Hacker News Reader

> That it hollows out the sanctity of this intimate and symbolic act.

See that's the problem. We as a society need to stop putting sex on a pedestal. It's just sex. Pleasure is pleasure, why would anyone not want to be pleasured?

And why is pleasure something that has to be earned? It is very simple to give and receive pleasure, why complicate that?

Perhaps because many communities deeply believe sex is more than just for pleasure?

But not for making babies, as per the astronomically high unplanned pregnancy rate.

¿Por qué no los dos?

You can’t both value and devalue something at once…

Who's devaluing what?

I'm suggesting that it can be valued for pleasure, and it can be valued for procreation. Because both are true (at least in the PIV scenario).

The anti-sex folks are following old, overly simplistic, and ineffective campaigns to "protect people from themselves (via their genitals)". Most of it is well intended but oh so wrong.

Edit: the only problem is the boundaries of power -- wanting to apply religious beliefs to the whole population rather than their particular sect. And I'd wager a fair amount of the conflict over this power is manufactured in order to keep the base riled up.

Humans love to manufacture mysticism around the purely physical world. Symbolism is a terrifying thing. Nothing is anything more than it seems, and the sooner we get around to accepting that, the better off we'll be.

So damn well said.

It's not just pleasure. It's intimacy, bonding hormone levels rising, etc. Why is it pleasurable? Because of evolution. Sex is complicated.

https://xkcd.com/592/

People thought that after the pill, sex will become simple and uncomplicated, just have orgies for fun all the time. But it's not happening on a large scale even in the very liberal societies. There was a brief moment with the hippies, but it didn't last long. Yes there is hookup culture, but it's far from uncomplicated. It's not everyone can easily participate in and has its own little games.

It's one of the fundamental components building our social fabric.

Why does pleasure have to be earned? I'm not sure I subscribe to that, I probably need a few decades more of contemplation and experience to answer such a thing. I'm just saying that there is such a template in many people's moralities. I think it's kind of silly, because the universe doesn't care, it's not a vending machine to put in hard work and get rewards. It's way more random and unpredictable than that. Sometimes something easy gives you lots of reward, and toiling away in the wrong way leaves you with nothing. But on the whole, on a large scale, on a population level, at the expectation, you cannot get something out of nothing, it seems. It's not a law of physics or anything. It may also seem pseudo-religious. But overall it seems to be the strategy that people adopt who achieve things. That you need to put in effort to reap rewards. Otherwise all kinds of things can happen, like hedonic adaptation, setting your baseline at a different place, inflation of the value of things etc.

Complications around sex purely for pleasure might have a lot to with STDs and may be some historical cultural baggage than bonding and intimacy issues.

Something given has no value.

The truest line from Starship Troopers.

Sex is free. We are all equipped with the necessary hardware. Barring health issues it costs nothing. Why does it need to have "value"?

This perception that it has value is one of the very things that people add just to complicate things. It isn't about value, or a chase, and to be honest I wish people would decouple it from anything more than intimacy. It should only be about getting you and your partner off. (And making babies, where wanted.)

For something that builds up inside all of us, some of us very quickly, society should really try to make it easier for everyone to access, especially since we are all equipped to provide.

>Sex is free. We are all equipped with the necessary hardware. Barring health issues it costs nothing. Why does it need to have "value"?

Everyone is equipped with the necessary hardware to work in my factory. Barring health issues it costs nothing. Why does your labor need to have "value"?

If you could make them think about and want to work in your factory the way they think about and want sex, you'd have a full roster every shift and would be turning people away. Such an oversupply would naturally see the value of that labor drop to near nothing.

If this were true, prostitution wouldn't exist because no one would be willing to pay for sex.

Prostitution exists because of the things I've described, not in spite of it. Yes if sex were truly free and easily available then sex work wouldn't be as lucrative as it is today. And, as you say, there'd be no need for it because everyone's already getting their rocks off.

One can dream...

So what is it about? Just the physical sensation of the friction of feeling the glans penis rubbing against the vagina? Nothing more, about validation, recognition, bonding, status, power etc?

Simply "sawing away" without emotion or "stakes", it loses value.

People don't just want to have sex, they want to have sex with some people, in some circumstances. Men are less picky (both out of necessity and due to lower consequences), but still somewhat selective, if for no other reasons then opportunity costs.

Nothing is simple about sex.

