erectile dysfunction, which has spiked dramatically among young men in the past few years when compared to a couple decades ago [29,30,31,32,33].

    Perhaps we can point to diet, and environmental toxins as causes, but this comes close.

    Erectile dysfunction: while some studies have found little evidence of the association between pornography use and sexual dysfunction [33], others propose that the rise in pornography use may be the key factor explaining the sharp rise in erectile dysfunction among young people [80]. In one study, 60% of patients who suffered sexual dysfunction with a real partner, characteristically did not have this problem with pornography [8]. Some argue that causation between pornography use and sexual dysfunction is difficult to establish, since true controls not exposed to pornography are rare to find [81] and have proposed a possible research design in this regard.

    As we mentioned, anonymity is a key risk factor for this sexual behavior to develop into a problem. We need to keep in mind that statistics regarding this problem are obviously limited to people of legal age to engage in sexual activity, online or otherwise; but it does not escape us that sexual activity rarely starts after this threshold, and there is a likely chance that minors still in the process of sexual neurodevelopment are a particularly vulnerable population. The truth is that a stronger consensus on what pathological sexual behavior constitutes, both offline and online, is necessary to adequately measure it in a representative manner and confirm how much of a problem it is in today’s society.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom


    Erectile dysfunction: while some studies have found little evidence of the association between pornography use and sexual dysfunction [33], others propose that the rise in pornography use may be the key factor explaining the sharp rise in erectile dysfunction among young people [80]. In one study, 60% of patients who suffered sexual dysfunction with a real partner, characteristically did not have this problem with pornography [8]. Some argue that causation between pornography use and sexual dysfunction is difficult to establish, since true controls not exposed to pornography are rare to find [81] and have proposed a possible research design in this regard.
     

     
    "some studies"
    "others propose"
    "may be the key factor"
    "In one study"
    "Some argue that"
    "is difficult to establish"
    "have proposed"

    In other words this person is saying that he has no actual evidence but he's going to offer a series of unsupported assertions, unsubstantiated opinions and wild guesses anyway.
  105. 216 says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    It is something which is contrary to Christian religion and ancient Anglo-Saxon customs, therefore it should be banned in the Christian Anglo-Saxon nation of America.
     
    You might want to do a reality check. Christianity is a minority religion.

    I have no problems with religions imposing rules on their followers. I'm not very comfortable with religions imposing their rules on everybody else.

    You can make an argument that if the overwhelming majority of a nation's inhabitants follow one religion then the non-believing minority will just have to conform. But an argument that social policy should be imposed by a minority religion (especially a steadily declining one) is ludicrous. You seem to be advocating a Christian theocracy. That ain't gonna fly.

    I'd be quite happy to see religious communities having more control at a local level - being able to choose what their children are taught in school, etc. But nation-wide bans at the behest of minority religions - no thanks.

    But an argument that social policy should be imposed by a minority religion (especially a steadily declining one) is ludicrous

    Um…that’s what Jews have been doing for more than a century.

    Christianity is always the majority religion, even if it is in a “notional minority”. Both left and right agree on this. The left never accords it the protection of “minority rights” and the Right is supposed to defend its claims as the basis of society.

  106. @Audacious Epigone
    An aside, you bring up another reason I'm pretty confident the decline in sexual activity is real. We know people fudge the numbers on sexual partners, women too low and men too high, but over time the expectation should be that women low-ball less now than they did in the past since there is less shame in a high count now than there was then.

    An aside, you bring up another reason I’m pretty confident the decline in sexual activity is real.

    Possibly, but there are literally dozens of major social changes that have happened since around 1960, all of which may have changed sexual behaviour.

    The contraceptive pill. Easy divorce. Legal abortion. A large increase in the number of women in the workforce. Increased urbanisation. The decline of religion. Television. Cable TV. Home video. Social media. Massive increases in drug consumption. A reduction in the incidence of smoking. Dietary changes. More emphasis on consumerism.

    And some less obvious ones – the end of employment security means people live under a lot more stress. People are living with more debt, which again means more stress. Housing is less affordable. Again, more stress. All of these things may have effects on sexual behaviour. The problem is that it’s pretty near impossible to figure out which of these things are really having an effect and which aren’t. Correlation is not causation. Most of the studies that people have been cited don’t seem to have even tried to separate out any of these possible contributory causes. Added to which some of these studies do seem to rely on possibly unrepresentative samples. If you surveyed patients in a cardiologist’s waiting rooms you’d probably find that most of them have heart problems.

    It’s also worth considering that the decline in sexual activity may be illusory – it may simply be that people are more inclined to admit to such problems today. Fifty years ago how many men do you think would admit to having regular erectile dysfunction? How many men (or even women) would have admitted to being unable to find a sexual partner?

  107. @Audacious Epigone
    The comparison with Mormons and other white gentiles might be better, then, though they're not keeping anything like the TFRs that orthodox Jews or the Amish are.

    Does the sloughing off continue indefinitely? This is a huge question for what the future will look like (sans a CRISPRed future, anyway). For at least the last three generations in the US, and probably much further back than that, the religious have significantly outbred the irreligious. Yet the society as a whole continues to become less and less religious. At what point, if ever, does that cease being the case?

    “The comparison with Mormons and other white gentiles might be better, then, though they’re not keeping anything like the TFRs that orthodox Jews or the Amish are.”

    Agree. Also, the Amish and Orthodox Jews have a kind of aesthetic symmetry in wearing black, adhering to a lot of 18th and 19th century customs, not seeking converts, and that they both had founder populations of only a few hundred.

    I think the Mormon TFR is about half the Amish TFR. I suppose one could conceptually construct a white gentile counterpart to the Orthodox Jews out of Amish, other Mennonites, Mormons, and conservative Christians generally. It still wouldn’t add up to 1/8 of the world’s white population though, and the diluted down TFR would be much lower than the Haredi, probably only about three to the Haredi’s six, and given that the TFR fulcrum point is at two rather than one, that means the demographic leverage of the gentiles’ Reverse Conservative Breeding Stock is only about a quarter of the Jews’ … and that’s before considering that the gentiles’ RCBS isn’t nearly 1/8 of the white gentile population.

    “Does the sloughing off continue indefinitely?”

    Well, it has for the last thousand years, so I see no reason for it not to continue for the next thousand.

    “This is a huge question for what the future will look like (sans a CRISPRed future, anyway). For at least the last three generations in the US, and probably much further back than that, the religious have significantly outbred the irreligious. Yet the society as a whole continues to become less and less religious. At what point, if ever, does that cease being the case?”

    Yeah, as mentioned there are several dynamics in play at once. The size of the religious mother population, the growth rate of said population, the slough-off rate from that population, and the decay rate of the slough (i.e., how long before those detached from the mother religion stop breeding?).

    It seems most gentile populations (the significant exceptions I can see are some Muslim societies) have slough rates that exceed their growth rate and have done for a century or so. So yes, all those societies will shrink … but not indefinitely. As the non-growing shells of the comet slough off, the faster growing core is exposed. So in the case of Euro-populations, as the Episcopalians and Lutherans stop breeding and slough off, creating a spectacularly large cometary tail, the still-growing Amish, Mormon and Baptist layers below come to the surface. If they slough faster than they grow, then they will ultimately evaporate in the cometary tail too. But if they grow faster than they slough, the comet head—and therefore the entire comet—will persist. There is some religious core of white gentiles, even besides the Amish, whose TFR exceeds their slough rate plus two. Exactly who and how many? I dunno, but we’ll probably find out later this century.

    The Orthodox Jewish population is unusual in the modern world, because though it has a large slough rate (pretty normal nowadays), it has an even higher growth rate (pretty unusual nowadays). This means that both the mother population and the penumbra secular slough population will continue to grow(!). Would-be Cassandras are misled by looking only at the secular population, which doesn’t breed much, and believing that it is in some kind of separate stovepipe of its own. Then they erroneously conclude that the population will die off. It won’t. At least not under current conditions [see next paragraph].

    The Haredi population has not always been as prolific as it is now. I don’t have the figures to know for sure, but I think that it was only growing slowly before the 1940s. It is since that time that it has been growing at unprecedented rates. Why the change? For the same reason that other materially sub-productive populations experienced a fertility renaissance around that time: 1) the welfare state began subsidizing and incentivizing them to breed, and 2) science (specifically antibiotics and the plant breeding revolution) banished plague and famine.

    Take up the White Man’s burden —
    The savage wars of peace —
    Fill full the mouth of Famine
    And bid the sickness cease;

    Take up the White Man’s burden —
    And reap his old reward:
    The blame of those ye better,
    The hate of those ye guard

    — Kipling

  108. @216
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/

    like abnormally low sexual desire when consuming online pornography [28] and erectile dysfunction, which has spiked dramatically among young men in the past few years when compared to a couple decades ago [29,30,31,32,33].
     
    Perhaps we can point to diet, and environmental toxins as causes, but this comes close.

    Erectile dysfunction: while some studies have found little evidence of the association between pornography use and sexual dysfunction [33], others propose that the rise in pornography use may be the key factor explaining the sharp rise in erectile dysfunction among young people [80]. In one study, 60% of patients who suffered sexual dysfunction with a real partner, characteristically did not have this problem with pornography [8]. Some argue that causation between pornography use and sexual dysfunction is difficult to establish, since true controls not exposed to pornography are rare to find [81] and have proposed a possible research design in this regard.
     

    As we mentioned, anonymity is a key risk factor for this sexual behavior to develop into a problem. We need to keep in mind that statistics regarding this problem are obviously limited to people of legal age to engage in sexual activity, online or otherwise; but it does not escape us that sexual activity rarely starts after this threshold, and there is a likely chance that minors still in the process of sexual neurodevelopment are a particularly vulnerable population. The truth is that a stronger consensus on what pathological sexual behavior constitutes, both offline and online, is necessary to adequately measure it in a representative manner and confirm how much of a problem it is in today’s society.
     

    Erectile dysfunction: while some studies have found little evidence of the association between pornography use and sexual dysfunction [33], others propose that the rise in pornography use may be the key factor explaining the sharp rise in erectile dysfunction among young people [80]. In one study, 60% of patients who suffered sexual dysfunction with a real partner, characteristically did not have this problem with pornography [8]. Some argue that causation between pornography use and sexual dysfunction is difficult to establish, since true controls not exposed to pornography are rare to find [81] and have proposed a possible research design in this regard.

    “some studies”
    “others propose”
    “may be the key factor”
    “In one study”
    “Some argue that”
    “is difficult to establish”
    “have proposed”

    In other words this person is saying that he has no actual evidence but he’s going to offer a series of unsupported assertions, unsubstantiated opinions and wild guesses anyway.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Big Dick Bandit
    watching people like yourself rationalize their porno addictions* is equal parts sad, hilarious, and predictable.

    do you think that it's a coincidence that several multi-billion dollar boner-pill startups ("Roman" and "Hims") exist with a sole focus on young men (18-40), when no other generation in modern times has had such issues at such high levels at such an early age?

    try completely abstaining from porn--with zero relapses allowed--for a month, then get back to us.

    *in b4 "bro i don't even watch porn"
  109. @Intelligent Dasein
    The internet angle is the right path to pursue here; this is where the true load-bearing ore lies, and where the fascinating hints and insights emerge. In order to understand what the internet has done to human sexual psychology via pornography, we can look at what it has done to finance, to shopping, to socializing, and to reading. A definite pattern emerges.

    In the domain of finance, the internet was instumental in creating the appearance of a global financial network that actually worked as advertised, efficiently allocating capital from anywhere on the planet to wherever else it was needed. It sold the idea that private individuals from all over the world could now play in the markets with the new trading software platforms, while it enabled the big boys to spin Rumplestiltskin-like profits out of nothingness with high-frequency trades executed in microseconds. The original idea was that this massive influx of new capital, along with the new industries required by the tech build-out itself, along with the possibility of streamlining existing industries and trade patterns through tech-enabled efficiency gains, was about to unleash a golden age of wealth creation such as the world had never seen. But this was perception rather than reality. In real life, the efficiency gains turned out to be largely illusory, and any short-term revenue that was saved (e.g. the elimination of personnel in favor of automation) was more than offset by the capital demands of the tech build-out itself, while the negative externalities (e.g. the loss of experienced workers) led to the etiolation of industry and the destruction of settled, local economies. It did, however, precipitate the sharpest and most overvalued bubble in known history, the legendary dot.com boom. What was missed in all this frenzie is that the emergence of the internet did nothing to increase the stock of real investable funds or worthwhile collateral in the world. It was simply a massive transfer of purchasing power from those who traditionally produced wealth to those who moved money. The internet was their creation and their tool for the liquidation of stored value and the asset-stripping of the globe.

