Dec 3, 2023·edited Dec 3, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Interesting take. A few things I would like to add:
1) America and the Anglosphere in general don't really have a "hookup culture", but rather a culture of negativity around sex and relationships more generally. (Brazil has a real hookup culture, Iceland does, as do the rest of the Nordics and the Netherlands to some extent, but we do not). The half-assed "sexual revolution" remains unfinished, and stuck in the perpetual limbo that we euphemistically call the "culture wars".
2) There are three kinds of monogamy: strict, lifelong, and universal. Pick two out of three, at most. Because no culture in all of recorded history has been able to have all three for very long. It's practically an iron law. We can debate until we are blue in the face whether or not monogamy is really "natural" or "social technology", but this fact still remains regardless.
3) And in case the reader brings it up, no amount of Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogamy" can change that in the long run. Such a collective action "solution" to a supposed collective action problem only creates a collective action *quagmire* in practice. (One that involves controlling one gender in order to control the other, via setting a sort of "price floor" for sex.)
4) The idea of empire vs sovereignty is, I believe, a false dichotomy. There is a middle ground called suzerainty as well. One which may or may not be benevolent.
5) Since it is practically certain that we must "degrowth" to sustainable modes of living if humanity is to have any sort of future on Earth, and that includes ethically shrinking the population as well, the "everybody must procreate" mentality needs to end yesterday. So why not have a little fun on the way down?
6) A thriving community can still exist even if not every person marries and/or procreates. Alternatives need to exist.
7) We need to stop calling them "dating apps", and call them what they really are, "shagging apps", to use the British vernacular.
1) Very interesting take! I would agree, from the little I know of those countries.
3) 'Price floor for sex'. Intriguing and intuitively true, I'd say. I make a similar point about Hasidic Jews and how strict controls on sex are really about controlling women.
4) How do you define suzerainty? I define empire as power over others and sovereignty as power over yourself. It seems like those two are mutually exclusive. No?
5) I used to think that. But now I think it's another psyop to make people feel guilty about something they can't afford anyway. It's definitely working from my observation. Birth rates are plummeting and death rates rocketing (thank you vaxx). But also few in my daughters' generation are choosing to have kids. I think you'll get your wish.
7) Interesting point. But shagging sounds like a lot more fun than what's really going on, imo. I'd say it's a dtf app.
Dec 4, 2023·edited Dec 4, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Thank you :)
Indeed, I realized the whole concept of a "price floor for sex" was a thing when I first heard of the execrable Mark Regnerus back in 2017 and his book, literally titled "Cheap Sex", which I wish I could say was satire, lol. Indeed it is all primarily about men controlling women (albeit with the side effect of controlling other men in the process), to the benefit of powerful men.
Note that Hasidic Jews, arguably the most strictly monogamous people in all of recorded history, have a convenient built-in escape hatch where men can get a quick and easy divorce for practically any reason, but women are not allowed that privilege, because reasons. Strict, lifelong, and universal--but with an escape hatch for men, basically. Just like it was in the Old Testament for the most part. That right there was probably the esoteric reason why Jesus (allegedly) decided to prohibit divorce completely (Pauline privilege notwithstanding), so that women and children wouldn't be left utterly destitute as a result of one-sided divorce, at a time in history when gender equality was still but a pipe dream. But of course, that ultimately deepened the patriarchal quagmire for women in the long run, even if it made them less destitute in the short run.
Suzerainty is a sort of vague and fuzzy middle ground of power over, to a lesser degree than full-blown empire. I believe it is on a spectrum or continuum rather than a binary. One can have partial power over oneself even as others have partial power over him or her, and vice versa.
The vaxx reducing birthrates is clearly not an ethical way to do it, of course. But I still do believe that overpopulation is real all the same, even if the degrowth thing is perhaps *partly* a psyop as well. Certainly the cost of having kids seems to be rigged to be excessively high, and that is probably NOT a coincidence.