Personally I think it could do without the status and power dynamics. Those other things, sure, as components of intimacy, but ultimately I think it should be about orgasms and babies, and the giving and receiving thereof. I think the giving and receiving of pleasure is an end in and of itself.

In terms of pure thrusting, that is a very narrow view of it. For one thing you're forgetting about sensuality, foreplay, kink, and polyamory, and the immense feeling of satisfaction of blowing off steam that builds up over time.

> Puritans may feel like so much sexuality and hedonism tries to cheat and get the benefits, while not suffering consequences, like pregnancy, adult responsibility of family life etc. That it hollows out the sanctity of this intimate and symbolic act.

Not a puritan, but I could never explain that viewpoint to me with anything else than envy.

Like, being careful with sex if it may lead to unwanted pregnancies makes perfect sense - but those people seem even more upset at the possibility of sex that has no risk attached to it.

Isn't improving quality of life something we are all striving for? This movement seems to go the exact opposite direction and embrace suffering instead of joy.

Surely there is a bitter killjoy undertone in it, yes. Perhaps even more when coming from the old and weak who envy the young for their energy and enjoyment.

But I don't think that's all.

Sociologically, the worry is that larger and larger numbers of the young male population will withdraw, and become Hikikomori. Doing the bare minimum to sustain themselves, and riding life between moments of hollow, isolated, carnal release with no greater purpose and a constant nagging dissatisfaction with their marginal existence.

From a perspective of optimization, it could be seen as young men reaching a local minima with respect their quality of life vs the risks and costs of its maintenance.

The commodotization and derisking of sexual pleasure and titillation decouples it from the behaviors it's historically been used as a reward for. This reweights the incentive structures in our society that kept a lot of otherwise ne'er-do-well young people productive.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it's something we definitely need to have a collective dialogue about, as we no longer have any centralized moral or executive authorities capable of unilaterally responding to this shift in a manner that puts us back into social balance.

Are there "puritans" as such anymore?

I think the theological morality case is more like treating sexual addiction, like porn addiction, like a sickness that needs support and treatment, at least more than it is now.

The Christian perspective is that on a moral level, watching porn is in the same category as adultery and whatever sexual immorality that is depicted in the pornography. That's because moral culpability is in the heart to start with.

Folks don't sign up for the same worldview, sure. And it's a nonsense (perhaps harmful) worldview if you reject Christian teaching altogether. But there's a lot more subtlety, realism, and (from their perspective) care for people than is captured by concerns about cheating and symbolism.

More concretely, there is a lot of excitement to see progress on modern slavery and human trafficking in many Christian circles. The intersection between pornography, sex work, and sexual slavery is especially concerning in those circles.

Not puritans per se but certainly people who push the puritan mindset, in order to profit from the hard work and sacrifice of others. The push for full time employment for everyone, framed as a good thing, usually comes from people who do very little work themselves while profiting from it immensely.

No offense, but your take on social attitudes about porn is really strange and pretty misogynistic.

> “ Some feel like porn gives unearned satisfaction to young men, a virtual substitute they don't have to work for.”

What? Maybe extremist groups like the proud boys, but I’ve literally never heard this objection. People tend to worry more about socialization and the harmful psychological effects porn can have on people.

> “ Others may feel camgirls are collecting undeserved money, they don't do actual noble valuable work, just cash in based on their genetics and immorality.”

Again, thats an extremist misogynistic viewpoint. The real objections I’ve heard concern the exploitation of the industry and the lack of protections for workers.

All the worldviews you describe are hyper-conservative, and don’t at all describe society as a whole.

> What? Maybe extremist groups like the proud boys, but I’ve literally never heard this objection

I meant this part as quite analogous to the drug debate. People dislike drug comsumers because they feel drugs are a cheat: you get unearned pleasure without having to work for it. You sidestep your noble duties of working and earning the fruits of your labours by short-circuiting and hooking your brain directly on to pleasure juices. I think -- said explicitly or not -- a lot of the same sentiment underlies the anti-porn stance. That men can get (part of) the pleasure without the work. The underlying idea is that without porn, men would be forced to rather work on themselves, improve themselves, mature and provide value to society to attract female attention etc. Just like the (misguided or not) idea that without drugs all the junkies would suddenly go take on a decent 9-5 job and climb the ladder like one is supposed to and indulge in buying stuff with their hard earned money. Just outlining a narrative, not that I believe this simplified story, just that I think these patterns are lurking there, it's not merely about showing bodies and genitals due to some irrational arbitrary taboo.

