Has the sexual revolution backfired? | Louise Perry

Post Reply New Topic

A seven minute BigThink that just posted a couple days ago from Louise Perry.

I've been watching her 'Maiden Mother Matriarch' and enjoying that a fair amount, she's only had a handful of episodes and two of her guests were Mary Harrington ('reactionary feminist') and Diana Fleischman (evolutionary psychologist and wife of another evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller).

Louise and Mary actually have a lot in common, they focus on slightly different frames but the gist that Mary states real clearly is that there was a bit of a battle in feminism between the 'feminism of care' and the 'feminism of freedom', the market liked the later better for its libertarian compatibility, and so that stuck where as since the 1960's the former was rarely heard from. This is where women were encouraged to be more like men and that 'male' ways of doing things were seen as the default to aspire to. Louise's argument (similar to Mary's) is that this isn't serving women's interests and that a lot of things, from casual sex to the effects of the pill, were taken up without as much examination as they warranted and that we need to stop for a moment to figure out whether we really like where society's going with respect to relationships and sexuality.

TBH from what I've seen there is a way of doing things that's more centered on female balance that has tremendous import and that's holism as well as the desire to solve problems in an environment that's seen more as an integrated system rather than clusters of disconnected objects (ie. reductively), and changing the overfocus on reductionism of the last few hundred years is something that I've heard John Vervaeke and Wolfgang Smith talk about more recently (John talks about four different ways of knowing - propositional, procedural, perceptival, participatory where he's come to the conclusion that the propositional has become too dominant and has had a way of truncating our relationship with complex systems).

Anyway for anyone whose interested and who might enjoy Louise's work and research:

So what’s the solution to all this? “Hey, women on Tinder, stop picking the same 10% of hottest men” awareness campaign?

Not gonna happen nor it would work; it is purely a supply and demand dynamic. Free market.

Who knows.

If women can excerpt positive peer pressure and make the game theory less noxious, at worse just do their part to make 'hookup culture' more of a ghost town and maybe shore up immunity to algorithms - that would be one piece of civilization coming back out of disrepair. Plenty of other societal issues yet to fix / firm up but all of these tend to feed into each other so the fewer problems we have the easier the remainder are, if not to solve, at least cordon off and manage.

Or shame both genders for having too many hookups and sex partners.

Some people might say that the idea that most women at least online are looking only for the top 10-20% of men is ridiculous or sexist, but it has some truth. And this is a phenomenon even though we live in a post-sexual revolution era (it might still be currently fighting), paradoxical I know.

I don't necessarily blame them, you would be too if sex always had the non-zero risk of getting pregnant from a father that you'd never want to have kids with. The trouble is that top 10% has them over a barrel and is defining the game, they have to find a way out of that situation.

What was the very last bit in the video? She wants to persuade men to have sex with more women?

This is the first time that I've heard a woman make this admission. Usually, it is an observation made by the gents of the manosphere--pickup artists, MGTOWs, etc.

She said something along the lines that she'd rather not see women have sex more like men but men have sex more like women.

IMHO there was a bit of hopium there because the kinds of guys who would have sex with women more like women? I'm skeptical about women finding those guys attractive. Maybe something does change in the culture where women give more of a genuine chance to betas but that's cutting against genetic accrual and I'm really not sure how well that will work out.

One of the things I think women do better than men is holism. It's something we need more of. I was listening to Nate Hagans again and he had another guest on who was reviewing the philosophy of environmental modeling (Erica Thompson), intellectually she reminded me a lot of Mary Harrington and at some point in the discussion Nate asked her a question at which point she had a laugh and admitted that yes, she's looking to build a feminist epistemology of modeling. I actually think in her hands I'd have confidence in that project and that it wouldn't be Gad Saad doing a thirty second facepalm after reading a feminist glaciology paper.

What I'm with the reactionary feminists on is that there are just certain ways of seeing the world that are accurate, needed, and while those ways of seeing the world might exist in some men they're more common in women. To that extent I would like to see the best that the feminine has to offer being rewarded and really have the masculine / feminine dialog in culture being like the left brain vs. right brain processes.

TBH I don't know what they'll be able to do with the sexual revolution or what compromises and changes of direction will make things better for both men and women, that will probably take a few decades and - I hate to say it - a lot of millenials and zoomers are probably torched (maybe more are salvageable than not but.... we grew up in a pretty mercenary / narcissistic culture and it felt like socializing was total war). We've gotta try and resolve as much of that as possible moving forward if we want to get back to social cohesion.

So, more men competing against each other for sex with the top 20% of women?

For the MGTOW sphere I tend to listen to ThinkingApe and AaronClarey, mostly because they have interesting and valuable insights in other places aside from just gender dynamics and the topics vary.

OTOH, to really go 'red pill' in the fullest sense I think Prof. Ed Dutton - The Jolly Heretic is the way to go because he's looking at the gene-level calamity and would argue that intelligence peaked around the industrial revolution and as harsh Darwinian conditions were removed intelligent people were incentivized to breed less, deeply unintelligent people don't pay attention to signals or have the self control to heed them even if they did, and so we're on the slide back toward a bell curve that centers at 85 rather than 100 IQ by the beginning of the 22nd century.

The point being - what's happening right now is great for dowsing the west in gasoline and watching it burn. I'm less worried at this point about cock carousels and whether or not Louise Perry was 'one of those'. If Alex.Datepsych is anyone worth listening to women aren't having tons more sex right now, they're just aiming up the social hierarchy (ie. hypergamy), getting screwed because these guys don't want all of them but will use them for casual sex, and they'd just about have to drug themselves to have sex with anything lower (if we somehow put on a pair of magic glasses when it comes to humans and Darwinian evolution, putting aside the rest of nature, and want to believe that it actually cares about human happiness or even liberal Democracy - here's good evidence that it doesn't).

I would be interested in seeing social norms change in a more self-reflective direction, IMHO that could only make things a bit better, and with Louise Perry and Mary Harrington that's the sort of move I see. TBH I'll take it for what it is if the current trend is ubiquitous limbic and financial hijack that treats consciousness like a fart in the machine.

Follow Ed Dutton on this - the most likely eventual backlash, after IQ falls off a cliff, is we're likely looking at something like feudalism and hyperreligiosity (ie. norm reversions to Medieval / Renaissance Europe).

You're talking like biology cares about truth. It can't, that's not it's mechanics. Similarly human life is as throw-away as anything else, we just care because it's us and we care about enforcing its value to one another so people can't get away with using orphans as Guinea pigs to test the specs of their latest land mines.

This Ed Dutton? http://books.imprint.co.uk/author/?person_id=723

He has a Youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/@DrEdwardDuttonTheJollyHeretic

Thanks. But, when he begins a video by playing with toy dinosaurs



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18BcHeO9_3I

it is difficult to take him too seriously. Maybe an acquired taste?

I don't know. With so many sources competing for my attention, and especially since news shows and comedy shows (like the Daily Show) have taken to putting their clips on YouTube, it is really hard to keep up with everything that I might like. I have a YouTube channel, with over a thousand subscribers, but only a few watch me regularly.