I’m in an interesting/weird(?) position with regard to the problem pointed out in this post in that I have (self-diagnosed, peer-confirmed) gender dysphoria, and in a number of ways do not think “like a guy”.
For example: Without going all TMI, I’ll just say that I don’t relate to the whole heroin analogy, despite having (as far as I can tell) more-or-less normal levels of male hormones running around in my brain (not something I’m at all happy about, mind you, but nonetheless it doesn’t seem to compel me that way). I’m not completely unsympathetic; I just don’t experience it.
Furthermore, my own observations of more-or-less-normal men suggest that they do not universally see things this way. It is quite possible to be normally-male and heterosexual and yet still be more interested in building a solid relationship (of which sex might become a part) with a person who is a woman than with arbitrarily seeking out women solely for the purpose of obtaining sex as if it were some sort of commodity. (Not that I know how this is done, because I’m not normal.)
On the other hand, while I don’t make such remarks myself (because it isn’t how I think), I tend to be somewhat oblivious to male-sexist remarks made by others. I’m guessing this is due to socialization as a male: being trained to think that such remarks are normal, so if they bother me I should just keep quiet. (There are a large number of areas in which I have been implicitly trained to just keep quiet, especially with regard to gender. I’m not happy about this either.) I do find it off-putting, but generally the “keep quiet” kicks in and I just move on to the next comment.
It seems to me that framing this as a choice between providing “safe space” and “being able to speak openly”—an argument from consequences, even, and therefore “not rational”—is a false dilemma. Claiming that Alicorn’s objection is solely based on her “feelings” (or the feelings of women, even) is just as inaccurate, and rather manipulative at that.
What’s irrational, I should think, is speaking as if “getting” women were a rational goal—shared by all men and understood by all women to be part of How Things Are. It is one possible means of achieving a goal which I am willing to term “rational” (if we allow rational goals to be based on hard-wired non-rational needs), i.e. getting one’s “heroin fix”—but pursuing that particular strategy is not intrinsically rational (since there are other techniques which lead to longer-lasting relationships, thus providing more reliable sex if that’s all that matters to you, while also not ignoring the value of women as sentient individuals).
Speaking of something in admiring terms when it is arguably harmful to some is not sympathy-inspiring; speaking in a way that is likely to lower one’s social standing, if you don’t have a compelling reason for doing so, is also not rational.
It seems to me that it should be fine to talk about the need that many men apparently have for regular sex, and various ways of satisfying that need, but talk about the subject rather than framing the discussion in terms which suggest that a particular group’s main social function is to meet that need.
In the earlier comment which sparked Alicorn’s post, for example, this statement:
most people here don’t value social status enough and (especially the men) don’t value having sex with extremely attractive women that money and status would get them.
is a problem because, as phrased, it implicitly dismisses the harm done by the attitude he is admiring and promoting. It’s a little like saying (although milder) that we won’t ever really succeed because we don’t have sufficient callousness to steal from others when we know we can get away with it.
What he might have said—if I’m not re-interpreting it too much—is that we are too little motivated by material pleasures to devote much of our energy towards achieving them, and therefore we are less likely to achieve the influence necessary to obtain such pleasures—even though this influence would be far more helpful in achieving our goals than are the means by which we more commonly pursue those goals. (sentence fatigue, whew.)
That is a legitimate suggestion, whether or not you agree with it. Implying that it’s necessary to exploit women in order to do so, however, is unnecessary and runs against the goals I hope we all share.
I’m very skeptical of the value of TV debates. Why not just insist that any debates be conducted online, in text mode, in non-realtime? Then they can’t claim that evilutionists refused to debate them, nobody has to go stand on stage under hot lights and time pressure in a situation where they have minimal access to informational resources (thus giving a huge advantage to Teh Stoopid), and there will be a nice searchable record of the discussion when it’s over.
...which begs the observation that we have been debating creationists, continually, ever since they started poking their heads up; they just choose to ignore those past debates because of the inconvenient fact that they always lose.
So perhaps whenever they challenge someone to a debate, the appropriate response is “Sure! Send me your opening argument in writing, and I will respond similarly until one of us gives in. Anytime, anywhere.” Do ya feel lucky, punk??