I have an idea. We can say things like “satisfy sexual urges” rather than “get a man/woman.” That way our language doesn’t objectify anybody, but we don’t have to ignore the irrational parts of our brains.
Why is sexual desire irrational? If such a major feature of human psychology can be written off as irrational, what remains? Sexual desire is an enormously important human motivation, perhaps even the most important of all. Lust is every bit as important a feature of our minds as kindness, hunger, fear, or love. Indeed, these parts of ourselves are exquisitely and intrinsically intertwined.
I’m voting down because I see this comment, the top-level post, and the ideology behind it, as a futile attempt to pathologize a very healthy kind of human desire.
Because I didn’t put thought into it and decide to have sexual desire. It just happened.
This is wrong. Rationality isn’t about defeating emotion. You can’t think up your values from a philosophy of perfect emptiness. Terminal values is one of the things that depend on where you are in the mind design space. No matter how your values came into being, even as they are, gorged up by the mindless god of evolution, you use them to decide what to make of yourself, what to expand to the future.
Pathologize human behavior? That is exactly what I was trying to avoid.
No, I said it pathologizes human desire. You referred to sexual desire as “irrational” and as “our inner sex fiends”. This strongly implies that you see our sex desire as crazy/irrational. You also seem to imply we would be better off without it “We can’t turn off our inner sex fiends, but.....”
That last example is particularly amusing slash enlightening—I think in part because the original version feels like it intends: “You are such a nerd, you will never earn high social status”.
(Which is why it’s so wrong, actually—it objectifies women as symbols of male achievement.)
Which is why it’s so wrong, actually—it objectifies women as symbols of male achievement.
Huh? If somebody says to a woman, “you’re so ugly, you’ll never have a man,” is that objectifying men as symbols of female attractiveness?
(I’m not saying either putdown is sensible; I’m just saying I don’t see how either of them is objectifying to the opposite sex from the target of the putdown. Arguably, the “nerd” putdown objectifies men as having value to women only for their status, whereas the reverse objectifies women as having value to men only for their physical attractiveness. I suppose you could say that each putdown also implies the opposite sex is shallow, but is that really objectification?)
Hmm … no, they’re still parallel: the man is objectified as a symbol of female achievement, with unattractiveness being cited as the barrier to a relationship.
Hmm … no, they’re still parallel: the man is objectified as a symbol of female achievement, with unattractiveness being cited as the barrier to a relationship.
I still don’t get it. How about, “your research is so awful, no respectable scientists will cite you.” Are we objectifying scientists, then?
AFAICT, these statements are of the form “you lack quality X, therefore those who desire quality X will not give you the form of approval or validation you desire.” That is, the statement takes into account the expected goals of the agent being putdown, as well as a presumed class of agents whose approval is sought. That doesn’t sound like anybody’s being considered an “object” whose goals don’t count; it’s saying, your results don’t align with this other group’s goals.
True, the assumed goals may not apply to every member of the presumed class (perhaps there are some “respectable scientists” who will cite your work), but this doesn’t somehow reach out and harm every single “respectable scientist”! (It doesn’t even harm the scientists who would cite the work, unless they take the putdown to indirectly imply that they are not “respectable”.)
That’s a generous interpretation. In some cases it may even be correct. But in some cases it is not.
How is it a generous interpretation? Such putdowns are a straightforward attack on primate self-esteem—your measure of the group’s opinion of you. If it weren’t about approval, it couldn’t be an insult.
Compare, for example, with, “you’re so short, you’ll never get those bananas out of the tree.” That’s not an insult, it’s just a statement of fact.
Such putdowns can’t work by “objectification”, because if you replace the people with objects, it’s no longer inherently insulting. “Your programs are so long, you’ll never fit them in memory.” “Your hut is so unstable, it’ll probably fall down.”
The only way an insult can make sense is if it implies that people who matter (e.g. women) don’t approve of you. “Ha ha, you’re so poor, you’ll never be able to buy a Mercedes” cannot possibly be as insulting, unless by cultural implication this means you will be disapproved of by some group, or there’s a cultural expectation that you can’t be a good mate without a Mercedes. The choice of an opposite sex group of disapprovers is simply chosen to maximize the emotional impact of the intended wound. (i.e., your genes will die out because no one will want you as a mate.)
x
I object to speaking unlike ordinary people do in ordinary life. Your suggestion would make this community even more insular.
x
Change has to start somewhere, although this particular phrasing seems a bit awkward...
So use “go pulling”, “get laid”, “hot”, etc. English is surprisingly full of gender neutral sex talk.