> Again, thats an extremist misogynistic viewpoint. The real objections I’ve heard concern the exploitation of the industry and the lack of protections for workers.

What people say in public to look good is different from what they act out. Despite all the liberal attitudes in western europe for example, if you go to a brothel in Amsterdam, you won't see rich Dutch girls self-actualizing, or middle-class Norwegian girls expressing their empowered sexuality, but poor Bulgarians, Ukraininans, Hungarians, Roma, etc.

Sure there are exceptions. But overall even most of the enlightened liberal Western European parents don't actually want their daughter to become a pornstar or a prostitute. For reasons approximating my previous comment -- that they are worth more than their mere bodily appearance, etc.

> People dislike drug comsumers because they feel drugs are a cheat: you get unearned pleasure without having to work for it.

While I can certainly imagine someone feeling this way, I've never thought this and I've never heard anyone express this perspective. I think you may be imagining too hard.

It's interesting to hear because I've been assuming this is obviously why people don't like people taking drugs. That it will drive kids away from productive stuff like studying because the joy of achieving something like academic or athletic success can't keep up with the bliss that drugs provide.

Why else? Perhaps you mean that drugs physically harm you, like you will become a methhead or crackhead with your teeth falling out etc? But that requires really sliding down the deep end...

Perhaps I was raised differently. As a kid, my parents told me upfront that drugs are awesome and people do them because they are really enjoyable not because junkies are evil mutant monsters who like to destroy their lives, and that the awesomeness is the danger in them, that they are empty enjoyment without deeper achievements etc.

This was in contrast to school finger wagging lectures, which just said that drugs are baaad and you must learn to say NO or you will destroy your health and life and drugs are poison and terrible and will eat your flesh (slides showing the effects of krokodil, and shady people in alleyways). Which just confused me because why such a big deal about poison that destroys your life? Why would anyone do this if it's so straightforwardly bad?

I think the main issue I have with drugs is when they have the possibility of harming others. I don't mean to say all drugs and all doses have this effect. There are drugs and doses that can cause someone to go crazy and hurt people or damage property.

In the other hand, you also have a feeling of this person not being a productive member of society. My tax dollars go to fixing this persons' mistakes. I wouldn't complain if my tax dollars went to properly rehabilitating these people though.

Drugs are a replacement for meaningful positive feedback from society, like achievements, progressing in life, being able to provide, getting things like love and respect, encouragement etc. etc. Drugs can keep one's attention away from this and release similar hormones you would from being a productive, recognized member of your community or society.

It is a chicken and egg problem though, like many others in life. Do people take drugs and therefore stop progressing in life or do they not see any other paths forward, any positive examples to follow (for whatever reason) and therefore turn to drugs, and it's perhaps one bad decision they can take out of lots of bad options from the cards they were dealt?

People rarely ruin their lives if they just experiment with drugs for recreation, self-discovery, psychedelic trips etc. if their life is in order, with healthy relationships, a pride in their work etc. The danger is mostly when it is a substitute for life/social achievements.

Similarly with porn and OnlyFans. It provides an intimacy to people who don't currently have the means/skills to get it in real life. But could they perhaps develop it if they put in more effort? Now the bitter kind of people would say it's not worth it, they will just cheat on you, trap you in marriage, the divorce you and take it, everyone is a golddigger or just wants to date assholes etc. etc. There's lots of ideologies for this. Again chicken and egg. Are you unable to form relationships because you spend so much time with fake intimacy, fake achievements in video games, fake virtue and validation on social media etc, or the other way around?

The underlying issues are societal and they aren't just about the surface level products and services.

I've seen this take a few times.

It's common, at least in my bubble.

I don't doubt that, but it definitely seems "fringe", while OP was presenting this as the general zeitgeist.

Are you sure it's not you who is in a bubble? Maybe in your circles it's just about the safety of the sex workers from abuse and trafficking, otherwise it's "yay, you go girl! $muscle_emoji" and "yay you go guy, for watching porn and satisfying your need for intimacy through onlyfans" (erm... wait...)

But there's lot of sneering like this https://9gag.com/gag/arVYxm5 spreading on social media, which is essentially that girls on onlyfans are going for the easy money instead of more "decent" work and career path. I know it's just a meme, I'm not defending a silly image as truth, just as the illustration of the viewpoint. The idea that there is a who-deserves-what aspect.

