At the end of the day, a man judges whether a woman is interested in him based on whether she sleeps with him within the timeframe she would sleep with someone else. If she's putting out for others on the first night but wants to wait till marriage with you, then she probably isn't that into you. And for the most part people will assume that a woman is acting the way people in her social circle act.
So the norms of your social circle matter a lot. The norms of a lot of social circles these days is "sex right away". If you're in that social circle it's pointless trying to defect from that norm, you need a new social circle.
When I was part of a young adult Catholic group the norms were for delayed sexual relations and dating with intention for marriage. Not everyone you dated had to end in marriage but there wasn't to be any hooking up. It worked really well, almost anyone in that group was married within five years and for those that joined right out of college they were married younger than average.
Of course being a part of that group meant accepting certain principle and making certain sacrifices. If you're at Adoration all night Friday night you aren't out at the bars. All these rituals and time commitments show that you are serious about these values, not just signaling them while you still play the game.
I just don't see most people willing to make the sacrifice today. We would need to increase the value of getting married young and having a big family and decrease the value of being single to change the economics guiding those decisions.
P.S. The top comment in Rob's thread asks if it is possible to have a left wing version of a prude, a "hippie prude".
I have never encountered a left wing (or simply not religious conservative) social circle that significantly delayed sex. The whole comment and his suggestions/examples don't leave me feeling that leftist have much of a clue how to create such a thing.
"Vivek claims to be in third place in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. For that matter, he probably could start an operating system for smart phones in the United States to compete with IOS and Android, pick up a few thousand users, and then say “Looky looky! We’re in third place!”"
The pitch to VC's would add, "Their user base has plateaued whereas we are growing 4% every month!" Is "Pyrrhic Growth" a term yet? "A few more great months like this and we'll lose the election in a landslide."
"it is a far better option than the alternatives of homelessness and incarceration."
I agree. I was going to say good luck getting there with people on both the left and the right being against it for mostly different reasons but I don't think it has to be that difficult. 1 Don't call it an asylum. 2 Make it an alternative prison. Make it optional. 3 Don't kick them out on probation or even at the end of their sentence.
Mutational load is an obviously stupid and historically ignorant theory of leftism, which was recognizably in full bloom centuries ago (e.g., the French Revolution) in much more Malthusian / Darwinian social and economic conditions, or at the very least, coming too shortly after a long period of mercilessly load-purging conditions to have made any impact on the population genetics of societies with early leftist movements, no matter where you try to draw the ideological semantic lines.
Fine links as usual, but this time I'll "criticize things I don't about" (old Steve Martin line).
The selection bias to support weak folk in living as "normal" as possible with reasonable adjustments society, means there are more weak folk needing help. So it's quite natural that the care-giving folk who want to help the needy, will increasingly want gov't to do more for those who need it. And those cared for also naturally support more care for the needy. Some moral hazard problem.
Increasing the proportion of voters who need help seem certain to increase the % who want more gov't help for the needy - this need-oriented shift away from independence doesn't need any "mutational load" to achieve the result of a less self-reliant conservative voting public.
Casual sex is GREAT for horny guys who get far less sex than they want (with hot young chicks). It's not good for committed relationships nor marriage nor forming stable marriages. Most modern colleges seem to inculcate slut behavior of most girls. I now oppose the "responsible promiscuity" that my Libertarian younger self supported and enjoyed. Feminism been bery bery bad for non-college women who want to be happy wives and mothers. Not so great for many over-educated never married over 40 women who "enjoyed" being sought after sex kittens and careerists, but are getting tired of a rat race working for rich owners where they're getting a comfy salary but no kids nor grandkids nor are they so "young and beautiful". It does seem to be allowing lots of college grads into low divorce, stable marriages, with 0, 1, or 2 kids - seldom 3+.
Maybe more marriage when the guy grads get older, more successful, and seek hot co-eds who have gotten tired of the hook-up culture and (literally) sucking up to the cute male classmates.
Probably most of the 56% of women who honestly don't want to date shorter guys, would be publicly upset at men who honesty say they don't want to date fatties.
We need some easy in-out "shelters", not asylums, where the homeless addicts & disturbed can have a place to sleep, use toilets, shower, and a low cost/ gov't bought lunch. We need more lifestyle coaches and gov't credit cards that track the needy so as to help those willing to be helped. We need some low security prisons for the mentally ill criminals, who society should be protected from.
Social acceptance of sexual promiscuity and the dominance of pleasure over raising kids leads to more sex for mutual pleasure. Nobody too young to smoke should be allowed to decide on hormones or surgery for themselves - I hope the doctors who mutilated young folk get sued into bankruptcy by some of their victims as those victims age and understand how they were damaged by such money seeking doctors.
Vivek's ideas, like an 8 year term limit on gov't bureaucrats, will get a bit more publicity and maybe get picked up by the other candidates. A VP slot this time is also possible, tho still highly unlikely this time. He can become a 6 year candidate / walking think tank, spouting (mostly good? conservative?) ideas thru this election cycle and even thru to 2028. (I'm already tired of the 2024 campaign, am I even writing about somebody running to the next one? Call 'em as I see 'em) I'm very glad he's running. Doing more good than the Libber candidate.
It would seem most select to minimize differences.
"56% of women say they would be less likely to date someone who is “much shorter” than they are."
Sure. And even more say they want dependable that treats them well, yet many of those ladies still end up with flashy jerks who are neither dependable nor treat them well.
"predicated on the idea which I'm quite sympathetic to that the sex of the person that you're attracted to is hardwired on the day you're born."
Brian Caplan has shared results of a recent gallop poll a couple times showing l,g,b,&t by age group. I guess it's possible but it strains credulity to argue all of the increases are hardwired from birth.
The mutation load hypothesis is just a way to dismiss people with differing behaviors and beliefs as mutants, which must be a lot of fun. Nevermind that there is zero evidence for it.
This kind of thinking arises by dismissing the cultural importance of “ideas,” as Bronski explicitly does in his essay, choosing instead to emphasize a genetic basis for cultures, beliefs, and behaviors. I find this problematic and unnecessary, the evidence supporting it weak and unconvincing.
It's a bad theory, and it has about as much evidence in favor of it as the also-discussed "born that way" theory. "Born that way" is popular because it fits in well with 14th Amendment arguments and not because it's true.
Also, certain kinds of people like Bronski here may like the mutational load theory because it relieves them of the burden of political engagement and action. If it's something they can't do anything about, their conscience is released from the pressure to engage politically. The suggestion here also demonstrates how social science can support any truth claim by playing games with the boundaries of causation. Even if you accept for the sake of argument that woke views correlate between parents and children, it does not mean that genes were a but-for cause of the transmission of those views.
I think that is "uncharitable". As I recall, he said that after 75 (not 70), people should get no more than very basic medical care, not that they should be euthanized.
If you read this article from 1994, it's quite clear that the only thing keeping him from capping care at x age is that it's what most Americans want. (Do a search for the word Americans)
Of course, he's 65 now, and ten years from now, he'll no doubt have an explanation about how his life is necessary because he is doing Important things.
At the end of the day, a man judges whether a woman is interested in him based on whether she sleeps with him within the timeframe she would sleep with someone else. If she's putting out for others on the first night but wants to wait till marriage with you, then she probably isn't that into you. And for the most part people will assume that a woman is acting the way people in her social circle act.
So the norms of your social circle matter a lot. The norms of a lot of social circles these days is "sex right away". If you're in that social circle it's pointless trying to defect from that norm, you need a new social circle.
When I was part of a young adult Catholic group the norms were for delayed sexual relations and dating with intention for marriage. Not everyone you dated had to end in marriage but there wasn't to be any hooking up. It worked really well, almost anyone in that group was married within five years and for those that joined right out of college they were married younger than average.
Of course being a part of that group meant accepting certain principle and making certain sacrifices. If you're at Adoration all night Friday night you aren't out at the bars. All these rituals and time commitments show that you are serious about these values, not just signaling them while you still play the game.
I just don't see most people willing to make the sacrifice today. We would need to increase the value of getting married young and having a big family and decrease the value of being single to change the economics guiding those decisions.
P.S. The top comment in Rob's thread asks if it is possible to have a left wing version of a prude, a "hippie prude".
I have never encountered a left wing (or simply not religious conservative) social circle that significantly delayed sex. The whole comment and his suggestions/examples don't leave me feeling that leftist have much of a clue how to create such a thing.
"Vivek claims to be in third place in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. For that matter, he probably could start an operating system for smart phones in the United States to compete with IOS and Android, pick up a few thousand users, and then say “Looky looky! We’re in third place!”"
Oh, Arnold, that's cold--and brilliant.
The pitch to VC's would add, "Their user base has plateaued whereas we are growing 4% every month!" Is "Pyrrhic Growth" a term yet? "A few more great months like this and we'll lose the election in a landslide."
You're back!
"it is a far better option than the alternatives of homelessness and incarceration."
I agree. I was going to say good luck getting there with people on both the left and the right being against it for mostly different reasons but I don't think it has to be that difficult. 1 Don't call it an asylum. 2 Make it an alternative prison. Make it optional. 3 Don't kick them out on probation or even at the end of their sentence.
Mutational load is an obviously stupid and historically ignorant theory of leftism, which was recognizably in full bloom centuries ago (e.g., the French Revolution) in much more Malthusian / Darwinian social and economic conditions, or at the very least, coming too shortly after a long period of mercilessly load-purging conditions to have made any impact on the population genetics of societies with early leftist movements, no matter where you try to draw the ideological semantic lines.
Fine links as usual, but this time I'll "criticize things I don't about" (old Steve Martin line).
The selection bias to support weak folk in living as "normal" as possible with reasonable adjustments society, means there are more weak folk needing help. So it's quite natural that the care-giving folk who want to help the needy, will increasingly want gov't to do more for those who need it. And those cared for also naturally support more care for the needy. Some moral hazard problem.
Increasing the proportion of voters who need help seem certain to increase the % who want more gov't help for the needy - this need-oriented shift away from independence doesn't need any "mutational load" to achieve the result of a less self-reliant conservative voting public.
Casual sex is GREAT for horny guys who get far less sex than they want (with hot young chicks). It's not good for committed relationships nor marriage nor forming stable marriages. Most modern colleges seem to inculcate slut behavior of most girls. I now oppose the "responsible promiscuity" that my Libertarian younger self supported and enjoyed. Feminism been bery bery bad for non-college women who want to be happy wives and mothers. Not so great for many over-educated never married over 40 women who "enjoyed" being sought after sex kittens and careerists, but are getting tired of a rat race working for rich owners where they're getting a comfy salary but no kids nor grandkids nor are they so "young and beautiful". It does seem to be allowing lots of college grads into low divorce, stable marriages, with 0, 1, or 2 kids - seldom 3+.
Maybe more marriage when the guy grads get older, more successful, and seek hot co-eds who have gotten tired of the hook-up culture and (literally) sucking up to the cute male classmates.
Probably most of the 56% of women who honestly don't want to date shorter guys, would be publicly upset at men who honesty say they don't want to date fatties.
We need some easy in-out "shelters", not asylums, where the homeless addicts & disturbed can have a place to sleep, use toilets, shower, and a low cost/ gov't bought lunch. We need more lifestyle coaches and gov't credit cards that track the needy so as to help those willing to be helped. We need some low security prisons for the mentally ill criminals, who society should be protected from.
Social acceptance of sexual promiscuity and the dominance of pleasure over raising kids leads to more sex for mutual pleasure. Nobody too young to smoke should be allowed to decide on hormones or surgery for themselves - I hope the doctors who mutilated young folk get sued into bankruptcy by some of their victims as those victims age and understand how they were damaged by such money seeking doctors.
Vivek's ideas, like an 8 year term limit on gov't bureaucrats, will get a bit more publicity and maybe get picked up by the other candidates. A VP slot this time is also possible, tho still highly unlikely this time. He can become a 6 year candidate / walking think tank, spouting (mostly good? conservative?) ideas thru this election cycle and even thru to 2028. (I'm already tired of the 2024 campaign, am I even writing about somebody running to the next one? Call 'em as I see 'em) I'm very glad he's running. Doing more good than the Libber candidate.
"... and how they differ from you. "
It would seem most select to minimize differences.
"56% of women say they would be less likely to date someone who is “much shorter” than they are."
Sure. And even more say they want dependable that treats them well, yet many of those ladies still end up with flashy jerks who are neither dependable nor treat them well.
"predicated on the idea which I'm quite sympathetic to that the sex of the person that you're attracted to is hardwired on the day you're born."
Brian Caplan has shared results of a recent gallop poll a couple times showing l,g,b,&t by age group. I guess it's possible but it strains credulity to argue all of the increases are hardwired from birth.
The mutation load hypothesis is just a way to dismiss people with differing behaviors and beliefs as mutants, which must be a lot of fun. Nevermind that there is zero evidence for it.
This kind of thinking arises by dismissing the cultural importance of “ideas,” as Bronski explicitly does in his essay, choosing instead to emphasize a genetic basis for cultures, beliefs, and behaviors. I find this problematic and unnecessary, the evidence supporting it weak and unconvincing.
It's a bad theory, and it has about as much evidence in favor of it as the also-discussed "born that way" theory. "Born that way" is popular because it fits in well with 14th Amendment arguments and not because it's true.
Also, certain kinds of people like Bronski here may like the mutational load theory because it relieves them of the burden of political engagement and action. If it's something they can't do anything about, their conscience is released from the pressure to engage politically. The suggestion here also demonstrates how social science can support any truth claim by playing games with the boundaries of causation. Even if you accept for the sake of argument that woke views correlate between parents and children, it does not mean that genes were a but-for cause of the transmission of those views.
Ezekiel Emanuel also thinks that life after 70 should be optional and not supported by tax payers.
He seems to be making these judgements with an eye towards saving money, rather than helping people.
I think that is "uncharitable". As I recall, he said that after 75 (not 70), people should get no more than very basic medical care, not that they should be euthanized.
Actually he said that he, himself, would refuse everything, including antibiotics and vaccinations, after turning 75. (Article in the Atlantic)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199402243300806
If you read this article from 1994, it's quite clear that the only thing keeping him from capping care at x age is that it's what most Americans want. (Do a search for the word Americans)
Of course, he's 65 now, and ten years from now, he'll no doubt have an explanation about how his life is necessary because he is doing Important things.
Thanks for the cite and clarification.