Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

I cannot say how prevalent this is. But I've heard it again and again recently. From my own perspective (age 63) there seems to have been a change. I used to think this was due to AIDS, but since that problem is long faded into the past I find it puzzling that my own son remained virginal until age 26 - something that my generation thought ridiculous.
My peers and I broke their cherry as soon as was legally permitted, and some earlier.
Virgins in their 20s was unthinkable in my day.

Anyway, seeing the question elsewhere I jotted down a few thoughts.

The modern world of marriage and dating has never, since the dawn of civilisation, developed social interactions and customary behaviours that have ever matched the innate drives provided to us (men and women) by nature. This mismatch has given us the constant war of the sexes. There have been various strategies provided, mostly, by religions to overcome the difficulties, or more simply to enforce way of living upon us. The last amusing attempt was the "nuclear family" where 1 man, and 1 woman are supposed to live in one domicile to bring up their 2.4 children. This is not natural. In times past less formal arrangements were more common, such as crecheing,, with the men absent on the hunt whilst the women ruled the hearth. Anthropology provides numerous and various examples. But all of them whilst driven by the innate urges to get together, tend to be clouded by a strangling set of endemic assumptions and customs concerning the "right way to live". Non compliance leads to shaming and blaming. In these days of alimony, easy divorce and even palimony, what is there for young men to risk their freedom to get involved? Why risk legal battles? Sexual desire is a loss of power to the opposite sex, and whilst women tend to crave "the bread winner, and sperm factory" the man is risking all for the sake of progeny that the law denies in the primary right to see, when a negative word from the mother can deny access, whilst enforcing payments. But even on a most basic level the rationing of sexual favours by women is usually not worth the effort since these days the libido can be more efficiently and easily controlled by the use of pornography, which is clean, free and quick. Maybe no other explanation is required but the democratisation of pornography?? Boys can then get on with their lives and have fun with or without women. And without the constant pressure of "will she; won't she", boys can girls can just be friends. Why date? Why submit to the emotional control of another person?

[Sy Borg]

My nephew would agree with you, though he gave up porn because he felt it wasn't good for him.

In this world where people are increasingly crowded together and restricted by increasingly controlling and invasive laws and legal action, what can a young person do for a buzz?

The thrill of success?
Buying your first home?
Starting a family and watching your kids grow?
Nope. Those have been taken away for most.

Life was very different before the nuclear family. Less regulated, more social and much less crowded, so there were many more opportunities to make one's mark in the group. Plus, there would be communal gatherings and rituals that could provide peak experiences. What's left?

Sex? As above, the complexity is forbidding and potential for toxicity or social harm considerable.

Hunting? We already killed most of the animals. Hunting these days is almost akin to wandering around the irradiated rubble of Hiroshima and popping off any survivors you see.

The arts? Just for a hobby, if you can afford the expense and time. The ritual side of music is either gone or has been rendered absurd.

How about sport, the old outlet for excitable lads? That's getting expensive now, and urban space is shrinking.

Maybe drugs? Nope, most are forbidden by the alcohol junkies in the polity, legal system, police system and the corporate arena. You either like their drug of choice, or touch luck.

So there's social media, clubbing, gaming and movies. Trouble is, even the movies have become less male-friendly, with franchises regularly turning strong male heroes into weak miserable sods, massively outshone by a flawless female. There is building pressure. Something is going to change. Building a small army of frustrated and thwarted males with nothing exciting to do has historically released pressure via violence.

I used to work in Human Resources. I always felt that, if bosses were going to refer to humans as "resources", the least they could do is make an attempt to allocate those humans work according to their aptitudes, that keeps them interested.

[LuckyR]

I agree that the dating scene, the role of marriage and the expectation of childrearing have all undergone significant changes in my own lifetime. Though it is unclear to me if the changes that preceded my experience, my experience itself or the new attitudes are "better". I will say that the traditional or standard outlook that I grew up with seems to fit my personality and my experience with it (since I followed and thus experienced it) the best.