Why is sexual desire irrational? If such a major feature of human psychology can be written off as irrational, what remains? Sexual desire is an enormously important human motivation, perhaps even the most important of all. Lust is every bit as important a feature of our minds as kindness, hunger, fear, or love. Indeed, these parts of ourselves are exquisitely and intrinsically intertwined.
I’m voting down because I see this comment, the top-level post, and the ideology behind it, as a futile attempt to pathologize a very healthy kind of human desire.
x
This is wrong. Rationality isn’t about defeating emotion. You can’t think up your values from a philosophy of perfect emptiness. Terminal values is one of the things that depend on where you are in the mind design space. No matter how your values came into being, even as they are, gorged up by the mindless god of evolution, you use them to decide what to make of yourself, what to expand to the future.
I concur with what Vladimir Nesov’s comment.
No, I said it pathologizes human desire. You referred to sexual desire as “irrational” and as “our inner sex fiends”. This strongly implies that you see our sex desire as crazy/irrational. You also seem to imply we would be better off without it “We can’t turn off our inner sex fiends, but.....”
That last example is particularly amusing slash enlightening—I think in part because the original version feels like it intends: “You are such a nerd, you will never earn high social status”.
(Which is why it’s so wrong, actually—it objectifies women as symbols of male achievement.)
Huh? If somebody says to a woman, “you’re so ugly, you’ll never have a man,” is that objectifying men as symbols of female attractiveness?
(I’m not saying either putdown is sensible; I’m just saying I don’t see how either of them is objectifying to the opposite sex from the target of the putdown. Arguably, the “nerd” putdown objectifies men as having value to women only for their status, whereas the reverse objectifies women as having value to men only for their physical attractiveness. I suppose you could say that each putdown also implies the opposite sex is shallow, but is that really objectification?)
Hmm … no, they’re still parallel: the man is objectified as a symbol of female achievement, with unattractiveness being cited as the barrier to a relationship.
The thing is, you don’t address the thing you objectify, you just talk about them like it is an object.
(That’s not to say that the content you point out in both examples isn’t toxic and sexist, just that it falls under a different heading.)
I still don’t get it. How about, “your research is so awful, no respectable scientists will cite you.” Are we objectifying scientists, then?
AFAICT, these statements are of the form “you lack quality X, therefore those who desire quality X will not give you the form of approval or validation you desire.” That is, the statement takes into account the expected goals of the agent being putdown, as well as a presumed class of agents whose approval is sought. That doesn’t sound like anybody’s being considered an “object” whose goals don’t count; it’s saying, your results don’t align with this other group’s goals.
True, the assumed goals may not apply to every member of the presumed class (perhaps there are some “respectable scientists” who will cite your work), but this doesn’t somehow reach out and harm every single “respectable scientist”! (It doesn’t even harm the scientists who would cite the work, unless they take the putdown to indirectly imply that they are not “respectable”.)
The researcher reward is citations—those are the objects. In the other two cases, the rewards are people.
No, in all three cases, the true reward is the approval of those people; i.e., the true message of the putdown is, “nobody approves of you”.
That’s a generous interpretation. In some cases it may even be correct. But in some cases it is not.
How is it a generous interpretation? Such putdowns are a straightforward attack on primate self-esteem—your measure of the group’s opinion of you. If it weren’t about approval, it couldn’t be an insult.
Compare, for example, with, “you’re so short, you’ll never get those bananas out of the tree.” That’s not an insult, it’s just a statement of fact.
Such putdowns can’t work by “objectification”, because if you replace the people with objects, it’s no longer inherently insulting. “Your programs are so long, you’ll never fit them in memory.” “Your hut is so unstable, it’ll probably fall down.”
The only way an insult can make sense is if it implies that people who matter (e.g. women) don’t approve of you. “Ha ha, you’re so poor, you’ll never be able to buy a Mercedes” cannot possibly be as insulting, unless by cultural implication this means you will be disapproved of by some group, or there’s a cultural expectation that you can’t be a good mate without a Mercedes. The choice of an opposite sex group of disapprovers is simply chosen to maximize the emotional impact of the intended wound. (i.e., your genes will die out because no one will want you as a mate.)
Great link, thanks!
Welcome!
“Welcome”? Huh? Did you turn on the anti-kibitzer?
lol, I think he meant “(You’re) Welcome!” =)
What (ah, history repeating itself) MBlume said. (;
I think that your efforts would be better spent taming the “sex-crazed maniac” part of your brain, frankly.
x
Easier != better than.
This idea does not have my approval.
This idea has my approval.