Has dating become covert prostitution, where men are seen by women as johns and women are seen by men as whores?
Contraception detached love and fertility, turning, as predicted, potential wives/mothers into mere objects to be manipulated and even bought, while turning potential husbands/fathers into mere objects to be manipulated and even bought (with pleasure).
Love became lust... for pleasure... men seeking more sexual/company, women seeking more material/company. Dating became a transaction. Using means abusing. Letting be used means letting be abused. Interestingly, both sides abuse and are abused.
Contraception-based relationships means just a commercial joint venture. A barter of selfishness. Selfless marriage has been changed for selfish slavery (to the material world), called sexual freedom!
What explains the higher STD rate, the higher abortion rate, the lower marriage rate, the higher divorce rate, the higher domestic violence, the childhood trauma and diminishing fertility rate around the world?: the destruction of the real meaning of lifelong selfless fertile love until death, through contraception.
Guess what explains the growing unhappiness, depression, phobias, disorders and teen/young adult suicide? sexual selfishness.
All that evil destroying adult and children’s lives is resulting in this:
'Has dating become covert prostitution, where men are seen by women as johns and women are seen by men as whores?'
When young men are raised on phone porn, and young women think that this is the only way to please them. Yes. More and more, what is seen on porn is 'sex education' and 'the way to do it.' Increases in fringe practices, like choking & anal, is on the uprise. The women don't like it - but - are too afraid to say no, because it's normalized.
And all of this is in the context of women not being able to have and raise a child without the financial security of a man, which often turns into the opposite of a financial burden. There's so much pressure on both genders and so much confusion. I shouldn't have to be this way!
And here I thought that the Vatican approved Viagra so that no bone was left un-spermed?
Next time I get to Rome, I'll ask the Bishop or the Pope. It's a solid inquiry I'm certain.
Guess I was mistaken about Sex in the city as being real life drama.
Just yet one more clue that the only woman I probably understood was my Mother.
And she coulda been Jiving me too! Hahha! Randall Stoehr
Viagra gets a mention in the latest one too, on Sex & Power. Glad you've got that pipeline to the Pope, I have a lot of questions for him ;-)
Got the inside track hands down, no literally, the children must be seen and not heard?
Anyway...I was an alter boy at St. James Parish. small town USA.
And while cooler heads must prevail, no guarantee that fists may fly. (joking of course)
Interesting take. A few things I would like to add:
1) America and the Anglosphere in general don't really have a "hookup culture", but rather a culture of negativity around sex and relationships more generally. (Brazil has a real hookup culture, Iceland does, as do the rest of the Nordics and the Netherlands to some extent, but we do not). The half-assed "sexual revolution" remains unfinished, and stuck in the perpetual limbo that we euphemistically call the "culture wars".
2) There are three kinds of monogamy: strict, lifelong, and universal. Pick two out of three, at most. Because no culture in all of recorded history has been able to have all three for very long. It's practically an iron law. We can debate until we are blue in the face whether or not monogamy is really "natural" or "social technology", but this fact still remains regardless.
3) And in case the reader brings it up, no amount of Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogamy" can change that in the long run. Such a collective action "solution" to a supposed collective action problem only creates a collective action *quagmire* in practice. (One that involves controlling one gender in order to control the other, via setting a sort of "price floor" for sex.)
4) The idea of empire vs sovereignty is, I believe, a false dichotomy. There is a middle ground called suzerainty as well. One which may or may not be benevolent.
5) Since it is practically certain that we must "degrowth" to sustainable modes of living if humanity is to have any sort of future on Earth, and that includes ethically shrinking the population as well, the "everybody must procreate" mentality needs to end yesterday. So why not have a little fun on the way down?
6) A thriving community can still exist even if not every person marries and/or procreates. Alternatives need to exist.
7) We need to stop calling them "dating apps", and call them what they really are, "shagging apps", to use the British vernacular.