[Sculptor1]

I agree that the dating scene, the role of marriage and the expectation of childrearing have all undergone significant changes in my own lifetime. Though it is unclear to me if the changes that preceded my experience, my experience itself or the new attitudes are "better". I will say that the traditional or standard outlook that I grew up with seems to fit my personality and my experience with it (since I followed and thus experienced it) the best.

It is very easy to be judgemental.
Older people wag their fingers at the world of porn by saying that it makes it more difficult for young people to get together since the reality of real bodies is not stimulating enough. Porn tends to provide for just about anything you care to think of and the reflex gets attuned to highly visual and aural expectation. But such practices cannot be easily requested from a person you care for socially, without encountering shame. So people can find real sex boring. (by people I think probably mostly boys).
Now, all this might be true, but such social strategies might be exactly what society requires with so many people in the world demanding more resources, perhaps a significant drop in birth rates would be welcome.
If that porn allows boys to manage their carnal desires, then maybe they would be more capable of respectful relationships with the opposite sex? Relationship that were not just about nailing them. I think that could even be encouraged were boys taught the pitfalls rather than just receive the censure of the older members of society.

Recognising the the make sexual drive is never going to be allowed to thrive unmitigated by social convention, but also not denying it some sort of safe channel seems like a winner.

And clowns like Andrew Tate are more likely to have their arguments undermined by such truths.

[Sculptor1]

My nephew would agree with you, though he gave up porn because he felt it wasn't good for him.

In this world where people are increasingly crowded together and restricted by increasingly controlling and invasive laws and legal action, what can a young person do for a buzz?

The thrill of success?
Buying your first home?
Starting a family and watching your kids grow?
Nope. Those have been taken away for most.

Life was very different before the nuclear family. Less regulated, more social and much less crowded, so there were many more opportunities to make one's mark in the group. Plus, there would be communal gatherings and rituals that could provide peak experiences. What's left?

Sex? As above, the complexity is forbidding and potential for toxicity or social harm considerable.

Hunting? We already killed most of the animals. Hunting these days is almost akin to wandering around the irradiated rubble of Hiroshima and popping off any survivors you see.

The arts? Just for a hobby, if you can afford the expense and time. The ritual side of music is either gone or has been rendered absurd.

How about sport, the old outlet for excitable lads? That's getting expensive now, and urban space is shrinking.

Maybe drugs? Nope, most are forbidden by the alcohol junkies in the polity, legal system, police system and the corporate arena. You either like their drug of choice, or touch luck.

So there's social media, clubbing, gaming and movies. Trouble is, even the movies have become less male-friendly, with franchises regularly turning strong male heroes into weak miserable sods, massively outshone by a flawless female. There is building pressure. Something is going to change. Building a small army of frustrated and thwarted males with nothing exciting to do has historically released pressure via violence.

I used to work in Human Resources. I always felt that, if bosses were going to refer to humans as "resources", the least they could do is make an attempt to allocate those humans work according to their aptitudes, that keeps them interested.

A curious phrase. That the "personnel departments" have mutated to "human resources" without so much as a "I am not a slave!!" - I have always found weird. This has gone in step with the massive loss of working rights over the last few decades. Rights that took a great deal of struggle to gain, lost though inattention.

[Sy Borg]

A curious phrase. That the "personnel departments" have mutated to "human resources" without so much as a "I am not a slave!!" - I have always found weird. This has gone in step with the massive loss of working rights over the last few decades. Rights that took a great deal of struggle to gain, lost though inattention.

When it was first proposed to change us from "Staff Office" to "Human Resources" I was angry. The others in the dept claimed I was being neurotic, and that the name change did not mean we would be objectifying people. Uh huh.

[LuckyR]

I agree that the dating scene, the role of marriage and the expectation of childrearing have all undergone significant changes in my own lifetime. Though it is unclear to me if the changes that preceded my experience, my experience itself or the new attitudes are "better". I will say that the traditional or standard outlook that I grew up with seems to fit my personality and my experience with it (since I followed and thus experienced it) the best.

