Oh I think I get it – what DJ Grothe meant by saying he thinks “unduly-moralistic scolds end up actively diminishing human flourishing by their sex-negativity.”
He means if we get our way, and sexual harassment at atheist/skeptic conferences becomes unfashionable (aka “politically incorrect”), then there will be less sex at those conferences. There will be less total sex. Our goal, if achieved, would lead to less sex. That equals sex negativity.
Yes, if you define it that way, he’s right. The kind of sex where a dudebro plies a woman with alcohol until she becomes too out of it to consider whether or not she wants to have sex with him and just has it – that kind of sex there would be less of.
So, yes, if you’re thinking about sex purely from the angle of “I want as much of it as possible, under whatever conditions, in whatever circumstances, whatever the other person actually thinks about it” then anything that gets in the way of that goal is going to appear to be sex-negative.
But that’s a slaveowner’s way of thinking about sex.
Surely human flourishing increases when both (or all) parties want sex? Unless you don’t think that some parties are as human as you are…
/@
Why does he care about how much sex happens at cons anyway? It’s not like they’re frequented by people who don’t actually care about the topics and just want to put their…oh, wait. I get it now.
This is one of those days when I’m happy to be antisocial and have no desire to go to these things. Being in a room full of people whose think it’s a meat market doesn’t seem appealing.
I don’t think it’s true there will be less sex. If there’s less harassment and cons are more respectful and inclusive, then there will be more women. More women means more opportunities for interaction, which may lead to more sex.
I would also argue that quality is far more important than quantity… and once again respect and inclusiveness wins out.
What I don’t get is that he is ignoring the very clear sex-positive message broadcast from the anti-harrassment camp. He has either a selective memory or no memory.
It is pretty clear that Grothe ‘s views on human sexuality are at best ignorant and don’t match reality, and at worst intentionally adopted to excuse abusive and predatory behavior from himself and his friends.
It’s insulting how little people consider the difference between flirting and sexual assault. I see this in political sex scandals, where being a serial harasser (Filner-style) puts you in the same category as the politician having a mistress. Sure, they’re both wrong (assuming that the politician’s wife or husband does not approve of the affair). But can we stop saying that the lines are so blurry that we don’t know the difference between a stranger putting his face in your bra and consensual flirting?
For some reason, I think Grothe knows the difference in his own life. He’s just trying to make a ridiculous point, adding to the narrative that it is literally impossible for a man to know that he’s raping, or that women consent to sex and then regret it and claim they were raped.
Again. Skepticism. Look at the science, Grothe. It certainly doesn’t back you up.
searaphy – good point. I didn’t think of that. The one about more women. I did think of quality v quantity though; that was the cryptic meaning of the title!
You could use the same logic to say “unduly-moralistic scolds end up actively diminishing human flourishing by their getting icky with total strangers with blue gloves feeling them up in front of other people at airports.”
So the takeaway is that free speech is good, but free (or inexpensive)scolding is bad? Therefore speech should be protected and valued, except if it gets loud and comes from the mouths and keyboards of women?
Also, isn’t he scolding the scolders? How come he gets to do that?
(I always guessed he was channeling quite a lot of “Men hit on me and it doesn’t bother me.”)
well he does use “Consensual” Sex – I wonder what part of getting people drunk translates to obtaining consent
So black people only enjoy sex three-fifths as much as whites?
When PZ gets sued and bankrupted back to oblivion, the FTB network collapses, and the rest of you wankers are paraded in front of the heroic atheist/secular movement to be pointed and laughed at, do you know what I’m going to do?
I’m going to cum in my underpants.
Their tactics are consistent whether the issue is minor sleaziness or the most serious category of assault, one or a mixture of:
i) Deny everything.
ii) Concede the facts but shift the responsibility.
iii) Define the problem out of existence.
seraphymcrash/#3:
See, on the one hand, that actually seems both sensible and plausible to me.