    In the domain of shopping, i.e. one particular subset of the aforementioned financial revolution, we see the rise of the click-and-ship culture as developed by its most emblematic avatar, Amazon. This wretched company, which in its entire existence has never realized a profit from core operations, has made its disgusting worm of a CEO, Jeff Bezos, into the richest man in the world---as clear a case of asset-stripping as ever there could be. Amazon markets the promise of convenience, delivering consumer goods to people who are too lazy or otherwise indisposed to go to the store. This is a value-added service which, in the normal course of events, would incur a shipping surcharge that would add significantly to the price of each purchased item, thereby rendering the business model unattractive for most ordinary transactions. But Amazon notoriously underpices its shipping, in effect selling the added service of convenience for nothing. But, there being no such thing as a free lunch in the concrete world of matter and energy, this missing value must materialize somewhere. It does so in the accelerated depreciation curve of the infrastructure which Bezos exploits to provide his "service," notably the preexisting logistical network of the US Postal Service, which is most apallingly underpaid by Amazon. The "convenience" of online shopping does nothing to reduce the amount of energy required to produce items or to move them from place to place. It is essentially a pseudo-service, existing entirely in the hyperreality of the computer's graphic interface, while the infrastructure of the world outside progressively crumbles with the passage of each penis-painted ProMaster.

    In the domain of socializing, we have the rise of the great social media titans, about whom I shall speak only obliquely, having never personally participated in them. What is significant here is the commodification of social interaction, its dissolution and reconstitution into what are called memes, tweets, selfies, posts, texts, gifs, and whatnot. By these we mean images, short videos, brief written comments, or various combinations thereof, the unifying feature of which is that their effect depends entirely (and often unconsciously) upon thier ironic content. The classic meme, for example, is a still frame from some instantly recognizable movie or television show, depicting a character wearing an intense expression of contempt, astonishment, disbelief, amazement, ar some other strong emotion, the original context of which is meant to be recalled by the audience. This image is then overlaid with a text that explitly refers to the contemporary event that the author is attempting to link to this iconic image, often in an offhand or irreverant way. The juxtaposition works only poorly or not at all if the viewer is not aware of the original context; indeed, the author of the meme depends on just this tension to make his point. Those who worry that the spread of social media results in atomized individuals have not taken appropriate notice of the fact that the meme---the internet's now standard expression form---presumes a greater standard of cultural homogeneity than perhaps anything but religious iconography. The meme-language would be, in effect, a sealed book to those who had never seen The Big Lebowski, The Princess Bride, Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek. What we have here is the recycling of old culture, an expression-medium which does to old movies what Uber ride sharing does to other people's cars---monetizes their downtime. Becoming ever more self-referential and artless, they eventually lose their ability to express anything. A similar analysis can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to "cute" Facebook posts and selfies, etc.

    In the domain of reading, or one should rather say news gathering in general, the internet has resulted in an almost complete degradation of the activity and its material. What was once billed as an "information superhighway" in the early years of its development has in reality become a CliffsNotes Cafe at the end of the road. Just as MPEG files are compressed to facilitate the ease of transmission (this very fact bearing witness to how the needs of the medium rather than the audience rose to dominance), so also do we now "skim" articles for their content. Nobody reads a book anymore, and correspondingly the ability of people to write long, complex, grammatically correct sentences and paragraphs is everywhere on the wane. Furthermore, nobody now feels the slightest shame at being nothing more than an emoji-spewing semi-literate. That which can be communicated with as little effort as possible turns out to be the preferred idiom of the internet age, conditioned as it is by the visible and immediate. Great profusions of messages are exchanged every moment and forgotten about the next, leaving as the sole monument to their existence a small quantum of waste heat. This remarkable state of affairs will one day affect the most paradxical condition of all: The "Information Age," that pivotal moment when man in his hubris thought himself poised to embark on an unprecedented upward trajectory, will turn out to be an historical "dark" age, because no record of it will remain. One the server farms are powered down an overgrown by weeds, once the communications satellites decay in their orbits and come crashing out of the sky, there will be no written words anywhere to speak of any of this weirdness. Every text, tweet, meme, broadcast, video---gone, with future generations left to wonder what illiterate pigs once inhabited these sprawling suburbs, the ruins of which do not even merit a nod of artistic consideration.

    In synthesis, the picture that emerges of the internet age is that of great value extraction. The internet polarizes, not opinion, but experience itself. It syphons off the liquid fraction of experience---all that is immediately perceived by the eye and parsed by the intellect---and reduces it to "information," its only digestible food. This information, being a sort of after-image of substance, goes off to its own inevitable fate of nothingness, meanwhile the full and substantial reality of that from which it was abstracted alters in another direction. To extend the analysis, then, the rise of internet pornography has become for sex what abstract money is to real property, what irony is to culture, what tittilation is to service, what information is to knowledge---the shadow without the substance. Has pornography not done to the sex market exactly what QE has done to the stock market, what Amazon has done to the retail market? Sex is not looking at pictures and getting off; it is a concrete physical and psychological act, the end of which is procreation. It is the substance, the solid fraction, that we neglect. Today we have stock market bubbles and zombie corporations; we have free porn and no children.

    There are those who would interpret the internet age as something like the Industrial Revolution, and who foresee ahead similar leaps in productivity and the standard of living. I maintain that it is quite the opposite. The internet is the great physical-social Carnot engine that is burning up the surplus capital of the industrial age. Its net effect is dissipative, not consturctive. I believe that anyone who seriously thinks bout what I have stated above will never unsee the truth of it.

    “Has pornography not done to the sex market exactly what QE has done to the stock market”

    I’ve long said that there exists a kind of Gresham’s Law for sex. Just as bad (debased) coinage drives good coinage out of circulation, so also bad sex (i.e. impersonal—or virtual!, high STD, non-procreative—or dysgenically procreative) drives out good sex (healthy, wholesome, eugenically procreative). The mechanisms in both cases are manifold. If the debased article is more available than the genuine one, but both have the same nominal value, expect people to trade the debased one much more than the genuine one. Furthermore, even if you personally resolve only to handle the good stuff, you still end up competing in some way with those who traffic in the debased trade and who therefore enjoy a supply advantage.

    “anyone who seriously thinks bout what I have stated above will never unsee the truth of it”

    I think you interestingly and poetically describe something this is happening, though I would paint with a finer brush. For example, at the end of the day, Amazon really does deliver something concrete that you sought, unlike pornography, QE, irony, and fake food. But I don’t particularly like Jeff either.

  110. @216
    https://www.techjunkie.com/use-telegram-without-phone-number/

    ---

    Neo-Victorian Feminism, or what might be called "conservative feminism" or "fifth wave feminism".

    Imagine a feminism that recognized that most of its followers weren't lesbians, and weren't interested in promiscuity. Rather, that bourgeois family formation is something most actually want, even if previous versions of feminism looked down on it.

    This decade is going to see the first Millennial women hit 40, after which a lot of them will find out they will never be married. These women will be angry at two groups: men and earlier "sex positive" feminists.

    The specific term "Neo-Victorian" was created by Conservative Inc writers in relation to the backlash against "Yes Means Yes". Being a slut is apparently a conservative value.

    The short version is that these feminists will be against trans, sex workers, pron, and any kind of sexual coercion (BDSM). They further want to regulate male lifestyles, first by social shaming, and second by legislation. Last, which will become much more apparent in the future, they are going to regulate the lives of younger women, steering them to avoid the mistakes they made.

    What most, and indeed what r/FDS, are confused by, is that this isn't rehased second-wave "radical feminism". The key difference is in the rather pro-marriage stance.

    Another part, which many in the manosphere won't like, is the strong backlash against older unmarried/divorced men that this feminism is going to bring.

    “The short version is that these feminists will be against trans, sex workers, pron, and any kind of sexual coercion (BDSM). They further want to regulate male lifestyles, first by social shaming, and second by legislation.”

    Yes, these are always popular objectives with women.

    “Last, which will become much more apparent in the future, they are going to regulate the lives of younger women, steering them to avoid the mistakes they made.”

    Skeptometer rising…

    My own observations are that, e.g., cougars and other sexual market detritus want to justify their errors by getting as many youths as possible to follow them into their slough of despond.

    “What most, and indeed what r/FDS, are confused by, is that this isn’t rehased second-wave “radical feminism”. The key difference is in the rather pro-marriage stance. Another part, which many in the manosphere won’t like, is the strong backlash against older unmarried/divorced men that this feminism is going to bring.”

    So, now that prior feminists have transformed the marriage contract into death trap for productive men, the new feminist imperative will be to chase men into it? Interesting.

    I find a reliable forecast is that feminists will always advocate minimum restraint for women, maximum restraint for men.

    P.S. I’m not sure how the TechJunkie link related to the thread, but thanks for the tip!

    • Replies: @216

    Yes, these are always popular objectives with women.
     
    At present, no they are not, at least in the US. It was women that bought millions and millions of copies of the Fifty Shades series. It has mostly been women aruging in favor of gay pride. And again it is mostly left wing women that demand "sex worker rights".

    Also note that feminists haven't been condemning alcohol consumption, even if it causes bad behavior by men.

    These aren't the historic norm, but they are the present norm.

    Skeptometer rising…
    My own observations are that, e.g., cougars and other sexual market detritus want to justify their errors by getting as many youths as possible to follow them into their slough of despond.
     
    I admit this is a tenuous claim on my part, but I think there are some early indicators. Look around how many prominent pron actresses have recently condemned the business (after they cashed out).

    What Neo-Victorianism offers is a way to blame men, while not being in denial.

    I also predict that many middle aged women without children will take on a mentorship role for younger women.

    So, now that prior feminists have transformed the marriage contract into death trap for productive men, the new feminist imperative will be to chase men into it? Interesting.
    I find a reliable forecast is that feminists will always advocate minimum restraint for women, maximum restraint for men.
     
    The hard truth is that beta men have very little power in the present marketplace. The main power they still have is to propose marriage, a woman can't marry herself. If men started engaging in collective self defense, they could get some power back. But most men are too thirsty, for now.

    I don't find that the "minimum restraint" for women accurately describes these feminists. They dislike promiscuity, which is condemned as "Pick me" behavior. At the same time, religious conservative men are also condemned. There's women logic for you.

    But I think we have to understand that the present environment is verging on "minimum restraint" for men. Men can consume pron anonymously, and aren't held to as many standards on physical appearance and pro-social behavior.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/ehcem6/made_me_chuckle_accurate/

    For social stability, a lot of guys need to stop being thirsty and go their own way.
  111. 216 says: • Website
    @Almost Missouri

    "The short version is that these feminists will be against trans, sex workers, pron, and any kind of sexual coercion (BDSM). They further want to regulate male lifestyles, first by social shaming, and second by legislation."
     
    Yes, these are always popular objectives with women.

    "Last, which will become much more apparent in the future, they are going to regulate the lives of younger women, steering them to avoid the mistakes they made."
     
    Skeptometer rising...

    My own observations are that, e.g., cougars and other sexual market detritus want to justify their errors by getting as many youths as possible to follow them into their slough of despond.


    "What most, and indeed what r/FDS, are confused by, is that this isn’t rehased second-wave “radical feminism”. The key difference is in the rather pro-marriage stance. Another part, which many in the manosphere won’t like, is the strong backlash against older unmarried/divorced men that this feminism is going to bring."
     
    So, now that prior feminists have transformed the marriage contract into death trap for productive men, the new feminist imperative will be to chase men into it? Interesting.

    I find a reliable forecast is that feminists will always advocate minimum restraint for women, maximum restraint for men.

    P.S. I'm not sure how the TechJunkie link related to the thread, but thanks for the tip!

    Yes, these are always popular objectives with women.

    At present, no they are not, at least in the US. It was women that bought millions and millions of copies of the Fifty Shades series. It has mostly been women aruging in favor of gay pride. And again it is mostly left wing women that demand “sex worker rights”.

