Sunday, October 04, 2009

Who is fighting for egalitarian sexual fulfillment?

The Dave Matthews Band has been running through my head since their show in Kansas City last week. From the song Spaceman:
All the freaks are on parade
I wanna fill my belly, so I gotta get paid
Doesn't everybody deserve to have the good life?
But it don't always work out
Cry cry baby, if we must
Just remember, remember
I love the way you love me,
And I love the way you move
Matthews' politics are leftist boilerplate. The band played at Bill Clinton's 1997 inauguration, partnered up with Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream to raise awareness about global warming, strongly supported the Kerry and Obama campaigns, and their eponymous leader even took himself to Jimmy Carter's level by charging that opposition to President Obama's policies is largely the result of white racism. DMB is a strong candidate for being the most SWPL musical act in existence.

So he illustrates as well as anyone a curious feature of egalitarianism in popular Western leftism. When it comes to actual material inequality or perceived cultural inequality, leftists reliably criticize and lament the unfairness. Racism and exploitation are everywhere. But as the lyrics to Spaceman illustrate, personal sexual success is seen as existing outside of the world of equality concerns. The world's so unfair, but at least I have you, lover(s).

It's hard to imagine someone like Matthews speaking out about the aphrodiasical injustice that drove George Sodini over the edge. It is effectively inconceivable that a well-off, healthy guy with a moderately prestigious occupation whose agoraphobia (or whatever was responsible for his social awkwardness) could be more deserving of pity than a chronically unemployed, uneducated cad who's been in and out of jail. Instead, Sodini is more likely to be portrayed in the same light as Comic Book Guy (starts 18:50):
Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you, this will be much less breeding. For me, much, much more.
To protest sexual inequality is tantamount to admitting one has low mating attractiveness. Policies to reduce it are not seen as legitimate ideological positions. CBG's announcement to the Springfield citizenry is booed and precipitates the ousting of the Mensa leadership in favor of the return of the corrupt Quimby machine. This is in stark contrast to protesting economic inequality, often a method of displaying one's affluence and high earning capacity, and a broadly lauded goal across most of the socio-political spectrum.

Some cover is provided for the dereliction with the presumption that The One is out there for everyone to find, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that consequently there are not, objectively, some people who are smokin and others who are fugly. But that politically correct myth commands about as much credulity as the Greek pantheon does today.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's all about feminism, dude. Women have always had the upper hand in the sexual sphere. Men have always had the upper hand in every other sphere. Force equality in every sphere but the sexual, and you get a matriarchy.

Anonymous said...

Also key to this strategy is for sexual success to be culturally accepted as the most important, if not the only important measure of an individual's worth.

Do you think you would see even a tenth as many male stooges for these Leftist causes if they weren't under such immense pressure to "get laid"?

TGGP said...

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/explaining-unequal-inequality-aversion.html
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/unequal_inequal.html
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/food-vs-sex-cha.html

One might argue that due to diminishing marginal utility of money, there are gains from redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor (though if the rich are so willing to depart with marginal dollars they should be giving them away, perhaps by hiring cheap labor). Other aspects of inequality, particularly ones tied up with status, are more ordinal and zero-sum. You can't make someone better off without making others equally worse off. Under that circumstance it can make sense to tax the zero-sum activity: the taxed are not worse off because everyone relative status (the only thing that matters) stays the same and less resources are wasted jockeying for position.

Stopped Clock said...

What would a sexually egalitarian utopia involve? Arranged marriages? I don't really think that would be such a great idea. Redistribution of money is one thing, ... redistributing of sex is basically legalized rape.

Vicioussss said...

"Redistribution of money is one thing, ... redistributing of sex is basically legalized rape."

Redistribution of money is theft.

Redistribution of sex = vouchers for whores.

Stopped Clock said...

I suppose I should have thought of that. I don't think most unmarried men really want whores, though, they want wives or at least reliable girlfriends. Which is impossible unless the government gets so big that it can control who gets to date and marry whom. i.e. arranged marriages, with the government in control.