But on the other, I expect the notion’s going to seem a bit alien to some…
As in: yes, in theory, there’d be more opportunities. But if the only kind of sex they’ve ever actually experienced is with the drunk, the otherwise incapacitated, the coerced, and so on, I figure they’re going to be reading this thinking somethin’ like: ‘Huh? Don’t get it. Seems wrong. Wait… Is it still actually sex if she’s all of conscious, sober, and willing?’
And just as clarification: I know my voice may carry overtones, but this isn’t actually meant as satire.
A.J. Milne, yeah but, if they can’t have sex by drugging their victims beforehand then they will have to treat women as people and chance rejection, and that just isn’t fair on
rapistsdudebros. /snarkExcellent post, except for one line that struck me as a bit off: “The kind of sex where a dudebro plies a woman with alcohol until she becomes too out of it to consider whether or not she wants to have sex with him and just has it–”
I’d say that these women don’t ‘just have sex’. Rather, they ‘just let sex happen’ because the alcohol has rendered them incapable of refusing effectively. The whole point of these sort of predation is to reduce a woman to an object for use, rather than making the effort to recruit an active and eager participant and partner.
Last week I invited my brother over to play some cards and have some drinks. I ensured there was lots of alcohol present, and over the period of four hours, I encouraged, goaded, and otherwise pressured him to drink heavily. When I’d determined that he was good and drunk, I began working to convince him that his car (probably worth $2000 or so) was a piece of shit and that he should sell it to me for $100.00. It took some arguing, but by taking full advantage of his intoxication, I eventually wore him down, and actually left him feeling pretty good to have negotiated that price up to $250. We shook hands and I paid him in cash on the spot.
When he complained the next day, I said, “Dude, the car is mine, and I’m not taking that money back. If you can’t make sound financial decisions when you’ve been drinking, then you shouldn’t get drunk. By the way, it’s your own dumb fault for getting drunk – nobody forced you to drink all that beer.”
Of course, this situation is 100% fictitious. I tell it to introduce two questions I’d like Shermer’s defenders to answer:
1) Was my brother at fault, even just a little, for selling his $2,000 car for $250?
2) Was there anything unethical about my behavior?
Dammit, rereading – and need to add a 3rd question to hammer the point home:
3) Even if he eventually got his money back, what would the reasonable takeaway be:
A) My brother is the kind of person who shouldn’t drink, or
B) I’m the kind of person that people probably shouldn’t drink around?
@TheHeroesAreWinning: Well, aren’t you a charmer? Tell me, which is going to happen first: the FTB network collapsing and your “heroes” “winning,” the Rapture, or the beheading of various atheists and awarding of the MDC prize to Dennis Markuze?
Because I’ve been hearing all those predicted for some time now, with no sign of any of them being any closer to coming true.
What a sad life you have. I am truly sorry, It just occurred to me that no one here was taking YOUR feelings into account. I mean it is all about you right? Here we are talking among ourselves, and no one not even me, gave a single thought if you had had the chance to cum yet. By all means take this time to peruse CNN or FOX news I am sure there are a couple of rape stories for you. That should do the trick and you wont have to wait for PZ to go bankrupt.
12- I just LOLed in my underpants! That shit was comedy gold! Do another.
There’s a butthurt brave hero over here. Clearly not emotional, rational hero, applying the scientific method with rigour.
I think he assumes people here are offended by male orgasms (I’m assuming he is a man because of the phrasing ‘cum in my pants’. While his sexual fantasy of a future where people can be raped at whim is illustrative of the morality of brave heroes, he should understand that sexual fantasies != reality. You can separate the two, and become less of a morally bankrupt person. You can do it, brave hero. And you’ll still have as many orgasms as you want in the comfort of your privacy.
The feminists are in cahoots with religious puritans trope is hilarious. It shows to what extent reality needs to be twisted for people to rationalize their just world theory. On the other hand, the way institutions are dealing with this (shut up, people! you’re all crazy! we will publicly shame you for daring to bring up sexual harassment! we don’t believe in god, and we don’t believe in rape! the two are completely analogous!) is reminiscent of what again? Mhh. (I’m not saying the level of abuse is the same, but that the institutional response is the same)
http://www.vice.com/read/the-ghost-rapes-of-bolivia-000300-v20n8
http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=75D73653EC72F46C383ADF08925A92F3?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=541&clsPage=1&docID=SAG130414JH1EOCVC5CU
Keep following the virtuous path, dude. It worked well in Victorian times. In the meantime, we’ll be here, in the 21st century.