    Also note that feminists haven’t been condemning alcohol consumption, even if it causes bad behavior by men.

    These aren’t the historic norm, but they are the present norm.

    Skeptometer rising…
    My own observations are that, e.g., cougars and other sexual market detritus want to justify their errors by getting as many youths as possible to follow them into their slough of despond.

    I admit this is a tenuous claim on my part, but I think there are some early indicators. Look around how many prominent pron actresses have recently condemned the business (after they cashed out).

    What Neo-Victorianism offers is a way to blame men, while not being in denial.

    I also predict that many middle aged women without children will take on a mentorship role for younger women.

    So, now that prior feminists have transformed the marriage contract into death trap for productive men, the new feminist imperative will be to chase men into it? Interesting.
    I find a reliable forecast is that feminists will always advocate minimum restraint for women, maximum restraint for men.

    The hard truth is that beta men have very little power in the present marketplace. The main power they still have is to propose marriage, a woman can’t marry herself. If men started engaging in collective self defense, they could get some power back. But most men are too thirsty, for now.

    I don’t find that the “minimum restraint” for women accurately describes these feminists. They dislike promiscuity, which is condemned as “Pick me” behavior. At the same time, religious conservative men are also condemned. There’s women logic for you.

    But I think we have to understand that the present environment is verging on “minimum restraint” for men. Men can consume pron anonymously, and aren’t held to as many standards on physical appearance and pro-social behavior.

    Made me chuckle. Accurate! from FemaleDatingStrategy

    For social stability, a lot of guys need to stop being thirsty and go their own way.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri


    Yes, these are always popular objectives with women.
     
    At present, no they are not, at least in the US. It was women that bought millions and millions of copies of the Fifty Shades series.
     
    I haven't read them, but isn't the story arc that through persistence, the naif captivates and ultimately tames BDSM bad boy?

    It has mostly been women aruging in favor of gay pride.
     
    I'm not sure how to ascertain this, but it doesn't seem obviously true to me.

    And again it is mostly left wing women that demand “sex worker rights”.
     
    Most sex workers are left wing women.

    Also note that feminists haven’t been condemning alcohol consumption, even if it causes bad behavior by men.
     
    They certainly condemn places of male alcohol consumption: frat houses, fishing trips, etc. And that FemaleDatingStrategy* link you threw in is full of women condemning drunken men.

    Look around how many prominent pron actresses have recently condemned the business
     
    I'm not familiar with any. The occasional ex-porn performer I hear about always seems to have an oxymoronic "I'm done with it now, but I'm not ashamed of anything I did" attitude.

    Even if there are some condemners, there seem to be thousands of women in pornography not condemning it while they literally physically endorse it in the most intimate and public way possible, so on balance ...

    I also predict that many middle aged women without children will take on a mentorship role for younger women.
     
    Modern Miss Havishams?

    The hard truth is that beta men have very little power in the present marketplace.
     
    Yes, by design, apparently.

    Recently, on Ann Coulter:

    "the modern American white male is the least rapey, most gentle, protective, chivalrous creature God has ever created. Get ready for a gigantic I TOLD YOU SO when American women realize that, from 1620 to the day Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act kicked in, they never had it so good."
     
    Personally, I'm not holding my breath for any American women to realize Miss Coulter's wisdom.

    The main power they still have is to propose marriage
     
    Not sure how the option to throw yourself into prison is power.

    I don’t find that the “minimum restraint” for women accurately describes these feminists. They dislike promiscuity
     
    Slut walks?

    I think we have to understand that the present environment is verging on “minimum restraint” for men. Men can consume pron anonymously, and aren’t held to as many standards on physical appearance and pro-social behavior.
     
    Partly agree. Caddish behavior that formerly might have gotten you killed or at least beaten up by male relatives is now shrugged off. On the other hand, are you kidding? The entire legal direction of the West for the last fifty years has been how to maximally restrain men. Also, you must not have noticed all the hilariously petty criticisms in your FDS link of men's physical appearance and social behavior.

    For social stability, a lot of guys need to stop being thirsty and go their own way.
     
    Perhaps, but another thing I'm not holding my breath for is millions of desperate and weak men suddenly to overcome their lower natures in a mass triumph of the will. It seems much more likely to me that before that happens they will simply be swamped by swarthworld invaders who revel in their lower natures and make no apology for it. Indeed, for many, their religions literally license it. One should plan according to one's expectations. If we see "social stability" again, it will be at vastly different equilibria than what I think you are imagining.

    *Note for novice men daters: you are the object of female strategy, now organized by professional "Female Dating Strategy Coaches". The objective of this "Strategy" seems to be to constrain and condemn you but liberate and celebrate them.
  112. @Intelligent Dasein
    The internet angle is the right path to pursue here; this is where the true load-bearing ore lies, and where the fascinating hints and insights emerge. In order to understand what the internet has done to human sexual psychology via pornography, we can look at what it has done to finance, to shopping, to socializing, and to reading. A definite pattern emerges.

    In the domain of finance, the internet was instumental in creating the appearance of a global financial network that actually worked as advertised, efficiently allocating capital from anywhere on the planet to wherever else it was needed. It sold the idea that private individuals from all over the world could now play in the markets with the new trading software platforms, while it enabled the big boys to spin Rumplestiltskin-like profits out of nothingness with high-frequency trades executed in microseconds. The original idea was that this massive influx of new capital, along with the new industries required by the tech build-out itself, along with the possibility of streamlining existing industries and trade patterns through tech-enabled efficiency gains, was about to unleash a golden age of wealth creation such as the world had never seen. But this was perception rather than reality. In real life, the efficiency gains turned out to be largely illusory, and any short-term revenue that was saved (e.g. the elimination of personnel in favor of automation) was more than offset by the capital demands of the tech build-out itself, while the negative externalities (e.g. the loss of experienced workers) led to the etiolation of industry and the destruction of settled, local economies. It did, however, precipitate the sharpest and most overvalued bubble in known history, the legendary dot.com boom. What was missed in all this frenzie is that the emergence of the internet did nothing to increase the stock of real investable funds or worthwhile collateral in the world. It was simply a massive transfer of purchasing power from those who traditionally produced wealth to those who moved money. The internet was their creation and their tool for the liquidation of stored value and the asset-stripping of the globe.

    In the domain of shopping, i.e. one particular subset of the aforementioned financial revolution, we see the rise of the click-and-ship culture as developed by its most emblematic avatar, Amazon. This wretched company, which in its entire existence has never realized a profit from core operations, has made its disgusting worm of a CEO, Jeff Bezos, into the richest man in the world---as clear a case of asset-stripping as ever there could be. Amazon markets the promise of convenience, delivering consumer goods to people who are too lazy or otherwise indisposed to go to the store. This is a value-added service which, in the normal course of events, would incur a shipping surcharge that would add significantly to the price of each purchased item, thereby rendering the business model unattractive for most ordinary transactions. But Amazon notoriously underpices its shipping, in effect selling the added service of convenience for nothing. But, there being no such thing as a free lunch in the concrete world of matter and energy, this missing value must materialize somewhere. It does so in the accelerated depreciation curve of the infrastructure which Bezos exploits to provide his "service," notably the preexisting logistical network of the US Postal Service, which is most apallingly underpaid by Amazon. The "convenience" of online shopping does nothing to reduce the amount of energy required to produce items or to move them from place to place. It is essentially a pseudo-service, existing entirely in the hyperreality of the computer's graphic interface, while the infrastructure of the world outside progressively crumbles with the passage of each penis-painted ProMaster.

    In the domain of socializing, we have the rise of the great social media titans, about whom I shall speak only obliquely, having never personally participated in them. What is significant here is the commodification of social interaction, its dissolution and reconstitution into what are called memes, tweets, selfies, posts, texts, gifs, and whatnot. By these we mean images, short videos, brief written comments, or various combinations thereof, the unifying feature of which is that their effect depends entirely (and often unconsciously) upon thier ironic content. The classic meme, for example, is a still frame from some instantly recognizable movie or television show, depicting a character wearing an intense expression of contempt, astonishment, disbelief, amazement, ar some other strong emotion, the original context of which is meant to be recalled by the audience. This image is then overlaid with a text that explitly refers to the contemporary event that the author is attempting to link to this iconic image, often in an offhand or irreverant way. The juxtaposition works only poorly or not at all if the viewer is not aware of the original context; indeed, the author of the meme depends on just this tension to make his point. Those who worry that the spread of social media results in atomized individuals have not taken appropriate notice of the fact that the meme---the internet's now standard expression form---presumes a greater standard of cultural homogeneity than perhaps anything but religious iconography. The meme-language would be, in effect, a sealed book to those who had never seen The Big Lebowski, The Princess Bride, Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek. What we have here is the recycling of old culture, an expression-medium which does to old movies what Uber ride sharing does to other people's cars---monetizes their downtime. Becoming ever more self-referential and artless, they eventually lose their ability to express anything. A similar analysis can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to "cute" Facebook posts and selfies, etc.

    In the domain of reading, or one should rather say news gathering in general, the internet has resulted in an almost complete degradation of the activity and its material. What was once billed as an "information superhighway" in the early years of its development has in reality become a CliffsNotes Cafe at the end of the road. Just as MPEG files are compressed to facilitate the ease of transmission (this very fact bearing witness to how the needs of the medium rather than the audience rose to dominance), so also do we now "skim" articles for their content. Nobody reads a book anymore, and correspondingly the ability of people to write long, complex, grammatically correct sentences and paragraphs is everywhere on the wane. Furthermore, nobody now feels the slightest shame at being nothing more than an emoji-spewing semi-literate. That which can be communicated with as little effort as possible turns out to be the preferred idiom of the internet age, conditioned as it is by the visible and immediate. Great profusions of messages are exchanged every moment and forgotten about the next, leaving as the sole monument to their existence a small quantum of waste heat. This remarkable state of affairs will one day affect the most paradxical condition of all: The "Information Age," that pivotal moment when man in his hubris thought himself poised to embark on an unprecedented upward trajectory, will turn out to be an historical "dark" age, because no record of it will remain. One the server farms are powered down an overgrown by weeds, once the communications satellites decay in their orbits and come crashing out of the sky, there will be no written words anywhere to speak of any of this weirdness. Every text, tweet, meme, broadcast, video---gone, with future generations left to wonder what illiterate pigs once inhabited these sprawling suburbs, the ruins of which do not even merit a nod of artistic consideration.

    In synthesis, the picture that emerges of the internet age is that of great value extraction. The internet polarizes, not opinion, but experience itself. It syphons off the liquid fraction of experience---all that is immediately perceived by the eye and parsed by the intellect---and reduces it to "information," its only digestible food. This information, being a sort of after-image of substance, goes off to its own inevitable fate of nothingness, meanwhile the full and substantial reality of that from which it was abstracted alters in another direction. To extend the analysis, then, the rise of internet pornography has become for sex what abstract money is to real property, what irony is to culture, what tittilation is to service, what information is to knowledge---the shadow without the substance. Has pornography not done to the sex market exactly what QE has done to the stock market, what Amazon has done to the retail market? Sex is not looking at pictures and getting off; it is a concrete physical and psychological act, the end of which is procreation. It is the substance, the solid fraction, that we neglect. Today we have stock market bubbles and zombie corporations; we have free porn and no children.

    There are those who would interpret the internet age as something like the Industrial Revolution, and who foresee ahead similar leaps in productivity and the standard of living. I maintain that it is quite the opposite. The internet is the great physical-social Carnot engine that is burning up the surplus capital of the industrial age. Its net effect is dissipative, not consturctive. I believe that anyone who seriously thinks bout what I have stated above will never unsee the truth of it.

    I meant AGREE! Sorry, pressed wrong button. Must be the New Year’s celebration hangover.

    You’re an thoughtful man, Mr. Intelligent, in an increasingly thoughtless world.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    According to Ron, you can fix a wrong button press just by clicking a different button: e.g., click "AGREE" after mistakenly clicking "DISAGREE".
  113. @Almost Missouri

    "Secular and liberal Jews today were sloughed off by ultra orthodox communities of Haredi Judaism from which they all descended."
     
    Yes, this is what Intelligent Dasein (PBUH) misses when he says things like,

    "another generation or two, and the history of this ethnic Judaism will be accomplished as it dissolves itself into the polyglot Western upper crust"
     
    or

    "we have pretty much seen the last of Judaism as an historically significant force in the West."
     