Jason Malloy said...

One manifestation of erotic egalitarianism on the left is various efforts to provide disabled people with prostitutes in sexually liberal countries like Belgium, Denmark, and Germany.

E.g. Taxpayers foot bill for disabled Danes' visits to prostitutes.

Vicioussss said...

Thanks, Jason. Great quote: "Politicians can debate whether prostitution in general should be allowed, but if it is, why should the disabled be the only ones prevented from having access to it"

This is the main reason why libertarianism is a precarious idea -- whatever is merely legalized today becomes subsidized tomorrow.

FeministX said...

I feel for y'all. Straight males are the only category of people that do not get free and willing sexual companionship on immediate demand.

Vicioussss said...

FeministX,

Anyone willing to drop their standards low enough can get "free and willing sexual companionship on immediate demand."

Raise them high enough, and even the supermodel will have lonely nights.

agnostic said...

"Straight males are the only category of people that do not get free and willing sexual companionship on immediate demand."

You left out ugly girls. And obnoxious ones. And the post-30 ones. They can get sex more easily than their male counterparts, but like the unemployable, they'll have to hawk themselves around for awhile before they find an employer fairing so poorly that it would earn them money.

agnostic said...

The key difference between not caring about equality of outcomes in sex vs. in wealth is that it's well-to-do people who rail against inequality vs. the unfuckable who fulminate against sexual inequality.

One at least appears selfless, while the other is nakedly selfish.

If it were Wilt Chamberlain protested sexual inequality, people wouldn't look so askew at it.

FeministX said...

"You left out ugly girls. And obnoxious ones. And the post-30 ones. They can get sex more easily than their male counterparts, but like the unemployable, they'll have to hawk themselves around for awhile before they find an employer fairing so poorly that it would earn them money.
"


You can't imagine how wrong you are. My ex also didn't understand the level of disparity between the male and female sex drive, so I put up a fake CL ad for a 72 yr old woman. The men responded with specific replies to the ad, and there were dozens if not a hundred replies within a couple of hours. To take the joke further, I spoke on the phone with a couple of the responders, who were often young, educated and physically attractive. I was getting replies from 20 something yr old guys by the dozen. Try the experiment yourself if you don't believe me.

Later my ex (who's very alpha+ smart + rich) and I went out to a bar, and he was poking fun at a 60 yr old black woman with shaved head who was speaking to some deferential SWPL girls. I said to him, "understand that that woman has 500 times the ass getting power that you do." He couldn't argue. He knew for a fact that it was true.

agnostic said...

Nah, responders to a 72 year-old woman = losers who sent you someone else's photo, desperate college geeks, etc.

Everyone knows it's easier for females to get some, relative to males, all else equal. But on an absolute level, it's hard for the females I mentioned to get with someone worth getting with.

They'll have to find some pimply low-status chubber who's willing to jump on the grenade. Guys who she'd salivate over would turn her down, since those groups of females aren't anything special.

(Partial exception for obnoxious girls who are really good-looking and young. They could still get a worth-getting guy.)

Tino said...

"One manifestation of erotic egalitarianism on the left is various efforts to provide disabled people with prostitutes in sexually liberal countries"

Jason:

In Scandinavia it is the right, including both libertarians and conservatives, who is driving that issue, and the (feminist) left who opposes it. That is clear from the article you linked to. In Sweden buying (but not selling) sexual services was made illegal by the left.

Iranian prophet Mazdaks followers are said to have looted harems and distributed the women more equally.

Tino said...

The main reason the left can successfully argue for re-distribution of wealth is first to claim that the current distribution is due to ill-gotten means (“exploitation”, “structural inequality” “lack of opportunity”).

The income generating process is extremely abstract, so people who want to believe this easily convince themselves and others.
In contrast the sexual market is quite transparent. If you fail it’s your own fault.

This is partially why athletes earnings do not generate class hatred, whereas the earnings of CEO:s and financial traders does.

Jokah Macpherson said...

This might be an example of charity beginning at home. I don't know of any national organizations dedicated to seeing that the carnal desires of the ugly and socially maladapted are fulfilled but I can think of plenty of instances where cooler friends, usually of the same sex, will take their lovelorn buddy under their wing to try to coach them into higher status in the dating market. Usually, as with monetary charity, the relationship is somewhat patronizing and more geared towards raising the status of the "coach" than actually helping the "coached. I've been on both the giving and receiving end of such arrangements and while they make great fodder for teen movies, I doubt that they are usually very effective.

I'm becoming increasingly cynical of the patronizing nature of charity. The well-to-do want to help others, but not past the point where things become zero-sum, or else they will end up like Michael Henchard as their charity cases encroach upon their success.

Tino said...

If you want to redistribute love the policy instruments are changes in values and norms, not “rape”. Women should be encouraged to reward nice, productive beta men more, relative to players. This would give men a way to increase their appeal to women through socially desirable behavior.
Currently Hollywood and other cultural institutions glorify r and demean K.

Nerd need to learn to settle. Most of them can never get gook looking women, and should accept that, the sooner the better.

Anonymous said...

Au contraire, Tino. There are plenty of gook looking women available in Vietnam who would love a Western beta husband.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Interesting. What will the coming sexbot revolution do to the balance of power?

TGGP,

I don't mean to insinuate that this is a novel thought on my part, but I wanted to piece it all together in my own way.

How would such an approach work? Limit the amount of sex successful men are allowed to have? Yikes.

SC,

Just like with wealth redistribution, my position is that the less the better. And similarly, I think the way to optimize general happiness is to realize as much equality as is possible without intervention. With wealth, this means no low-skilled immigration, eugenic birthing incentives, consumption taxes instead of income taxes, etc. With sex, this means forcing biological fathers to provide substantial monetary support for their children and the end of the welfare state.

"Politicians can debate whether prostitution in general should be allowed, but if it is, why should the disabled be the only ones prevented from having access to it"

Can handicapped guys still have game?

FemiX,

Right. So we have to earn it by dominating in a host of fields--technological, financial, cultural, moral, theological, martial, non-fashion artistic, etc. Somebody has to bear the cross.

Tino,

Right, the sexually frustrated guy is considered an inept loser who is either responsible for his failures or not worth helping out, anyway, whereas the impoverished are regularly portrayed in ways that, uh, don't come close to matching what I see when I'm playing ball in Independence.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't really seem like any of you guys who read this blog have a clue about women.

FeministX said...

Agnostic,

non overweight single attractive women under 30 are maybe 10% of women. do you think that 90% of women have trouble getting laid by attractive men?

Seriously dude, you have no idea how easy it is for a woman to get laid. A woman who is a 1 can nail a man who is a 9 any day of the week if she chooses. I mean an overweight 55 yr old woman could get a hot 25 yr old guy to screw her within hours of expressing interest.

Anonymous said...

"What will the coming sexbot revolution do to the balance of power?"

I don't know if this is intended as a joke or not, but I'll respond as if it were a serious question.

First off, there will not be anything that could be described as a "sexbot" for a long time, if ever. Certainly not within the forseeable future.

Second, even if there were sexbots I don't think they would change the cultural landscape much. I don't see how they are much different from prostitutes, which have been around since the beginning of time. Ultimately, the reason sex (and relationships in general) plays such a big role in our self-esteem and the perception of others is precisely because it is hard to get. If "getting laid" is like climbing a mountain, "sexbots" would be like taking a helicopter to the top. Technically achieving the same goal, but without the sense of accomplishment.

David said...

You can never win an argument with a female.

Jack said...

"Seriously dude, you have no idea how easy it is for a woman to get laid. A woman who is a 1 can nail a man who is a 9 any day of the week if she chooses. I mean an overweight 55 yr old woman could get a hot 25 yr old guy to screw her within hours of expressing interest."

This is an extreme and false exaggeration. Almost no attractive young guys will fuck a 55 pound fat woman.