It is very easy to be judgemental.
Older people wag their fingers at the world of porn by saying that it makes it more difficult for young people to get together since the reality of real bodies is not stimulating enough. Porn tends to provide for just about anything you care to think of and the reflex gets attuned to highly visual and aural expectation. But such practices cannot be easily requested from a person you care for socially, without encountering shame. So people can find real sex boring. (by people I think probably mostly boys).
Now, all this might be true, but such social strategies might be exactly what society requires with so many people in the world demanding more resources, perhaps a significant drop in birth rates would be welcome.
If that porn allows boys to manage their carnal desires, then maybe they would be more capable of respectful relationships with the opposite sex? Relationship that were not just about nailing them. I think that could even be encouraged were boys taught the pitfalls rather than just receive the censure of the older members of society.

Recognising the the make sexual drive is never going to be allowed to thrive unmitigated by social convention, but also not denying it some sort of safe channel seems like a winner.

And clowns like Andrew Tate are more likely to have their arguments undermined by such truths.

You're right it is very ego soothing to play the judge role (as opposed to being judged). Though I am unaware of a correlation between age and judgementalism. That's why I was nonjudgemental in my post.

As to substituting porn for relationships, your analysis seems reasonable, even theoretically logical. Though the incel problem seems to contradict your hypothesis. Ultimately the jury seems to still be out on the issue.

[Sculptor1]

I agree that the dating scene, the role of marriage and the expectation of childrearing have all undergone significant changes in my own lifetime. Though it is unclear to me if the changes that preceded my experience, my experience itself or the new attitudes are "better". I will say that the traditional or standard outlook that I grew up with seems to fit my personality and my experience with it (since I followed and thus experienced it) the best.

It is very easy to be judgemental.
Older people wag their fingers at the world of porn by saying that it makes it more difficult for young people to get together since the reality of real bodies is not stimulating enough. Porn tends to provide for just about anything you care to think of and the reflex gets attuned to highly visual and aural expectation. But such practices cannot be easily requested from a person you care for socially, without encountering shame. So people can find real sex boring. (by people I think probably mostly boys).
Now, all this might be true, but such social strategies might be exactly what society requires with so many people in the world demanding more resources, perhaps a significant drop in birth rates would be welcome.
If that porn allows boys to manage their carnal desires, then maybe they would be more capable of respectful relationships with the opposite sex? Relationship that were not just about nailing them. I think that could even be encouraged were boys taught the pitfalls rather than just receive the censure of the older members of society.

Recognising the the make sexual drive is never going to be allowed to thrive unmitigated by social convention, but also not denying it some sort of safe channel seems like a winner.

And clowns like Andrew Tate are more likely to have their arguments undermined by such truths.

You're right it is very ego soothing to play the judge role (as opposed to being judged). Though I am unaware of a correlation between age and judgementalism. That's why I was nonjudgemental in my post.

As to substituting porn for relationships, your analysis seems reasonable, even theoretically logical. Though the incel problem seems to contradict your hypothesis. Ultimately the jury seems to still be out on the issue.

A couple of things. Incel is probably very minority, diminishingly so. Many of these human behaviours seem more prevalent for two reasons. One is simply that we all get exposed to more and varied ways of thinking due to social media, and 2, in doing so people who once considered them to be in a minority find like minded people to become a "community" This can be a very positive thing.
I'm not sure how "incel" contradicts not hypothesis. It would certainly lead to fewer progeny.
Would you like to say more?

[Pattern-chaser]

I cannot say how prevalent this is. But I've heard it again and again recently. From my own perspective (age 63) there seems to have been a change. I used to think this was due to AIDS, but since that problem is long faded into the past I find it puzzling that my own son remained virginal until age 26 - something that my generation thought ridiculous.
My peers and I broke their cherry as soon as was legally permitted, and some earlier.
Virgins in their 20s was unthinkable in my day.

Anyway, seeing the question elsewhere I jotted down a few thoughts.