    Most HBD things are questions of degree or rates of change, (or as Steve likes to say, glasses simultaneously half empty and half full), so it can be difficult for hard-nosed objective thinkers to conceptualize this fluid environment accurately.

    At the moment, about an eighth of "Jews" are the orthodox (i.e., really actually Jews). These people breed like crazy, on par with the Amish. Now, as with the Amish, not all of those born to them go on to remain orthodox. Enough do to maintain and increase the numbers of the orthodox, but there is still a large surplus who "slough off" to become the people whom one still thinks of as "Jews".

    In essence, there is a kind of half-life from the orthodox community. If you have a fertility rate of about six, as I understand the Orthodox Jews do, and, for example, a third of the offspring "slough off" to something less orthodox, well, you still double the base population each generation while throwing off a whole extra surplus generation of secularizing descendants.

    So when you look at today's population of Jews, you are seeing a one-eighth high-fertility core, "sloughing off" a trail lower fertility but more materially productive secularizers, who in turn produce lower fertility and higher secularity offspring until you arrive the edge, full of prominent but terminal cases like Andrea Dworkin and Woody Allen.

    The fact that the core matrix population is not the majority creates the illusion of irrelevance, but this as false as saying that because the head of a comet is only a very small part of what you see, the head is irrelevant to the comet. In fact, the head is the source of the whole comet, irrespective of its visibility. To extend the comet metaphor, at times of higher or lower solar wind, the comet's visible tail may grow more or less prominent, but this does not mean the comet itself is about to go extinct.

    As regards the comparison with Amish for white gentiles, it is valid, but there are at least a couple of distinctions to make. One is that though a minority, the Orthodox Jewish population if still a substantial minority of Jews, about an eighth, as mentioned. So much so, that most Jews can probably name their most recent Orthodox ancestor, who probably lived only a generation or three ago. By contrast, Amish are a tiny tiny minority of gentile whites, from whom no recognizable ethnic group descend. The Amish:white gentile ratio is two or three orders of magnitude smaller than the Orthodox:Jewish ratio.
    This matters. Another distinction is the different cultural orientation, made by John Gruskos, above.

    Most HBD things are questions of degree or rates of change, (or as Steve likes to say, glasses simultaneously half empty and half full), so it can be difficult for hard-nosed objective thinkers to conceptualize this fluid environment accurately.

    There isn’t anything difficult to understand about what you’ve said. The problem is that it isn’t happening. This whole comet/slough metaphor is a tidy and elegant description—of something that does not exist.

    This is not a mechanical process; we aren’t talking about diffusion rates here, we’re talking about cultures. The behavior of today’s secularized Jews is something that emerged out of interaction with the dominant West European culture of today and yesterday. Whatever sloughs off the comet head tomorrow is of no consequence; tomorrow’s “secularized Jews” do not form any kind of continuous cultural unit with today’s “secularized Jews.”

    Or, to put it in your own terminology, the comet metaphor is accurate once you understand that the tail of the comet is not a body but a pseudo-process (like a shadow) that always points away from the Sun. Its unity is apparent, not real.

    The apostate grandsons of tomorrow’s orthodox Jewry are not going to become future Harvey Weinsteins and Michael Bloombergs. The cultural dynamics that created these people out of a horde of educated and disbelieving shtetl-dwellers from the old continent no longer exist. There are no more shtetls and shtetl-dwellers, no more influx of ethnic Jewish immigrants, no booming American land of opportunity to grant them easy access to great fortunes, no more religious tension, no antisemetic bigotry, no unifying secular Jewish experience of any kind whatsoever. None of the relevant cultural factors will ever be repeated again, and that is what I meant by historically significant Judaism.

    The rest is mere panache. Just as it makes no difference whatsoever to any American today whether his ancestors 150 years back were Polish or German or English, so tomorrow it will matter not if your ancestors were secular Jews. Only the orthodox, in their unimportant enclaves, will remain Jewish.

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon, iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
    no unifying secular Jewish experience of any kind whatsoever

    You don't believe Zionism, expressed as support for Israel, and the Holocaust Industry are unifying?

    , @AaronB
    I always disagree with much of what you say, but even when your mistakes seem elementary to me you always manage to say something interesting and stimulate my thinking on the subject.

    Keep it coming.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "There are no more shtetls and shtetl-dwellers,"
     
    There are parts of Brooklyn, NJ and NY states that I think qualify as modern day shtetls. And they contain hundreds of thousands of people.

    "no more influx of ethnic Jewish immigrants,"
     
    They don't really need to immigrate from the Pale of Settlement anymore because modern shtetls are already inside US borders. But, as it happens, there is some immigration from Israel, which does also have shtetl-like Haredi settlements.

    "no booming American land of opportunity to grant them easy access to great fortunes,"
     
    Maybe not for you or me, but there is still an entrenched network of ethnic nepotism that works pretty well. I know several Israeli immigrants who essentially walked right off the boat into surprisingly good jobs in real estate or tech. Goyim need not apply.

    "no more religious tension, no antisemetic bigotry,"
     
    Have you told the New York Times and their readers about this? They seem not to have gotten the memo.

    "no unifying secular Jewish experience of any kind whatsoever."
     
    Gotta agree with iffen here.

    "Just as it makes no difference whatsoever to any American today whether his ancestors 150 years back were Polish or German or English, so tomorrow it will matter not if your ancestors were secular Jews."
     
    One can hope.

    "Only the orthodox, in their unimportant enclaves, will remain Jewish."
     
    "Unimportant", but doubling every generation...
  114. @dfordoom

    In my observation – viewing porn and its effects more closely resemble those of a habitual drug user, than they do an individual involved in a real sexual relationship.
     
    If you've got some hard scientific evidence to back that up then we'll certainly listen.

    What we've got so far from the anti-porn brigade on UR has been a series of assertions with no actual supporting evidence. In fact what we've got so far has been "anything I don't like must be bad so it should be banned" which is hardly an argument. I don't like football and football can result in serious injuries (and occasionally even death) but that doesn't give me a justification for demanding that football should be banned.

    I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong. I'd just like to see some evidence.

    I believe there were some studies done years ago after censorship was liberalised in some of the Scandinavian countries that seemed to indicate that increased availability of porn might be associated with lower rates of rape and other sexual assaults. But that was something I read years ago and I've long since forgotten where I read it.

    Porn seems to be a subject on which people are simply not interested in looking at actual evidence.

    “If you’ve got some hard scientific evidence to back that up then we’ll certainly listen.”

    It’s admittedly a theory. I have yet to read a decent refutation of it.

    “In fact what we’ve got so far has been “anything I don’t like must be bad so it should be banned” which is hardly an argument.”

    I never said it should be banned. What I have said in the past is that classifying the legality of porn as a 1A issue is erroneous. Strictly speaking, porn has no constitutional grounds to continue being produced. I have also recognized the impossibility of banning porn as a realistic deterrent, just like with any other vice such as prostitution, gambling, drug use, etc. As we have seen with the latter examples, massive amounts of resources have been expended enforcing the restriction of those activities, particularly on the consumer as opposed to the provider, with little to show for it.

    The best deterrent to vice is proper education and strong family ties. Poor family relations and excess leisure time lead to a whole lot of poor choices.

  115. @silviosilver
    Marriage and family are great when they work well, but there's no guarantee they will, and when they don't they can be one of the greatest sources of distress known to man.

    Of course, someone who has had children but whose family fell apart may bitterly regret the day he ever met "that bitch," but he can always comfort himself with the thought that at he least he "did the right thing," in a way that someone who dedicated himself to sports or to sex or to video games or what have you only to see it all come to naught really couldn't.

    For me the most obvious, but distinctly unsettling conclusion, to draw from these calculations is that a man should, at some point, have children, but not overly concern himself with family life - even his children's upbringing.

    Firstly, we know from studies that a parent's ability to affect the way his children turn out are very limited, and that the vagaries of heredity and peer-group influence will often overwhelm his best efforts. One could well conclude: why even try? Secondly, it never fails to astonish me how even the greatest, most worthless bum of a father, who has not only contributed nothing to his children's welfare but retarded their development in a thousand ways, is still able to exhibit fatherly pride. If you're a guy, why not use this most reliable phenomenon to your advantage?

    As for love and marriage, probably every married man's - if he's honest - experience has been that romance fades and the relationship settles into the grind of routine. Stick it out to the bitter end if you want to - who knows, you may find bliss - but don't say you weren't warned about the dangers, and don't pretend there was no alternative.

    The subset of people I’m most concerned about are those men who would thoroughly enjoy fatherhood but aren’t sure of it beforehand and so delay or forego family formation entirely. I procreated out of a sense of duty and then found out it was the greatest thing that ever happened to me.

    I’m not sure how to help men in a situation similar to mine. Putting them around nieces and nephews may provide some window, but being around children in general probably doesn’t.

  116. @Intelligent Dasein

    Most HBD things are questions of degree or rates of change, (or as Steve likes to say, glasses simultaneously half empty and half full), so it can be difficult for hard-nosed objective thinkers to conceptualize this fluid environment accurately.
     
    There isn't anything difficult to understand about what you've said. The problem is that it isn't happening. This whole comet/slough metaphor is a tidy and elegant description---of something that does not exist.

    This is not a mechanical process; we aren't talking about diffusion rates here, we're talking about cultures. The behavior of today's secularized Jews is something that emerged out of interaction with the dominant West European culture of today and yesterday. Whatever sloughs off the comet head tomorrow is of no consequence; tomorrow's "secularized Jews" do not form any kind of continuous cultural unit with today's "secularized Jews."

    Or, to put it in your own terminology, the comet metaphor is accurate once you understand that the tail of the comet is not a body but a pseudo-process (like a shadow) that always points away from the Sun. Its unity is apparent, not real.

    The apostate grandsons of tomorrow's orthodox Jewry are not going to become future Harvey Weinsteins and Michael Bloombergs. The cultural dynamics that created these people out of a horde of educated and disbelieving shtetl-dwellers from the old continent no longer exist. There are no more shtetls and shtetl-dwellers, no more influx of ethnic Jewish immigrants, no booming American land of opportunity to grant them easy access to great fortunes, no more religious tension, no antisemetic bigotry, no unifying secular Jewish experience of any kind whatsoever. None of the relevant cultural factors will ever be repeated again, and that is what I meant by historically significant Judaism.

    The rest is mere panache. Just as it makes no difference whatsoever to any American today whether his ancestors 150 years back were Polish or German or English, so tomorrow it will matter not if your ancestors were secular Jews. Only the orthodox, in their unimportant enclaves, will remain Jewish.

    no unifying secular Jewish experience of any kind whatsoever

    You don’t believe Zionism, expressed as support for Israel, and the Holocaust Industry are unifying?

  117. “association between pornography use and sexual dysfunction [33], others propose that the rise in pornography use may be the key factor explaining the sharp rise in erectile dysfunction among young people [80]. In one study, 60% of patients who suffered sexual dysfunction with a real partner, characteristically did not have this problem with pornography [8]. Some argue that causation between pornography use and sexual dysfunction is difficult to establish, since true controls not exposed to pornography are rare to find [81] and have proposed a possible research design in this regard.”

    In other words no study supports any definitive connection. This is just the kind of dance that gets christians trapped in liberal agendas that eventually back fires.

    Note what the study says in relation to their internet survey data. The supposed dysfunction is related to the internet — not necessarily to the material in question.

  118. @Intelligent Dasein

    Most HBD things are questions of degree or rates of change, (or as Steve likes to say, glasses simultaneously half empty and half full), so it can be difficult for hard-nosed objective thinkers to conceptualize this fluid environment accurately.
     
    There isn't anything difficult to understand about what you've said. The problem is that it isn't happening. This whole comet/slough metaphor is a tidy and elegant description---of something that does not exist.

    This is not a mechanical process; we aren't talking about diffusion rates here, we're talking about cultures. The behavior of today's secularized Jews is something that emerged out of interaction with the dominant West European culture of today and yesterday. Whatever sloughs off the comet head tomorrow is of no consequence; tomorrow's "secularized Jews" do not form any kind of continuous cultural unit with today's "secularized Jews."