I think the eloquent visitor @ 12 is just “Tuvok” again. He leaves comments like that quite often, and every now and then I let one through, so that he can show himself up.
The “parading” is the best part. He’d love that – us marched in chains with shaven heads in front of a line of hooting screaming pitpeople throwing shit and vomit and rotting lettuce.
It’s not going to happen.
Just as an aside, is anyone else a little squicked out at the general comparison between ‘orgasm’ and ‘ultimate happiness’? I mean, I enjoy orgasms as much as anyone (I assume), but I’ve also been extremely happy while NOT orgasming, or anywhere close to it. I can easily categorize ‘sexual pleasure’ and ‘happiness’ as quite separate phenomena. Am I just weird that way? Are all the other happy people I meet actually orgasming constantly? Is schadenfreude really that big of a turn on in the ‘sex positive’ community? I must know.
@ Sili #11 What? No. The point is that DJ seems not to care at all whether the other party/s (whatever “other” they are) enjoy it or not, because that doesn’t contribute to what he sees as human flourishing.
/@
Brave heroes: saving us from the gynocalypse and Stalino-feminism through sockpuppetry.
I don’t really get it. It seems that for sex to be nice and fun and sweet and exciting, you need a partner who’s involved and excited and, you know, conscious. If it’s just about quantity and not all the other stuff, why not measure your endurance against an inflatable doll or something? It sounds like some of these clowns have mistaken sex for a fleshlight with a high-score display.
I can think of nothing more sex-negative than to use someone else’s body as a masturbation aid.
Are all the other happy people I meet actually orgasming constantly? Is schadenfreude really that big of a turn on in the ‘sex positive’ community? I must know.
I favor quality, not quantity, and I consider myself ‘sex positive’ I’ve even been known to pass up the opportunity because there were other things going on we both enjoyed as much or more, which must mean there are things in life that are better than sex.
Yeah, that was a little dig at DJ’s characterization of the pro-consent crowd in the OP–hence the scare quotes.
Is it just me, or are many of these so called skeptic leaders trying to outdo each other to see who can reach rock bottom first.
Rock bottom? Hell, they’re on their way to the Earth’s core.
Brave hero at #12: In your underpants, you say? I’m not surprised that even your hand wants nothing to do with you.
Your troll seems much more turned on by shame than by sex. Is that “positive”?
Or he doesn’t give a shit about truth or fairness and just emits specious shit to try and make his opponents look bad.
That sort of thing works well with a depressingly large number of Skeptics™.
You know who else keep predicting imminent collapse? CHRISTIANS!
I bet they’d point and laugh and cum in their underpants too if they got to watch all us sinners burn in hell, from heaven.
Enjoy the dream, Tuvok!
So women have wanted to have sex with me at conferences. Funny thing is I wasn’t looking for it. I talked them about stuff. The conference. Work. Kids. Where they lived. Hobbies. Philosophies. My manner is polite and attentive. No leering. No innuendo. No touching. I enjoy those interactions in their own right. Then lo and behold I start getting signals.
Just a thought I had. If one wants more sex at conferences one mustn’t go looking for sex at conferences.
I’m getting the feeling that, to some of these people, “consent” means something like taking out a mortgage and having to read a four page Advice to Borrowers pamphlet first.
Consent actually means a reply like “Yes please”, or “Your room or mine”, or maybe even “I bags on top first”. It really is that simple.
As a general rule of thumb, people who refer to sex as something which is gotten or given up or put out are assholes and fuckwits, compared to people who refer to sex as something which is shared or enjoyed or experienced.
Corvus Whiteneck #38, QFFT
@12
You misspelled your username. It should be. WeLosersAreDeluded
@TheHeroesAreWinning
It appears you have a premature ejaculation problem.