1) Very interesting take! I would agree, from the little I know of those countries.
3) 'Price floor for sex'. Intriguing and intuitively true, I'd say. I make a similar point about Hasidic Jews and how strict controls on sex are really about controlling women.
4) How do you define suzerainty? I define empire as power over others and sovereignty as power over yourself. It seems like those two are mutually exclusive. No?
5) I used to think that. But now I think it's another psyop to make people feel guilty about something they can't afford anyway. It's definitely working from my observation. Birth rates are plummeting and death rates rocketing (thank you vaxx). But also few in my daughters' generation are choosing to have kids. I think you'll get your wish.
7) Interesting point. But shagging sounds like a lot more fun than what's really going on, imo. I'd say it's a dtf app.
Thank you :)
Indeed, I realized the whole concept of a "price floor for sex" was a thing when I first heard of the execrable Mark Regnerus back in 2017 and his book, literally titled "Cheap Sex", which I wish I could say was satire, lol. Indeed it is all primarily about men controlling women (albeit with the side effect of controlling other men in the process), to the benefit of powerful men.
Note that Hasidic Jews, arguably the most strictly monogamous people in all of recorded history, have a convenient built-in escape hatch where men can get a quick and easy divorce for practically any reason, but women are not allowed that privilege, because reasons. Strict, lifelong, and universal--but with an escape hatch for men, basically. Just like it was in the Old Testament for the most part. That right there was probably the esoteric reason why Jesus (allegedly) decided to prohibit divorce completely (Pauline privilege notwithstanding), so that women and children wouldn't be left utterly destitute as a result of one-sided divorce, at a time in history when gender equality was still but a pipe dream. But of course, that ultimately deepened the patriarchal quagmire for women in the long run, even if it made them less destitute in the short run.
Suzerainty is a sort of vague and fuzzy middle ground of power over, to a lesser degree than full-blown empire. I believe it is on a spectrum or continuum rather than a binary. One can have partial power over oneself even as others have partial power over him or her, and vice versa.
The vaxx reducing birthrates is clearly not an ethical way to do it, of course. But I still do believe that overpopulation is real all the same, even if the degrowth thing is perhaps *partly* a psyop as well. Certainly the cost of having kids seems to be rigged to be excessively high, and that is probably NOT a coincidence.
Has dating become covert prostitution, where men are seen by women as johns and women are seen by men as whores?
Contraception detached love and fertility, turning, as predicted, potential wives/mothers into mere objects to be manipulated and even bought, while turning potential husbands/fathers into mere objects to be manipulated and even bought (with pleasure).
Love became lust... for pleasure... men seeking more sexual/company, women seeking more material/company. Dating became a transaction. Using means abusing. Letting be used means letting be abused. Interestingly, both sides abuse and are abused.
Contraception-based relationships means just a commercial joint venture. A barter of selfishness. Selfless marriage has been changed for selfish slavery (to the material world), called sexual freedom!
What explains the higher STD rate, the higher abortion rate, the lower marriage rate, the higher divorce rate, the higher domestic violence, the childhood trauma and diminishing fertility rate around the world?: the destruction of the real meaning of lifelong selfless fertile love until death, through contraception.
Guess what explains the growing unhappiness, depression, phobias, disorders and teen/young adult suicide? sexual selfishness.
All that evil destroying adult and children’s lives is resulting in this:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
'Has dating become covert prostitution, where men are seen by women as johns and women are seen by men as whores?'
When young men are raised on phone porn, and young women think that this is the only way to please them. Yes. More and more, what is seen on porn is 'sex education' and 'the way to do it.' Increases in fringe practices, like choking & anal, is on the uprise. The women don't like it - but - are too afraid to say no, because it's normalized.
So yes.
And all of this is in the context of women not being able to have and raise a child without the financial security of a man, which often turns into the opposite of a financial burden. There's so much pressure on both genders and so much confusion. I shouldn't have to be this way!