    Or, to put it in your own terminology, the comet metaphor is accurate once you understand that the tail of the comet is not a body but a pseudo-process (like a shadow) that always points away from the Sun. Its unity is apparent, not real.

    The apostate grandsons of tomorrow's orthodox Jewry are not going to become future Harvey Weinsteins and Michael Bloombergs. The cultural dynamics that created these people out of a horde of educated and disbelieving shtetl-dwellers from the old continent no longer exist. There are no more shtetls and shtetl-dwellers, no more influx of ethnic Jewish immigrants, no booming American land of opportunity to grant them easy access to great fortunes, no more religious tension, no antisemetic bigotry, no unifying secular Jewish experience of any kind whatsoever. None of the relevant cultural factors will ever be repeated again, and that is what I meant by historically significant Judaism.

    The rest is mere panache. Just as it makes no difference whatsoever to any American today whether his ancestors 150 years back were Polish or German or English, so tomorrow it will matter not if your ancestors were secular Jews. Only the orthodox, in their unimportant enclaves, will remain Jewish.

    I always disagree with much of what you say, but even when your mistakes seem elementary to me you always manage to say something interesting and stimulate my thinking on the subject.

    Keep it coming.

  119. @Commentator Mike
    I meant AGREE! Sorry, pressed wrong button. Must be the New Year's celebration hangover.

    You're an thoughtful man, Mr. Intelligent, in an increasingly thoughtless world.

    According to Ron, you can fix a wrong button press just by clicking a different button: e.g., click “AGREE” after mistakenly clicking “DISAGREE”.

    • Thanks: Commentator Mike
  120. @Intelligent Dasein

    Most HBD things are questions of degree or rates of change, (or as Steve likes to say, glasses simultaneously half empty and half full), so it can be difficult for hard-nosed objective thinkers to conceptualize this fluid environment accurately.
     
    There isn't anything difficult to understand about what you've said. The problem is that it isn't happening. This whole comet/slough metaphor is a tidy and elegant description---of something that does not exist.

    This is not a mechanical process; we aren't talking about diffusion rates here, we're talking about cultures. The behavior of today's secularized Jews is something that emerged out of interaction with the dominant West European culture of today and yesterday. Whatever sloughs off the comet head tomorrow is of no consequence; tomorrow's "secularized Jews" do not form any kind of continuous cultural unit with today's "secularized Jews."

    Or, to put it in your own terminology, the comet metaphor is accurate once you understand that the tail of the comet is not a body but a pseudo-process (like a shadow) that always points away from the Sun. Its unity is apparent, not real.

    The apostate grandsons of tomorrow's orthodox Jewry are not going to become future Harvey Weinsteins and Michael Bloombergs. The cultural dynamics that created these people out of a horde of educated and disbelieving shtetl-dwellers from the old continent no longer exist. There are no more shtetls and shtetl-dwellers, no more influx of ethnic Jewish immigrants, no booming American land of opportunity to grant them easy access to great fortunes, no more religious tension, no antisemetic bigotry, no unifying secular Jewish experience of any kind whatsoever. None of the relevant cultural factors will ever be repeated again, and that is what I meant by historically significant Judaism.

    The rest is mere panache. Just as it makes no difference whatsoever to any American today whether his ancestors 150 years back were Polish or German or English, so tomorrow it will matter not if your ancestors were secular Jews. Only the orthodox, in their unimportant enclaves, will remain Jewish.

    “There are no more shtetls and shtetl-dwellers,”

    There are parts of Brooklyn, NJ and NY states that I think qualify as modern day shtetls. And they contain hundreds of thousands of people.

    “no more influx of ethnic Jewish immigrants,”

    They don’t really need to immigrate from the Pale of Settlement anymore because modern shtetls are already inside US borders. But, as it happens, there is some immigration from Israel, which does also have shtetl-like Haredi settlements.

    “no booming American land of opportunity to grant them easy access to great fortunes,”

    Maybe not for you or me, but there is still an entrenched network of ethnic nepotism that works pretty well. I know several Israeli immigrants who essentially walked right off the boat into surprisingly good jobs in real estate or tech. Goyim need not apply.

    “no more religious tension, no antisemetic bigotry,”

    Have you told the New York Times and their readers about this? They seem not to have gotten the memo.

    “no unifying secular Jewish experience of any kind whatsoever.”

    Gotta agree with iffen here.

    “Just as it makes no difference whatsoever to any American today whether his ancestors 150 years back were Polish or German or English, so tomorrow it will matter not if your ancestors were secular Jews.”

    One can hope.

    “Only the orthodox, in their unimportant enclaves, will remain Jewish.”

    “Unimportant”, but doubling every generation…

  121. @216
    https://www.techjunkie.com/use-telegram-without-phone-number/

    ---

    Neo-Victorian Feminism, or what might be called "conservative feminism" or "fifth wave feminism".

    Imagine a feminism that recognized that most of its followers weren't lesbians, and weren't interested in promiscuity. Rather, that bourgeois family formation is something most actually want, even if previous versions of feminism looked down on it.

    This decade is going to see the first Millennial women hit 40, after which a lot of them will find out they will never be married. These women will be angry at two groups: men and earlier "sex positive" feminists.

    The specific term "Neo-Victorian" was created by Conservative Inc writers in relation to the backlash against "Yes Means Yes". Being a slut is apparently a conservative value.

    The short version is that these feminists will be against trans, sex workers, pron, and any kind of sexual coercion (BDSM). They further want to regulate male lifestyles, first by social shaming, and second by legislation. Last, which will become much more apparent in the future, they are going to regulate the lives of younger women, steering them to avoid the mistakes they made.

    What most, and indeed what r/FDS, are confused by, is that this isn't rehased second-wave "radical feminism". The key difference is in the rather pro-marriage stance.

    Another part, which many in the manosphere won't like, is the strong backlash against older unmarried/divorced men that this feminism is going to bring.

    Thanks, this is an interesting theory and I think it will probably work out as you say. But, from reading reddit Female Dating Strategy, I’m not sure it supports the theory. I see some self improvement posts, a lot of mocking men, a lot of complaining and putting down other women. There is post which mentions looksmaxxing, I’m sure they talk about spinning plates too. Something to keep an eye on.

  122. @216

    Yes, these are always popular objectives with women.
     
    At present, no they are not, at least in the US. It was women that bought millions and millions of copies of the Fifty Shades series. It has mostly been women aruging in favor of gay pride. And again it is mostly left wing women that demand "sex worker rights".

    Also note that feminists haven't been condemning alcohol consumption, even if it causes bad behavior by men.

    These aren't the historic norm, but they are the present norm.

    Skeptometer rising…
    My own observations are that, e.g., cougars and other sexual market detritus want to justify their errors by getting as many youths as possible to follow them into their slough of despond.
     
    I admit this is a tenuous claim on my part, but I think there are some early indicators. Look around how many prominent pron actresses have recently condemned the business (after they cashed out).

    What Neo-Victorianism offers is a way to blame men, while not being in denial.

    I also predict that many middle aged women without children will take on a mentorship role for younger women.

    So, now that prior feminists have transformed the marriage contract into death trap for productive men, the new feminist imperative will be to chase men into it? Interesting.
    I find a reliable forecast is that feminists will always advocate minimum restraint for women, maximum restraint for men.
     
    The hard truth is that beta men have very little power in the present marketplace. The main power they still have is to propose marriage, a woman can't marry herself. If men started engaging in collective self defense, they could get some power back. But most men are too thirsty, for now.

    I don't find that the "minimum restraint" for women accurately describes these feminists. They dislike promiscuity, which is condemned as "Pick me" behavior. At the same time, religious conservative men are also condemned. There's women logic for you.

    But I think we have to understand that the present environment is verging on "minimum restraint" for men. Men can consume pron anonymously, and aren't held to as many standards on physical appearance and pro-social behavior.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/ehcem6/made_me_chuckle_accurate/

    For social stability, a lot of guys need to stop being thirsty and go their own way.

    Yes, these are always popular objectives with women.

    At present, no they are not, at least in the US. It was women that bought millions and millions of copies of the Fifty Shades series.

    I haven’t read them, but isn’t the story arc that through persistence, the naif captivates and ultimately tames BDSM bad boy?

    It has mostly been women aruging in favor of gay pride.

    I’m not sure how to ascertain this, but it doesn’t seem obviously true to me.

    And again it is mostly left wing women that demand “sex worker rights”.

    Most sex workers are left wing women.

    Also note that feminists haven’t been condemning alcohol consumption, even if it causes bad behavior by men.

    They certainly condemn places of male alcohol consumption: frat houses, fishing trips, etc. And that FemaleDatingStrategy* link you threw in is full of women condemning drunken men.

    Look around how many prominent pron actresses have recently condemned the business

    I’m not familiar with any. The occasional ex-porn performer I hear about always seems to have an oxymoronic “I’m done with it now, but I’m not ashamed of anything I did” attitude.

    Even if there are some condemners, there seem to be thousands of women in pornography not condemning it while they literally physically endorse it in the most intimate and public way possible, so on balance …

    I also predict that many middle aged women without children will take on a mentorship role for younger women.

    Modern Miss Havishams?

    The hard truth is that beta men have very little power in the present marketplace.

    Yes, by design, apparently.

    Recently, on Ann Coulter:

    “the modern American white male is the least rapey, most gentle, protective, chivalrous creature God has ever created. Get ready for a gigantic I TOLD YOU SO when American women realize that, from 1620 to the day Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act kicked in, they never had it so good.”

    Personally, I’m not holding my breath for any American women to realize Miss Coulter’s wisdom.

    The main power they still have is to propose marriage

    Not sure how the option to throw yourself into prison is power.

    I don’t find that the “minimum restraint” for women accurately describes these feminists. They dislike promiscuity

    Slut walks?

    I think we have to understand that the present environment is verging on “minimum restraint” for men. Men can consume pron anonymously, and aren’t held to as many standards on physical appearance and pro-social behavior.

    Partly agree. Caddish behavior that formerly might have gotten you killed or at least beaten up by male relatives is now shrugged off. On the other hand, are you kidding? The entire legal direction of the West for the last fifty years has been how to maximally restrain men. Also, you must not have noticed all the hilariously petty criticisms in your FDS link of men’s physical appearance and social behavior.

    For social stability, a lot of guys need to stop being thirsty and go their own way.

    Perhaps, but another thing I’m not holding my breath for is millions of desperate and weak men suddenly to overcome their lower natures in a mass triumph of the will. It seems much more likely to me that before that happens they will simply be swamped by swarthworld invaders who revel in their lower natures and make no apology for it. Indeed, for many, their religions literally license it. One should plan according to one’s expectations. If we see “social stability” again, it will be at vastly different equilibria than what I think you are imagining.

    *Note for novice men daters: you are the object of female strategy, now organized by professional “Female Dating Strategy Coaches”. The objective of this “Strategy” seems to be to constrain and condemn you but liberate and celebrate them.

    • Replies: @216

    They certainly condemn places of male alcohol consumption: frat houses, fishing trips, etc. And that FemaleDatingStrategy* link you threw in is full of women condemning drunken men.
     
    It's rare for feminists to outright condemn the consumption of alcohol itself, they mainly condemn its linkage with "toxicity". If men were "taught not to rape", then binge drinking is presumably safe.

    Personally, I’m not holding my breath for any American women to realize Miss Coulter’s wisdom.
     
    A lot of men are overweight, particularly a lot of white working class men have substance abuse problems. Younger men like myself aren't interested in signalling provider status. Women are not wrong to be angry.

    On the other hand, are you kidding? The entire legal direction of the West for the last fifty years has been how to maximally restrain men. Also, you must not have noticed all the hilariously petty criticisms in your FDS link of men’s physical appearance and social behavior.
     
    Western men don't have to be as conformist as East Asian men, and in the diaspora both East and South Asian men have better indicators than many white men.

    FDS is not mainstream, not yet by a longshot. It is distinct from almost every other feminist community, and represents IMO the first Neo-Victorian community. It took nearly a decade for the PUA and MRA of the manosphere to evolve into the TRP which played a surprisingly important role in the 2016 election. My prediction is that by 2030, there will be a lot more of these communities, and they will make an abrupt turn to the right.
  123. @Thea
    I think he means the ones that go off the res. Those seem to always become rootless cosmopolitan and angry feminist types. Every generation will have some.