The modern world of marriage and dating has never, since the dawn of civilisation, developed social interactions and customary behaviours that have ever matched the innate drives provided to us (men and women) by nature. This mismatch has given us the constant war of the sexes. There have been various strategies provided, mostly, by religions to overcome the difficulties, or more simply to enforce way of living upon us. The last amusing attempt was the "nuclear family" where 1 man, and 1 woman are supposed to live in one domicile to bring up their 2.4 children. This is not natural. In times past less formal arrangements were more common, such as crecheing,, with the men absent on the hunt whilst the women ruled the hearth. Anthropology provides numerous and various examples. But all of them whilst driven by the innate urges to get together, tend to be clouded by a strangling set of endemic assumptions and customs concerning the "right way to live". Non compliance leads to shaming and blaming. In these days of alimony, easy divorce and even palimony, what is there for young men to risk their freedom to get involved? Why risk legal battles? Sexual desire is a loss of power to the opposite sex, and whilst women tend to crave "the bread winner, and sperm factory" the man is risking all for the sake of progeny that the law denies in the primary right to see, when a negative word from the mother can deny access, whilst enforcing payments. But even on a most basic level the rationing of sexual favours by women is usually not worth the effort since these days the libido can be more efficiently and easily controlled by the use of pornography, which is clean, free and quick. Maybe no other explanation is required but the democratisation of pornography?? Boys can then get on with their lives and have fun with or without women. And without the constant pressure of "will she; won't she", boys can girls can just be friends. Why date? Why submit to the emotional control of another person?

I think there are two things contributing to this.

• After centuries (millennia?) of male dominance, recent moves in the direction of equality have meant that males now grow up to expect rather less than their forbears. There must surely be an element of, let's call it 'disappointment', that males can no longer expect the easy ride their grandfathers used to have.
• Many modern couples decide not to have children. Perhaps because they see the state of the world we have bestowed upon them, or perhaps more directly to place less burden on the environment? Whatever the reason(s), more modern couples remain childless.

Just my two-pennyworth...



N.B. I'm not arguing with the OP here, but only offering a couple of things that might be sitting in the background, making a contribution to the situation described in the OP.

[Sculptor1]

I cannot say how prevalent this is. But I've heard it again and again recently. From my own perspective (age 63) there seems to have been a change. I used to think this was due to AIDS, but since that problem is long faded into the past I find it puzzling that my own son remained virginal until age 26 - something that my generation thought ridiculous.
My peers and I broke their cherry as soon as was legally permitted, and some earlier.
Virgins in their 20s was unthinkable in my day.

Anyway, seeing the question elsewhere I jotted down a few thoughts.

The modern world of marriage and dating has never, since the dawn of civilisation, developed social interactions and customary behaviours that have ever matched the innate drives provided to us (men and women) by nature. This mismatch has given us the constant war of the sexes. There have been various strategies provided, mostly, by religions to overcome the difficulties, or more simply to enforce way of living upon us. The last amusing attempt was the "nuclear family" where 1 man, and 1 woman are supposed to live in one domicile to bring up their 2.4 children. This is not natural. In times past less formal arrangements were more common, such as crecheing,, with the men absent on the hunt whilst the women ruled the hearth. Anthropology provides numerous and various examples. But all of them whilst driven by the innate urges to get together, tend to be clouded by a strangling set of endemic assumptions and customs concerning the "right way to live". Non compliance leads to shaming and blaming. In these days of alimony, easy divorce and even palimony, what is there for young men to risk their freedom to get involved? Why risk legal battles? Sexual desire is a loss of power to the opposite sex, and whilst women tend to crave "the bread winner, and sperm factory" the man is risking all for the sake of progeny that the law denies in the primary right to see, when a negative word from the mother can deny access, whilst enforcing payments. But even on a most basic level the rationing of sexual favours by women is usually not worth the effort since these days the libido can be more efficiently and easily controlled by the use of pornography, which is clean, free and quick. Maybe no other explanation is required but the democratisation of pornography?? Boys can then get on with their lives and have fun with or without women. And without the constant pressure of "will she; won't she", boys can girls can just be friends. Why date? Why submit to the emotional control of another person?

I think there are two things contributing to this.

• After centuries (millennia?) of male dominance, recent moves in the direction of equality have meant that males now grow up to expect rather less than their forbears. There must surely be an element of, let's call it 'disappointment', that males can no longer expect the easy ride their grandfathers used to have.
• Many modern couples decide not to have children. Perhaps because they see the state of the world we have bestowed upon them, or perhaps more directly to place less burden on the environment? Whatever the reason(s), more modern couples remain childless.

Just my two-pennyworth...



N.B. I'm not arguing with the OP here, but only offering a couple of things that might be sitting in the background, making a contribution to the situation described in the OP.

Yes.

No doubt women are more empowered and men shy away from commitment, as commitment to parenthood for a man means 100% responsibility but no rights.
This was made especially acute when Thatcher changed the rules on child support. Previously marriages that had split up often were resolved by the mother getting the house and car, but that would release the father from maintenance payments so he could rebuild his life. The new rules pissed on those voluntary arrangements and left men homeless and poor, and with no legal access to their children.

and point two.
Yes many couple are choosing to stay childless - but even when they are desperate to have children. But living in small flats with an insufficient welfare safety net should the worst happen, they simply cannot afford children.

[LuckyR]

I cannot say how prevalent this is. But I've heard it again and again recently. From my own perspective (age 63) there seems to have been a change. I used to think this was due to AIDS, but since that problem is long faded into the past I find it puzzling that my own son remained virginal until age 26 - something that my generation thought ridiculous.
My peers and I broke their cherry as soon as was legally permitted, and some earlier.
Virgins in their 20s was unthinkable in my day.

Anyway, seeing the question elsewhere I jotted down a few thoughts.

The modern world of marriage and dating has never, since the dawn of civilisation, developed social interactions and customary behaviours that have ever matched the innate drives provided to us (men and women) by nature. This mismatch has given us the constant war of the sexes. There have been various strategies provided, mostly, by religions to overcome the difficulties, or more simply to enforce way of living upon us. The last amusing attempt was the "nuclear family" where 1 man, and 1 woman are supposed to live in one domicile to bring up their 2.4 children. This is not natural. In times past less formal arrangements were more common, such as crecheing,, with the men absent on the hunt whilst the women ruled the hearth. Anthropology provides numerous and various examples. But all of them whilst driven by the innate urges to get together, tend to be clouded by a strangling set of endemic assumptions and customs concerning the "right way to live". Non compliance leads to shaming and blaming. In these days of alimony, easy divorce and even palimony, what is there for young men to risk their freedom to get involved? Why risk legal battles? Sexual desire is a loss of power to the opposite sex, and whilst women tend to crave "the bread winner, and sperm factory" the man is risking all for the sake of progeny that the law denies in the primary right to see, when a negative word from the mother can deny access, whilst enforcing payments. But even on a most basic level the rationing of sexual favours by women is usually not worth the effort since these days the libido can be more efficiently and easily controlled by the use of pornography, which is clean, free and quick. Maybe no other explanation is required but the democratisation of pornography?? Boys can then get on with their lives and have fun with or without women. And without the constant pressure of "will she; won't she", boys can girls can just be friends. Why date? Why submit to the emotional control of another person?

I think there are two things contributing to this.

• After centuries (millennia?) of male dominance, recent moves in the direction of equality have meant that males now grow up to expect rather less than their forbears. There must surely be an element of, let's call it 'disappointment', that males can no longer expect the easy ride their grandfathers used to have.
• Many modern couples decide not to have children. Perhaps because they see the state of the world we have bestowed upon them, or perhaps more directly to place less burden on the environment? Whatever the reason(s), more modern couples remain childless.

Just my two-pennyworth...



N.B. I'm not arguing with the OP here, but only offering a couple of things that might be sitting in the background, making a contribution to the situation described in the OP.

Yes.

No doubt women are more empowered and men shy away from commitment, as commitment to parenthood for a man means 100% responsibility but no rights.
This was made especially acute when Thatcher changed the rules on child support. Previously marriages that had split up often were resolved by the mother getting the house and car, but that would release the father from maintenance payments so he could rebuild his life. The new rules pissed on those voluntary arrangements and left men homeless and poor, and with no legal access to their children.

and point two.
Yes many couple are choosing to stay childless - but even when they are desperate to have children. But living in small flats with an insufficient welfare safety net should the worst happen, they simply cannot afford children.

On the issue of having children, I am in complete agreement that fewer potential parents than those who actually have children, are willing and able to provide a great overall environment for raising children. Thus optimally (from the child's perspective), less couples having children is likely to be a good thing.

As to heterosexual relationships increasing the use of porn (as if there is currently room for such an increase), being a positive for relationships, through the theoretical benefits that have been described: I am unaware that this benefit has been demonstrated. Though I concede that such a benefit is possible.

[Sculptor1]

On the issue of having children, I am in complete agreement that fewer potential parents than those who actually have children, are willing and able to provide a great overall environment for raising children. Thus optimally (from the child's perspective), less couples having children is likely to be a good thing.

As to heterosexual relationships increasing the use of porn (as if there is currently room for such an increase), being a positive for relationships, through the theoretical benefits that have been described: I am unaware that this benefit has been demonstrated. Though I concede that such a benefit is possible.

I think porn can be a benefit in the managing of the libido to keep from the seeking and formation of coupling. But the habit of porn is a potential impediment for the maintenance of a relationship once formed, unless by agreement or secrecy porn is continued with in some context.
It would depend on the importance that the relationship places on sex between the couple.

[Pattern-chaser]

...as commitment to parenthood for a man means 100% responsibility but no rights.

And the same for a woman, too, I think? This thread already approaches the line between discussion and misogyny; I think it's probably a good thing to avoid straying too close to that line, to retain thoughtful discussion, and avoid a descent into discrimination, and the arguments that will inevitably come with it.

Whatever minor disadvantages a man might suffer in the circumstances being discussed here, they are surely far outweighed by what still remains of male domination (i.e. most of it). A balanced approach here will reap dividends, I feel.

For a start, we seem to be discussing parenthood and the hardships it can lead to, without remembering that those hardships are part of raising a family. Instead of devoting your resources to yourself, and maybe your partner, you suddenly have to give priority to your offspring, which can be a huge change in many people's lives, men and women both. Parenthood is hard, and it can require significant sacrifice. Are men (or women) seriously considering raising a family, thinking it'll be easy and simple? I really hope not...

[Sculptor1]

...as commitment to parenthood for a man means 100% responsibility but no rights.

And the same for a woman, too, I think? This thread already approaches the line between discussion and misogyny; I think it's probably a good thing to avoid straying too close to that line, to retain thoughtful discussion, and avoid a descent into discrimination, and the arguments that will inevitably come with it.

There is an assumption that children stay with the mother not the father.
Not only is this a prejudice of the family court but has long been reflected in the welfare system too.

Whatever minor disadvantages a man might suffer in the circumstances being discussed here, they are surely far outweighed by what still remains of male domination (i.e. most of it). A balanced approach here will reap dividends, I feel.
{/quote]
I do not see these as "minor" disadvantages. Maybe you are too young to know about "Fathers for Justice", and the list of suicides of fathers over the years.

For a start, we seem to be discussing parenthood and the hardships it can lead to, without remembering that those hardships are part of raising a family. Instead of devoting your resources to yourself, and maybe your partner, you suddenly have to give priority to your offspring, which can be a huge change in many people's lives, men and women both. Parenthood is hard, and it can require significant sacrifice. Are men (or women) seriously considering raising a family, thinking it'll be easy and simple? I really hope not...

Are you a parent?

[Sculptor1]

www dot fathers-4-justice dot org