And perhaps you think the anti-porn Christians simply tell boys not to jerk it because of an irreducible argument that "Jesus doesn't like that", but to me it's pretty clear that there is a deeper Christian pattern underlying it, namely suffering/effort giving rise to reward, and that it's immoral to sidestep that, Garden of Eden, Christ paying for sins by suffering on the cross etc. The protestant ideal of hard work etc. Do these ideas seem foreign to you?

You have completely missed the mark and your comparison to drugs just shows how far off base you are. Largely people that are anti-drug have such a stance because of how addiction especially to "harder" drugs can completely consume and ruin people's lives. In the larger societal context addiction leads often to increased violence and increased crime as someone who is addicted and employable will do basically anything to get their next fix. In large part society sees the addict as a victim moreso than anything else.

This reaction somewhat supports my original comment. People have fundamentally different frameworks to view these things and the debates are therefore way deeper than just about porn and sex, and are rather about metaphysical value systems and the fundamental ideologies through which to interpret human life.

> and motivate men to work

Even this would make a moderate amount of sense if the work at least were meaningful. But it isn't - the only importance seems to be that the man in question appears to be successful in something, even if that work is actively harmful to society or the environment.

At least it's useful for his family, and perhaps by extension to the local community.

> Everything in life is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.

What? No. This is idiotic. Who said that?

It's a Fight Club (1999) quote.

It's also very similar to a quote from The Office (Robert California)

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/05/sex-power/

It was used in House of Cards.

> Others may feel camgirls are collecting undeserved money, they don't do actual noble valuable work, just cash in based on their genetics and immorality.

As someone who is a supporter of legal sex work and pornography. The "cashing on genetics" part bothers me the most. I don't know how to process when good looking people can earn thousands of dollars almost doing nothing (particularly on digital platform like OnlyFans), whereas regular people have to work day and night to earn a living. Right now, when sex-work is stigmatized, it seems fair because they are getting paid a lot while suffering the stigma. Similar to a lot high-risk job is also high paying because of the high risk. But once sex work gets accepted in the society, then why should they get paid so much without the work like rest of the society. Maybe if sex-work gets destigmatized it will not be very high paying profession.

I don't think it's just the stigma, to be fair. Earning lots of money through OnlyFans requires more than good looks, in the same way that earning lots of money through a tech startup requires more than just writing code. Also, people have cashed in on genetics for as long as modelling as been around, and obviously sex work is even older than that

> The "cashing on genetics" part bothers me the most

Well, welcome to all of life. More attractive people, taller men etc. get hired, promoted and trusted more. Not just in porn, not just in regular modeling or acting or singing, but also in any job. They get better options in the dating market.

Genetically more intelligent people have higher chances at high earning jobs.

The pattern on cashing on genetics is extremely widespread and it's also not entirely clear it can be abolished without screwing up society. We do need the right people for the right jobs. You don't want to watch ugly people's porn (except if that's your thing, no kink shaming implied!), or marry stupid people etc. etc. You may try to console yourself that individual hard work can override all that, and it can to a degree, but we like to kindle ourselves in the fairytale of the "just world fallacy". Reality is harsher.

In the coming decades, this will start to become a very important question I fear. What happens when "cashing on genetics" is something you can buy. Children being primed with the "best" possible genetics to ensure they're the most attractive jawlines, and lips that pout "perfectly" created as if made in a factory.

Genetically being superior today is essentially a lottery, while then, it would be something you can buy. Imagine that society.

Harari writes about this a lot in his book Homo Deus and 21 lessons. Up till now the rich and the poor still had a roughly egalitarian fundamental physical/biological existence. Sure, healthcare could extend and improve one's life to some degree even in the past but everyone is still fundamentally limited by the same intrinsic constraints. Rich people don't live 3 times as long, still suffer from diseases like Alzheimer, Parkinson, cancer etc.

But what if some people become fundamentally better, an actually clearly superior "race", ie the Nazi myths of superiority becoming fact (as applied to this new optimized race/new entity)?

Society isn't prepared to talk about it.

It is definitely unfair, but is it any different to an intelligent person cashing in on their genetics? I have a very well paid job as a software engineer which comes relatively easily to me. As you say, lots of people have to work really hard just to make a living.

Haha entire evolution has been all about "cashing on genetics". As a society our aim should be to let people of a wide variety of genetics, cash in on their respective "lottery" instead of arbitrarily drawing lines at intelligence or even steadfastness or whatever else.