    Some sort of reaction against their parents.

    That’s how I took it.

    If we use the Amish as a guide, the tendency to quit Orthodoxy will likely be increasingly bred out of the population. But some portion will always defect. Perhaps the defecters will maintain some degree of secularized Jewishness for another (low TFR) generation or two.

    But note that most of the famous leftist Ashkenazim with which we are familiar are many generations removed from deeply observant Judaism. They grew up in a semi-assimilated culture that identified itself as deeply Jewish and took pride in Jewishness, despite the lack of observance. That’s the culture that is diminishing as it assimilates into mainstream SWPL culture.

    A culture of people 1-2 generations removed from Orthodox Judaism (and somewhat resentful towards it) will probably look different from historical secular Jewish culture.

  124. @dfordoom


    It teaches that one’s personal gratification at the expense of another is ultimately what sex is about, a truly dehumanizing lesson, and a direct hit on one’s moral values and views towards women.
     
    Really? Is porn only about non-consensual sex? Or am I misunderstanding “at the expense of another”?
     
    Is it possible that there's good porn and bad porn? Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be to ask if there is benign porn and destructive porn?

    There is certainly a difference between the older type of softcore porn and most hardcore porn. Old school softcore porn tended to put a great deal of emphasis on the woman's pleasure (movies like Emmanuelle for instance). Hardcore porn emphasises male pleasure. And old school softcore porn did at least acknowledge that sex has an emotional content. I'd say that old-fashioned softcore porn was about people having sex. Hardcore porn is about body parts having sex.

    Maybe we need porn reform. Seriously. Given that banning porn is quite likely completely politically unachievable maybe we should focus on encouraging the benign stuff and very strongly discouraging if not banning the destructive stuff. Make Porn Great Again.

    Classical, European porn was more satisfying than contemporary porn. True, there was- sometimes- emotional content, but, more important for porn, there was an erotic titillation, gradual heightening of erotic tension. There was, in the best of them, some kind of story & shrewd manipulation with human sexual psychology.

    I never watched much porn, even when in adolescence (I’ve read more of it then), but from what I see now, porn is dull & dehumanizing. It caters mostly to the lowest elements of human nature: various extreme fetishes, pedophilia, sadism of the most degrading kind, racial & cultural fetishes (Asians, blacks, hijabs,..) etc. Japanese porn is basically a fusion of pedophilia & extreme sadistic degradation.

    The total effect must be some kind of saturation & disgust, combined with unrealistic expectations about female body (I don’t know about women & gays).

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Classical, European porn was more satisfying than contemporary porn. True, there was- sometimes- emotional content, but, more important for porn, there was an erotic titillation, gradual heightening of erotic tension. There was, in the best of them, some kind of story & shrewd manipulation with human sexual psychology.
     
    I agree. And I do think it's very very sad that actual eroticism has been to a large extent displaced by a crass emphasis on the merely sexual. I do think it's an unhealthy change.

    On the other hand I think this change has been driven by a multitude of factors. I'm not convinced that banning porn would help. I also don't believe that if porn were to be banned all those unmarried men and women would suddenly get married and start having babies. I think we have very deep social problems the roots of which go back a century or more.

    Much of modern porn is distasteful, but if you gave me the power to ban everything I find distasteful you could kiss goodbye to most modern popular culture, and virtually all modern high culture.

    The total effect must be some kind of saturation & disgust, combined with unrealistic expectations about female body
     
    Possibly, but such evidence that exists is thin and very unconvincing. I'm not sure we have evidence to support the idea that porn per se is the problem. And we certainly don't have enough evidence to justify a ban.

    I think it's extremely likely that all internet usage is basically unhealthy, whether it's social media, celebrity gossip, even Unz Review. On the internet there's too much of everything and everything becomes a gigantic time sink. Maybe we need to spend a lot less time online. I have no idea how that can be achieved.

    But again, really persuasive evidence is just not there. Again we get mostly assertions and guesses. And such research that has been done has to be treated with caution - always remember that the social sciences (including to a large extent psychiatry) have no connection whatsoever with actual science. And most research in the fields of social behaviour is done by people with very definite axes to grind.
  125. @dfordoom


    Erectile dysfunction: while some studies have found little evidence of the association between pornography use and sexual dysfunction [33], others propose that the rise in pornography use may be the key factor explaining the sharp rise in erectile dysfunction among young people [80]. In one study, 60% of patients who suffered sexual dysfunction with a real partner, characteristically did not have this problem with pornography [8]. Some argue that causation between pornography use and sexual dysfunction is difficult to establish, since true controls not exposed to pornography are rare to find [81] and have proposed a possible research design in this regard.
     

     
    "some studies"
    "others propose"
    "may be the key factor"
    "In one study"
    "Some argue that"
    "is difficult to establish"
    "have proposed"

    In other words this person is saying that he has no actual evidence but he's going to offer a series of unsupported assertions, unsubstantiated opinions and wild guesses anyway.

    watching people like yourself rationalize their porno addictions* is equal parts sad, hilarious, and predictable.

    do you think that it’s a coincidence that several multi-billion dollar boner-pill startups (“Roman” and “Hims”) exist with a sole focus on young men (18-40), when no other generation in modern times has had such issues at such high levels at such an early age?

    try completely abstaining from porn–with zero relapses allowed–for a month, then get back to us.

    *in b4 “bro i don’t even watch porn”

  126. 216 says: • Website
    @Almost Missouri


    Yes, these are always popular objectives with women.
     
    At present, no they are not, at least in the US. It was women that bought millions and millions of copies of the Fifty Shades series.
     
    I haven't read them, but isn't the story arc that through persistence, the naif captivates and ultimately tames BDSM bad boy?

    It has mostly been women aruging in favor of gay pride.
     
    I'm not sure how to ascertain this, but it doesn't seem obviously true to me.

    And again it is mostly left wing women that demand “sex worker rights”.
     
    Most sex workers are left wing women.

    Also note that feminists haven’t been condemning alcohol consumption, even if it causes bad behavior by men.
     
    They certainly condemn places of male alcohol consumption: frat houses, fishing trips, etc. And that FemaleDatingStrategy* link you threw in is full of women condemning drunken men.

    Look around how many prominent pron actresses have recently condemned the business
     
    I'm not familiar with any. The occasional ex-porn performer I hear about always seems to have an oxymoronic "I'm done with it now, but I'm not ashamed of anything I did" attitude.

    Even if there are some condemners, there seem to be thousands of women in pornography not condemning it while they literally physically endorse it in the most intimate and public way possible, so on balance ...

    I also predict that many middle aged women without children will take on a mentorship role for younger women.
     
    Modern Miss Havishams?

    The hard truth is that beta men have very little power in the present marketplace.
     
    Yes, by design, apparently.

    Recently, on Ann Coulter:

    "the modern American white male is the least rapey, most gentle, protective, chivalrous creature God has ever created. Get ready for a gigantic I TOLD YOU SO when American women realize that, from 1620 to the day Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act kicked in, they never had it so good."
     
    Personally, I'm not holding my breath for any American women to realize Miss Coulter's wisdom.

    The main power they still have is to propose marriage
     
    Not sure how the option to throw yourself into prison is power.

    I don’t find that the “minimum restraint” for women accurately describes these feminists. They dislike promiscuity
     
    Slut walks?

    I think we have to understand that the present environment is verging on “minimum restraint” for men. Men can consume pron anonymously, and aren’t held to as many standards on physical appearance and pro-social behavior.
     
    Partly agree. Caddish behavior that formerly might have gotten you killed or at least beaten up by male relatives is now shrugged off. On the other hand, are you kidding? The entire legal direction of the West for the last fifty years has been how to maximally restrain men. Also, you must not have noticed all the hilariously petty criticisms in your FDS link of men's physical appearance and social behavior.

    For social stability, a lot of guys need to stop being thirsty and go their own way.
     
    Perhaps, but another thing I'm not holding my breath for is millions of desperate and weak men suddenly to overcome their lower natures in a mass triumph of the will. It seems much more likely to me that before that happens they will simply be swamped by swarthworld invaders who revel in their lower natures and make no apology for it. Indeed, for many, their religions literally license it. One should plan according to one's expectations. If we see "social stability" again, it will be at vastly different equilibria than what I think you are imagining.

    *Note for novice men daters: you are the object of female strategy, now organized by professional "Female Dating Strategy Coaches". The objective of this "Strategy" seems to be to constrain and condemn you but liberate and celebrate them.

    They certainly condemn places of male alcohol consumption: frat houses, fishing trips, etc. And that FemaleDatingStrategy* link you threw in is full of women condemning drunken men.

    It’s rare for feminists to outright condemn the consumption of alcohol itself, they mainly condemn its linkage with “toxicity”. If men were “taught not to rape”, then binge drinking is presumably safe.

    Personally, I’m not holding my breath for any American women to realize Miss Coulter’s wisdom.

    A lot of men are overweight, particularly a lot of white working class men have substance abuse problems. Younger men like myself aren’t interested in signalling provider status. Women are not wrong to be angry.

    On the other hand, are you kidding? The entire legal direction of the West for the last fifty years has been how to maximally restrain men. Also, you must not have noticed all the hilariously petty criticisms in your FDS link of men’s physical appearance and social behavior.

    Western men don’t have to be as conformist as East Asian men, and in the diaspora both East and South Asian men have better indicators than many white men.

    FDS is not mainstream, not yet by a longshot. It is distinct from almost every other feminist community, and represents IMO the first Neo-Victorian community. It took nearly a decade for the PUA and MRA of the manosphere to evolve into the TRP which played a surprisingly important role in the 2016 election. My prediction is that by 2030, there will be a lot more of these communities, and they will make an abrupt turn to the right.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Well, you kinda lost me there in the last couple of paragraphs ("better indicators"?), but good luck with whatever it is that you are advocating. I for one welcome our neo-Victorian overlords.

    The FDS website may not be mainstream, but if you have the misfortune to swing by your bitter divorced cousin-in-law's hen party, you may find the sentiments are rather common.
  127. @Anon
    Weren’t you the one who published a survey where 3/4 of Jews think the meaning of being a Jew is remembering the Holocaust? Judaism has morphed many times over the millennia. This is just next gen Judaism—Holocaustism.

    survey where 3/4 of Jews think the meaning of being a Jew is remembering the Holocaust

    That was Pew actually. See:

    Most important thing about being Jewish: Remembering the “Holocaust”
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12425

  128. @216

    They certainly condemn places of male alcohol consumption: frat houses, fishing trips, etc. And that FemaleDatingStrategy* link you threw in is full of women condemning drunken men.
     
    It's rare for feminists to outright condemn the consumption of alcohol itself, they mainly condemn its linkage with "toxicity". If men were "taught not to rape", then binge drinking is presumably safe.

    Personally, I’m not holding my breath for any American women to realize Miss Coulter’s wisdom.
     
    A lot of men are overweight, particularly a lot of white working class men have substance abuse problems. Younger men like myself aren't interested in signalling provider status. Women are not wrong to be angry.

    On the other hand, are you kidding? The entire legal direction of the West for the last fifty years has been how to maximally restrain men. Also, you must not have noticed all the hilariously petty criticisms in your FDS link of men’s physical appearance and social behavior.
     
    Western men don't have to be as conformist as East Asian men, and in the diaspora both East and South Asian men have better indicators than many white men.

    FDS is not mainstream, not yet by a longshot. It is distinct from almost every other feminist community, and represents IMO the first Neo-Victorian community. It took nearly a decade for the PUA and MRA of the manosphere to evolve into the TRP which played a surprisingly important role in the 2016 election. My prediction is that by 2030, there will be a lot more of these communities, and they will make an abrupt turn to the right.

    Well, you kinda lost me there in the last couple of paragraphs (“better indicators”?), but good luck with whatever it is that you are advocating. I for one welcome our neo-Victorian overlords.

    The FDS website may not be mainstream, but if you have the misfortune to swing by your bitter divorced cousin-in-law’s hen party, you may find the sentiments are rather common.

    • Replies: @216

    better indicators
     
    Socio-economic and health statistics
  129. @Bardon Kaldian
    Classical, European porn was more satisfying than contemporary porn. True, there was- sometimes- emotional content, but, more important for porn, there was an erotic titillation, gradual heightening of erotic tension. There was, in the best of them, some kind of story & shrewd manipulation with human sexual psychology.

    I never watched much porn, even when in adolescence (I've read more of it then), but from what I see now, porn is dull & dehumanizing. It caters mostly to the lowest elements of human nature: various extreme fetishes, pedophilia, sadism of the most degrading kind, racial & cultural fetishes (Asians, blacks, hijabs,..) etc. Japanese porn is basically a fusion of pedophilia & extreme sadistic degradation.

    The total effect must be some kind of saturation & disgust, combined with unrealistic expectations about female body (I don't know about women & gays).

    Classical, European porn was more satisfying than contemporary porn. True, there was- sometimes- emotional content, but, more important for porn, there was an erotic titillation, gradual heightening of erotic tension. There was, in the best of them, some kind of story & shrewd manipulation with human sexual psychology.

    I agree. And I do think it’s very very sad that actual eroticism has been to a large extent displaced by a crass emphasis on the merely sexual. I do think it’s an unhealthy change.

    On the other hand I think this change has been driven by a multitude of factors. I’m not convinced that banning porn would help. I also don’t believe that if porn were to be banned all those unmarried men and women would suddenly get married and start having babies. I think we have very deep social problems the roots of which go back a century or more.

    Much of modern porn is distasteful, but if you gave me the power to ban everything I find distasteful you could kiss goodbye to most modern popular culture, and virtually all modern high culture.

    The total effect must be some kind of saturation & disgust, combined with unrealistic expectations about female body

    Possibly, but such evidence that exists is thin and very unconvincing. I’m not sure we have evidence to support the idea that porn per se is the problem. And we certainly don’t have enough evidence to justify a ban.

    I think it’s extremely likely that all internet usage is basically unhealthy, whether it’s social media, celebrity gossip, even Unz Review. On the internet there’s too much of everything and everything becomes a gigantic time sink. Maybe we need to spend a lot less time online. I have no idea how that can be achieved.

    But again, really persuasive evidence is just not there. Again we get mostly assertions and guesses. And such research that has been done has to be treated with caution – always remember that the social sciences (including to a large extent psychiatry) have no connection whatsoever with actual science. And most research in the fields of social behaviour is done by people with very definite axes to grind.

  130. @Almost Missouri
    Well, you kinda lost me there in the last couple of paragraphs ("better indicators"?), but good luck with whatever it is that you are advocating. I for one welcome our neo-Victorian overlords.

    The FDS website may not be mainstream, but if you have the misfortune to swing by your bitter divorced cousin-in-law's hen party, you may find the sentiments are rather common.

    better indicators

    Socio-economic and health statistics

  131. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Yeah I almost think that hookup culture is a total media fabrication.

    Only about 15% of my peers participate in "hook up culture". And these people are unanimously alcoholics, who generally get blackout drunk, high on drugs, and bring a generally below average girl home from the club. 60% sit around feeling bad because they don't "get any pussy". 20% smartly pull out from this altogether

    My conspiracy is that it's designed to make men miserable. Make men feel insecure about their own sex life. Another order from tptb to push it? Maybe not.

    I've dabbled in hookup culture and it sucks. Just go volcel until finding a gf/wife. It also sucks going volcel but it's best to just focus on your own life.

    bring a generally below average girl home from the club

    Maybe back in 2007. Nightlife is pretty weak these days. A generation raised with smartphones find real-life interaction to be scary. Lots of men are approach-averse (and lots of women are scared of “creepy” guys), so the club scene is weak to nonexistent.

    Here’s an article about all the clubs closing down in Toronto. This is happening everywhere these days.

    https://www.thestar.com/business/2015/01/25/guvernment-nightclub-closure-signals-death-of-superclubs-in-the-city.html

    These days, it’s all about Tinder and online dating. People spend hours customizing their profiles so they can get swipes. If you’re willing to spend endless amounts of time playing the game, you might get an occasional hookup with a 5/10. Lots of girls just go on Tinder to get attention from men, without any intention of meeting anybody.

    That’s why only 15% of men are doing okay in this sexual environment. Back pre-smartphones, it was a lot higher than 15%. Smartphones killed much of the casual hookup scene.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    That’s why only 15% of men are doing okay in this sexual environment. Back pre-smartphones, it was a lot higher than 15%. Smartphones killed much of the casual hookup scene.
     
    Smartphones and the internet do seem to increase the advantages (sexual and social) of a small minority while leaving everybody else feeling empty and alienated. Some technologies may simply be inherently evil.
    , @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    I think you're underestimating it a bit. It's not that bad. People are still getting laid in the club lifestyle but the problem is that they are also degenerate drug/alcohol users. For people who don't get blackout drunk or do drugs, this door is essentially closed. My one friend gets laid every weekend at the club, but he is an alcoholic, drug addict and over 50% of the time the girl is ugly or fat. I just can't do that morally (physically too). He's going to get an std one day too.

    Tinder is also shit and the girls' over estimation of their SMV is out of control. Can't stand some heavyset, 6/10 bitch acting like a queen.
  132. @JohnnyWalker123

    bring a generally below average girl home from the club
     
    Maybe back in 2007. Nightlife is pretty weak these days. A generation raised with smartphones find real-life interaction to be scary. Lots of men are approach-averse (and lots of women are scared of "creepy" guys), so the club scene is weak to nonexistent.

    Here's an article about all the clubs closing down in Toronto. This is happening everywhere these days.

    https://www.thestar.com/business/2015/01/25/guvernment-nightclub-closure-signals-death-of-superclubs-in-the-city.html

    These days, it's all about Tinder and online dating. People spend hours customizing their profiles so they can get swipes. If you're willing to spend endless amounts of time playing the game, you might get an occasional hookup with a 5/10. Lots of girls just go on Tinder to get attention from men, without any intention of meeting anybody.

    That's why only 15% of men are doing okay in this sexual environment. Back pre-smartphones, it was a lot higher than 15%. Smartphones killed much of the casual hookup scene.

    That’s why only 15% of men are doing okay in this sexual environment. Back pre-smartphones, it was a lot higher than 15%. Smartphones killed much of the casual hookup scene.

    Smartphones and the internet do seem to increase the advantages (sexual and social) of a small minority while leaving everybody else feeling empty and alienated. Some technologies may simply be inherently evil.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    It's interesting that you find it necessary to use the word "evil" here, as though these social effects (presuming they're real) were intended by this technology's designers. Maybe like loosen up a bit dude.
  133. @dfordoom

    That’s why only 15% of men are doing okay in this sexual environment. Back pre-smartphones, it was a lot higher than 15%. Smartphones killed much of the casual hookup scene.
     
    Smartphones and the internet do seem to increase the advantages (sexual and social) of a small minority while leaving everybody else feeling empty and alienated. Some technologies may simply be inherently evil.

    It’s interesting that you find it necessary to use the word “evil” here, as though these social effects (presuming they’re real) were intended by this technology’s designers. Maybe like loosen up a bit dude.

  134. @LondonBob
    I have a Jewish friend who practices his religion but is an ardent atheist, it is only a contradiction if you don't understand Judaism.

    I have a Jewish friend who practices his religion but is an ardent atheist, it is only a contradiction if you don’t understand Judaism.

    Just the opposite; only one profoundly ignorant of Judaism or disingenuous could suggest what you did. In Judaism, ritual observance and commandments fulfilled by a non-believer have no intrinsic value. The only value would be if such observance ultimately leads to belief (i.e., acceptance of the core tenets of the faith), or serves as training for future observance that will be accompanied with faith.

    The misconception here, which would appear to be at least somewhat common, may arise from Judaism’s great emphasis on practice and the numerous, highly rigorous strictures and demands that it places on one’s daily life. But it is belief that is actually paramount. As bad as the worse sinner may be viewed, a heretic is viewed as worse, and an atheist worst still.

    (The logic and justice of this is questioned. After all, to sin despite belief can be seen as inherently hypocritical. And can belief really be compelled? The answer is that we believe that every man, on an instinctive level, knows that the Creator must exist. And those who deny His existence are, in truth, deceiving themselves. What motivates such self-deception? The desire to be free to pursue one’s passions and whims, unimpeded by the constraints and burdens of conscience that would otherwise impose themselves.)

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That broadly sounds like Catholicism
  135. @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle
    The atheist jews I know respect jewish traditions and holidays more than many nominal christians for whom the extent of their religious practice is celebrating Santa and the Easter bunny with a shopping spree.
    A jew will practice jewish traditions despite being an atheist, a christian will claim to be a believer despite rarely putting a foot in a church. They are different ways to define oneself.
    Intermarriage often results in conversion to judaism. See Ivanka Trump, the first jewish member of a First Family ever.

    Intermarriage often results in conversion to judaism. See Ivanka Trump, the first jewish member of a First Family ever.

    In order to be valid, conversion must be free of any ulterior motive.
    ~ ~ ~
    In response to many of the comments:
    https://media.aish.com/documents/will+your+grandchildren+be+jewish-revisited.pdf

    https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/WillYourGrandchildrenBeJews/

    In the first iteration of our article, we concluded that short of a major change in the choices made with respect to their commitment to Judaism, the vast majority of American Jews between the ages of 18-29 will not have Jewish descendants within the next three decades. [Emphasis mine- Dis.] The conspicuous exception to this trend is American Jews or their descendants who identify themselves as being Orthodox. In this updated version of our article, we have utilized a similar format to its namesake published after the culmination of the NJPS 2000-2001.

    Requisite disclaimer: Citing, linking-to or quoting ≠ endorsing. I specifically disavow the Zionism found on the sites I linked above.

  136. The observation quoted from Elelment59 is a most cogent and germane one indeed.

    I find a similar paradox with regard to liberals and male homosexual culture, particularly as regards the act of buggery (anal intercourse), which is highly central to such culture. Is there a less egalitarian, more brutal, more predatory sex act?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    I find a similar paradox with regard to liberals and male homosexual culture, particularly as regards the act of buggery (anal intercourse), which is highly central to such culture. Is there a less egalitarian, more brutal, more predatory sex act?
     
    Buggery is perfectly egalitarian since either partner can be the bugger. In other words, they can alternate being the bugger.
  137. @Jay Fink
    Jews marrying gentiles (or not marrying and havung children) is another reason Judaism is in decline and will become rare. As recently as the 1960s when my parents married there was tremendous pressure for Jews to marry other Jews. It seemed by the 80s this changed. When I was a teen in the 80s someone tried to set me up with a Jewish girl but she was only intetested in my tall, athletic gentile friend. My Judaism meant nothing to her, absolutely nothing.

    When I was a teen in the 80s someone tried to set me up with a Jewish girl but she was only intetested in my tall, athletic gentile friend. My Judaism meant nothing to her, absolutely nothing.

    Well, according to traditional law, her children are going to be Jewish either way, so why not go for the gentile hottie over the Jewish nerd?

  138. @Dissident
    The observation quoted from Elelment59 is a most cogent and germane one indeed.

    I find a similar paradox with regard to liberals and male homosexual culture, particularly as regards the act of buggery (anal intercourse), which is highly central to such culture. Is there a less egalitarian, more brutal, more predatory sex act?

    I find a similar paradox with regard to liberals and male homosexual culture, particularly as regards the act of buggery (anal intercourse), which is highly central to such culture. Is there a less egalitarian, more brutal, more predatory sex act?

    Buggery is perfectly egalitarian since either partner can be the bugger. In other words, they can alternate being the bugger.

  139. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Most Canadian men have given up, and either hook up with as many girls as possible, or cope with being an incel.

    Canadian women are either roasties or miserable professional women who are 35 and still haven't found the one.

    Maybe that is the end game of the porn industry.

    I saw before that feminists were in contradiction with reality (“1 out of 4 women are raped!”), but manospherians are no less so. At 35 years old, 69% of men and 72% of women in Quebec live in couples (Le bilan démographique du Québec Edition 2017, Chapitre 5). These numbers have been stable since 1996. 40% of 25-year-old men and over 60% of 30-year-olds are coupled, so incels are nowhere near the majority. And Quebec is the most libertine province after the “Quiet Revolution.”

    https://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/bilan2017.pdf#page=97

    It seems you don’t believe people can like to be in committed relationships on their own free will, without a tyranny forcing them, and if you give them choice they will only have mechanical sex with random strangers. But it’s part of human nature to form deep personal connections. It’s been around before classic religions and states, the Epic of Gilgamesh already celebrates it.

    Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man.

    It doesn’t say “Bang a ton of hot Ishtar priestesses no strings attached; for this too is the lot of Chad”!

    There is a small ethnic minority in China said to not have marriage in their culture; I’ve heard they made a website to discourage foreign tourists who visit them hoping to find promiscuity and unlimited free sex. The natives explained even without marriage ceremonies, they mosty live in stable couples and don’t want foreign pervs intruding into their life, thank you very much. The supposed promiscuity of Pacific island tribes has also been proven false, a product of sailors’ tales (who had a status of almost gods to the primitive islanders and enjoyed special sexual privileges) and erotic fantasies of European scientists.

    And Canadian couples formed on mutual deep affection (not because “it’s time, shameful to be an old maid, everyone is doing it and you should fit in”) are so obviously satisfied and attentive to their kids only the blind don’t see it.

    P. S. A profession can make one miserable if it’s a soulless drudge for money or make a lifetime’s happiness if it is one’s passion, but that’s independent of sex.

  140. @JohnnyWalker123

    bring a generally below average girl home from the club
     
    Maybe back in 2007. Nightlife is pretty weak these days. A generation raised with smartphones find real-life interaction to be scary. Lots of men are approach-averse (and lots of women are scared of "creepy" guys), so the club scene is weak to nonexistent.

    Here's an article about all the clubs closing down in Toronto. This is happening everywhere these days.

    https://www.thestar.com/business/2015/01/25/guvernment-nightclub-closure-signals-death-of-superclubs-in-the-city.html

    These days, it's all about Tinder and online dating. People spend hours customizing their profiles so they can get swipes. If you're willing to spend endless amounts of time playing the game, you might get an occasional hookup with a 5/10. Lots of girls just go on Tinder to get attention from men, without any intention of meeting anybody.

    That's why only 15% of men are doing okay in this sexual environment. Back pre-smartphones, it was a lot higher than 15%. Smartphones killed much of the casual hookup scene.

    I think you’re underestimating it a bit. It’s not that bad. People are still getting laid in the club lifestyle but the problem is that they are also degenerate drug/alcohol users. For people who don’t get blackout drunk or do drugs, this door is essentially closed. My one friend gets laid every weekend at the club, but he is an alcoholic, drug addict and over 50% of the time the girl is ugly or fat. I just can’t do that morally (physically too). He’s going to get an std one day too.

    Tinder is also shit and the girls’ over estimation of their SMV is out of control. Can’t stand some heavyset, 6/10 bitch acting like a queen.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what "pick up artist" Roosh Valizadeh had to say about "Night Game" (which includes clubs).

    https://www.rooshv.com/is-night-game-really-dead-in-america

    Bad ratios.

    Lopsided sex ratio that hover around 3 guys for every 1 girl. If you’re lucky, you’ll see brief flashes of 1.5 guys per girl.
     

    Decreasing level of thirst in women because their option pipeline is near capacity.
     
    Competition from the smartphone.

    Having to compete with a woman’s iPhone.
     
    Lots of rejection and outright hostility.

    A hostility to “random” men who are not pre-screened via social circle or a swipe of destiny on Tinder.
     

    An unreasonable expectation from girls on how perfect your conversation must be when approaching. If you don’t completely capture her attention within the first minute, you’re out.
     

    Increase in seeing ugly hogs rejecting moderately good looking men.
     

    Increase in attractive girls being protected by multiple layers of orbiters and female friends, preventing you from even attempting an approach.
     
    Difficulty closing even for goodlooking and socially adept men.

    Girls are now judging you almost immediately and the game becomes about not screwing up when this initial attraction is present, but even when a girl judged me as attractive initially, her friends, emotional fragility, and smartphone were ready to sabotage the interaction.
     

    This leads me to believe that unattractive guys should not waste their time in clubs. Guys who are shy or non-entertaining clowns will also not get anything. Everything I saw in my month suggests that you must be physically average or above average to play night game in DC (or have very low standards). In addition, you need to possess a high level of game to simply maintain that initial attraction (get ready for her to bombard you with an inordinate amount of silly tests throughout the interaction) and also have the logistical know-how to seal the deal. At the same time, you can possess all these positive traits and still perform very poorly in DC. There is now a bit of luck factor involved in pulling.
     
    On a relative scale, there seems to have been a huge collapse in the hookup scene. However, if you're a younger guy, then maybe it's hard for you to compare what you see today to what existed 10-12 years ago.
  141. @Dissident

    I have a Jewish friend who practices his religion but is an ardent atheist, it is only a contradiction if you don’t understand Judaism.
     
    Just the opposite; only one profoundly ignorant of Judaism or disingenuous could suggest what you did. In Judaism, ritual observance and commandments fulfilled by a non-believer have no intrinsic value. The only value would be if such observance ultimately leads to belief (i.e., acceptance of the core tenets of the faith), or serves as training for future observance that will be accompanied with faith.

    The misconception here, which would appear to be at least somewhat common, may arise from Judaism's great emphasis on practice and the numerous, highly rigorous strictures and demands that it places on one's daily life. But it is belief that is actually paramount. As bad as the worse sinner may be viewed, a heretic is viewed as worse, and an atheist worst still.

    (The logic and justice of this is questioned. After all, to sin despite belief can be seen as inherently hypocritical. And can belief really be compelled? The answer is that we believe that every man, on an instinctive level, knows that the Creator must exist. And those who deny His existence are, in truth, deceiving themselves. What motivates such self-deception? The desire to be free to pursue one's passions and whims, unimpeded by the constraints and burdens of conscience that would otherwise impose themselves.)

    That broadly sounds like Catholicism

  142. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    I think you're underestimating it a bit. It's not that bad. People are still getting laid in the club lifestyle but the problem is that they are also degenerate drug/alcohol users. For people who don't get blackout drunk or do drugs, this door is essentially closed. My one friend gets laid every weekend at the club, but he is an alcoholic, drug addict and over 50% of the time the girl is ugly or fat. I just can't do that morally (physically too). He's going to get an std one day too.

    Tinder is also shit and the girls' over estimation of their SMV is out of control. Can't stand some heavyset, 6/10 bitch acting like a queen.

    Here’s what “pick up artist” Roosh Valizadeh had to say about “Night Game” (which includes clubs).

    https://www.rooshv.com/is-night-game-really-dead-in-america

    Bad ratios.

    Lopsided sex ratio that hover around 3 guys for every 1 girl. If you’re lucky, you’ll see brief flashes of 1.5 guys per girl.

    Decreasing level of thirst in women because their option pipeline is near capacity.

    Competition from the smartphone.

    Having to compete with a woman’s iPhone.

    Lots of rejection and outright hostility.

    A hostility to “random” men who are not pre-screened via social circle or a swipe of destiny on Tinder.

    An unreasonable expectation from girls on how perfect your conversation must be when approaching. If you don’t completely capture her attention within the first minute, you’re out.

    Increase in seeing ugly hogs rejecting moderately good looking men.

    Increase in attractive girls being protected by multiple layers of orbiters and female friends, preventing you from even attempting an approach.

    Difficulty closing even for goodlooking and socially adept men.

    Girls are now judging you almost immediately and the game becomes about not screwing up when this initial attraction is present, but even when a girl judged me as attractive initially, her friends, emotional fragility, and smartphone were ready to sabotage the interaction.

    This leads me to believe that unattractive guys should not waste their time in clubs. Guys who are shy or non-entertaining clowns will also not get anything. Everything I saw in my month suggests that you must be physically average or above average to play night game in DC (or have very low standards). In addition, you need to possess a high level of game to simply maintain that initial attraction (get ready for her to bombard you with an inordinate amount of silly tests throughout the interaction) and also have the logistical know-how to seal the deal. At the same time, you can possess all these positive traits and still perform very poorly in DC. There is now a bit of luck factor involved in pulling.

    On a relative scale, there seems to have been a huge collapse in the hookup scene. However, if you’re a younger guy, then maybe it’s hard for you to compare what you see today to what existed 10-12 years ago.

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Yea I was practically in diapers 12 years ago.

    But

    Everything I saw in my month suggests that you must be physically average or above average to play night game in DC
     
    That's just the way I've always assumed it's been.
  143. @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's what "pick up artist" Roosh Valizadeh had to say about "Night Game" (which includes clubs).

    https://www.rooshv.com/is-night-game-really-dead-in-america

    Bad ratios.

    Lopsided sex ratio that hover around 3 guys for every 1 girl. If you’re lucky, you’ll see brief flashes of 1.5 guys per girl.
     

    Decreasing level of thirst in women because their option pipeline is near capacity.
     
    Competition from the smartphone.

    Having to compete with a woman’s iPhone.
     
    Lots of rejection and outright hostility.

    A hostility to “random” men who are not pre-screened via social circle or a swipe of destiny on Tinder.
     

    An unreasonable expectation from girls on how perfect your conversation must be when approaching. If you don’t completely capture her attention within the first minute, you’re out.
     

    Increase in seeing ugly hogs rejecting moderately good looking men.
     

    Increase in attractive girls being protected by multiple layers of orbiters and female friends, preventing you from even attempting an approach.
     
    Difficulty closing even for goodlooking and socially adept men.

    Girls are now judging you almost immediately and the game becomes about not screwing up when this initial attraction is present, but even when a girl judged me as attractive initially, her friends, emotional fragility, and smartphone were ready to sabotage the interaction.
     

    This leads me to believe that unattractive guys should not waste their time in clubs. Guys who are shy or non-entertaining clowns will also not get anything. Everything I saw in my month suggests that you must be physically average or above average to play night game in DC (or have very low standards). In addition, you need to possess a high level of game to simply maintain that initial attraction (get ready for her to bombard you with an inordinate amount of silly tests throughout the interaction) and also have the logistical know-how to seal the deal. At the same time, you can possess all these positive traits and still perform very poorly in DC. There is now a bit of luck factor involved in pulling.
     
    On a relative scale, there seems to have been a huge collapse in the hookup scene. However, if you're a younger guy, then maybe it's hard for you to compare what you see today to what existed 10-12 years ago.

    Yea I was practically in diapers 12 years ago.

    But

    Everything I saw in my month suggests that you must be physically average or above average to play night game in DC

    That’s just the way I’ve always assumed it’s been.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    That’s just the way I’ve always assumed it’s been.
     
    Back a decade ago, even a below-average guy could do reasonably okay, as long as he lowered his standards and was aggressive/persistent. Below-average guys never did well, but you didn't hear about guys being "INCEL," unless they were really ugly or painfully awkward. It seems like there's been an explosion in "INCELDOM" in the last 5 years. Even a lot of normal young guys can't get women to hang out with them.

    In my area, I noticed during the summer time, there are quite a few girls hanging out at the local beach. They walk around in skimpy bikinis. You also see quite a few guys hanging out there too, many of whom are jacked/ripped and walking around shirtless. What's strange is how standoffish a lot of the girls are towards the guys, even towards handsome guys. Lots of the guys just stand around together in male-0nly packs, with only a few guys having a girl with them. Lots of the girls seem to enjoy basking in male attention, but be closed off towards any real interaction. I can't say that I fully understand what's happening, but it's interesting.
  144. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Yea I was practically in diapers 12 years ago.

    But

    Everything I saw in my month suggests that you must be physically average or above average to play night game in DC
     
    That's just the way I've always assumed it's been.

    That’s just the way I’ve always assumed it’s been.

    Back a decade ago, even a below-average guy could do reasonably okay, as long as he lowered his standards and was aggressive/persistent. Below-average guys never did well, but you didn’t hear about guys being “INCEL,” unless they were really ugly or painfully awkward. It seems like there’s been an explosion in “INCELDOM” in the last 5 years. Even a lot of normal young guys can’t get women to hang out with them.

    In my area, I noticed during the summer time, there are quite a few girls hanging out at the local beach. They walk around in skimpy bikinis. You also see quite a few guys hanging out there too, many of whom are jacked/ripped and walking around shirtless. What’s strange is how standoffish a lot of the girls are towards the guys, even towards handsome guys. Lots of the guys just stand around together in male-0nly packs, with only a few guys having a girl with them. Lots of the girls seem to enjoy basking in male attention, but be closed off towards any real interaction. I can’t say that I fully understand what’s happening, but it’s interesting.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS