Why? Because you mention casual sex and irony as something similar to racism and homophobia. I hate racism and homophobia while I don't see nothing wrong or "mean" with casual sex and irony.
Casual sex is not nearly as evil as racism or homophobia, I agree. I didn't intend to make comparisons in that list. But I do think casual sex is impractical, and often an expression of latent misogyny. Does casual sex necessarily lead to misogyny, erosion respect between genders, lower self-esteem among the participants, and a permanently damaged ability to form lasting love relationships? No. In practice, does it almost always produce these things? Yes. Casual sex works in theory but not in practice; humans aren't meant to have their hormone levels and emotions jacked around like that.
The more that you explain, the more it seems that your whole position and conclusion depends on historical "facts" that simply aren't true.
I'm in the midst of hipster friends. That's not how it works. First off, the "fuck it" attitude stems from nihilism. Some people are nihilist, some are idealist, some are a mix. Nihilism has existed for a while: see Sex Pistols for an instance of great art stemming from nihilism, and that was before the 80s.
The idea of "hipster irony" comes not from jerkoffirony, but from a real dislike of social norms. I dunno if I've seen this stated before online, but this is how it works. You get very standard attitudes towards things. Liking Power Rangers becomes lame once you're in, say, middle school. Or listening to ABBA. At some point, a certain sort of person (I tend to identify it as the thespian crowd) decides you're allowed to say you like whatever you want. Some people get inspired by this to be honest to themselves. Other people do it ironically.
It's like the punk movement was. Then, people ripped clothes and lived like animals to oppose society. Now punk is an accepted means, and hipsterism becomes the rejection of typical bounds. That's why hipster bands so often are acoustic or electronic in callback to the 80s, why many hipster artists sound really awful (Kimya Dawson, f'rinstance). It's because 80s sounds, while lame, still sound really catchy, and sometimes a bad singer fits the song. So think of it as new-generation punk.
Hipsters wear t-shirts because they like the slogans on them. Eventually people do it just to look hip and so it becomes lame and overused, but the intent is to just do what you want to do. People miss that just like they missed what punk was about until it was accepted.
So my friends wear corduroy pants and t-shirts and big jackets and listen to Fleet Foxes and the Decemberists and even read Pitchfork. We all occasionally say things ironically. It's not this wide circlejerk. It's a bunch of smart, witty people who think it's more fun to constantly be verbally dueling than it is to spout movie quotes like the Monty Pythonites do, and who like a wide variety of stuff because it all sounds good. Hipsters are good fun people who aren't ruining society. They also have less casual sex, so that's a good thing!
That's something every movement has done. Thinking musically, there've been "fake rockers" and "fake punkers" and "fake rappers". In high school society there are the poser cheerleaders and the poser emo kids and the poser writers and on and on.
Hipsters mock everything. For every hipster I know, there's a great deal of cutting conversations. When I first met the group of hipsters I eventually friended, in sophomore year, I got insulted constantly and told to shut the fuck up after essentially everything I said, because I wasn't "saying the right things." Hipsters tend to always have the most comfortable niche of friends. The group I'm referring to has remained the exact same since 8th grade, adding a few people and losing practically nobody. I became "part of the group" my senior year; now I'm sitting in class next to one of those kids, and I'll likely keep in touch for a long, long time. Hipsterism is founded on diversity of interest and wit, and once those people find each other it's hard to separate them. On the flip side of that, it means they're very unwilling to expand their group, because it takes a very particular sort of person. And because their method of conversation is constantly nitpicking and criticizing, it comes across as mockery pretty easily.
"Doing what you want to do" has limitations, as does everything. It's okay to say that you cried when you read the diary of Anne Frank. It's not okay to be against homosexuality; that implies a closed mind. It's okay to be religious, not okay to be preachy about it. You can't be boring; you can't be tasteless. Taste is the tricky thing. You're allowed to be awkward, or act different from what's expected - you can cry, for instance - but you can't like bands that demonstrate tastelessness in music. (Pachebel and Nickleback are both bad.) You can't like bad movies (Plan 9 is allowed, because it's fun to watch, Mac & Me is great, but Epic Movie is a no). And while in a lot of groups taste is semi-required, in hipsterism it's all that matters.
That kinda rambled, so a summary: any hipster group is going to be closed to most outsiders, but the hipster scene is allowed to be nice and sensitive, which is a good thing.
The problem is that a lot of fakester hipsters exist, too, and it's kind of hard to tell which is which. A former friend of mine falls into the latter scene: he deliberately avoids popular music to seem edgy, insults people just to sound insulting, and wears odd clothing for no reason. The general rule of law is that if you call yourself hipster, you aren't. The people I'd call hipsters are all defined by how unhipster they are. They avoid the cliché of hipsterism. That's the point of the whole movement: you're supposed to just be yourself and do what you want, and the minute you start following trends just to be hip, you aren't. So there's where some of the mockery comes from. It's kind of like how the punks were all passionate, but their music all sounded very different. The "punk" sound really isn't. It's a washed-up, generic rip-off that ignores the rule of "be yourself." Hipsterism works the same way: the more generic it sounds, the less hip it is; the movement is about avoiding a generic center.
In New York, hipster has a pejorative connotation that goes beyond a fashion movement. It often describes jobless, parentally-funded young people who indulge in copious drugs and casual sex, usually "colonizing" formerly ethnic, working-class neighborhoods and displacing the locals with their trust funds.
I'm find with hipster fashion and music tastes. I'm actually much more "hipster" than most people my age in this regard. I just don't like the decadence that I've come to associate with the word having lived in New York. If you live on your own steam and contribute to society, I've no problem with you.
You should take a good look in the mirror, mister.
Seriously though, your observation is totally cultural and most certainly doesn't apply in the Bay Area. There's no real stigma against casual sex here and since there is a 10:1 male to female ratio, the women are totally in control. Women here have the luxury of figuring out exactly what combination of dick size, personality, paycheck and hairdo they like. The men, rather than being predatory cads, are reduced to fretting over whether or not they should get a tattoo or an $80 t-shirt in hopes of maybe possibly (probably not) attracting the attention of a google PM.
Sex and the City bitches are disgusting. I hate to admit this, but I take pleasure in the thought of them spending their middle-aged years sobbing every time a school bus passes by.
Someone needs a double-helping of "It's not about you."
Your cocoon may work for you, but its not reality.
There's nothing wrong with being a judgemental prick, but it doesn't work well with "I'm just good-hearted and caring".
"I still do look down, reflexively, upon any "profession" connected to real estate. I can honestly say I'd never marry a woman who worked in RE, and only a woman from a real estate family if she had been purified through an elite college, a filter I otherwise don't care about in the slightest."
It destroys a lot of men emotionally, as well. It's just not healthy for anyone. The detached "alpha male" is an anachronism in civilized society, and the terms for those with strong alpha tendencies are "psychopath", "narcissist", and (for women) "nymphomaniac". Psychopaths (of both genders) can do it without emotional harm to themselves, and there's a much wider pool of people who are in denial about the emotional consequences... but the rest of us aren't built for that type of "relationship".
So, in truth, there are people who can have casual sex without being "destroyed", but they're rare and usually not very likeable. Most men I know who have had one-night stands regret them.
The broader issue with casual sex has nothing to do with the immediate emotional effects, but with the long-term consequences. It establishes bad emotional and physical habits, but it also makes people less desirable as marriage partners, and most people want the option, at least, to get settle down and get married one day. Most people are fine with "premarital" sex, given that we're a generation that tends to marry very late, but casual sex is an unspoken divide among young people today. We have about 40% of the population-- a relatively stable proportion across levels of socioeconomic status and education-- going off and doing this in their teens and 20s, expecting there to be no consequences because birth control "solved that". (Riiight.) Then we have a "silent majority" of about 60% who have never had casual sex, see no reason to respect it, and consider such experiences distasteful and extremely undesirable in future marriage partners. My observation is that nearly all of the marriageable women are in the latter category, and that men who have lots of casual sex in their 20s end up settling down with second-rate women when they're looking to get married. True ladies don't want to have anything to do with them. (Sorry, but it has to be said.) These are the later-in-life consequences for men who have casual sex; for women, they're probably worse.
Keep telling yourself that.
> (Sorry, but it has to be said.)
You're not sorry at all. You have to say it so other people can see your superiority. Plus, you like saying it.
> the terms for those with strong alpha tendencies are "psychopath", "narcissist", and (for women) "nymphomaniac"
Wowsers.
I will. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably don't know the meaning of the word "lady". It's often an abused word, used interchangeably with "woman". A lady is a highly refined, intelligent, and cultured woman with strong moral values. Ladies, using the word correctly, are very rare in the US.
Since ladies value love highly, they tend to eschew casual sex entirely. Since they demand respect and equality in relationships, they expect the same from the men they will marry.
If you're into "experienced" women, you can have all the casual sex you want, rack up a monstrous number, and still get what you're looking for, but if you want to marry a refined lady some day, you're going to have to conduct yourself as she would.
You take the typical casual misogyny of HN and elevate it to a level that makes even the rest of em feel uncomfortable!
Bravo!
My last comment on this topic is to quit while you're behind. It is a lot easier for your future girlfriend to find out how much of a kook you've been on the internet than it is for you to figure out how much of a "lady" she's been with her previous relationships.
I've never noticed a "typical casual misogyny" on this forum. Never. Perhaps we read different threads.
a) wagged your Madonna vs Whore complex out in the open air for everyone
b) implied women who engage in casual sex have a clinical disorder
c) said that women need society's protection against "cads"
d) said women can't take casual sex because of their poor widdle emooootionnnssss!
e) suggested that feminism has all the hallmarks of being engineered by evil menz!
> I've never noticed a "typical casual misogyny" on this forum. Never. Perhaps we read different threads.
Just like you can't see the stars when you're standing under a streetlamp, dude.
a) wagged your Madonna vs Whore complex out in the open air for everyone
b) implied women who engage in casual sex have a clinical disorder
c) said that women need society's protection against "cads"
d) said women can't take casual sex because of their poor widdle emooootionnnssss!
e) suggested that feminism has all the hallmarks of being engineered by evil menz!
A. No. I said that I don't like casual sex. Madonna/whore implies that a woman who has any sex (or any sex with a man who's not her husband) is a whore. I don't think that's remotely true, and that I never said. It would be hypocritical. I'm not a virgin, but I've only had sex in the context of a committed, loving relationship, and I would be extremely suspicious of a woman who didn't share those values.
A whore or slut is a person who has sex with bad or immoral motivations. There's nothing wrong with a person (male or female) enjoying sex.
B. I implied that people (not just women) who enjoy casual sex are playing out anachronistic "alpha male" scripts, and that people with those tendencies tend to be psychopathic.
Also, note that I used the term "alpha male" in reference to the clinical disorder of psychopathy, implying even more strongly that men who involve themselves in casual sex are disordered. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=456289 There are, in fact, more men who are psychopaths than women.
C. This was another poster. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=456087
D. I said: "[Casual sex] destroys a lot of men emotionally, as well. It's just not healthy for anyone." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=456289 Men and women are not all that different, and I think men are just as often damaged by casual sex.
These are all claims I've had about people. I made an effort not to gender them. You did.
E. I did NOT say that. As per C, that was another poster. I don't conflate casual sex with feminism, and I would NEVER disparage feminism in such a way as to associate it with immoral behavior or to suggest that it was "engineered by evil men". Sex and the City is not feminist. It's entertainment, and shitty (arguably misogynist) entertainment at that. I am quite feminist, but I happen to believe that casual sex is radically anti-feminist.
Does that mean that sex that is not motivated by "bad" or "immoral" is acceptable or are there other categories?
How about a list of "bad" and "immoral" motivations?
Bad motivations would be revenge (against a boyfriend or father) or manipulation. People who use sex for power instead of as an expression of love are execrable.
Most casual sex falls into a "middle" territory: they're doing it for status-oriented reasons. The girls find it "fun" to get attention from high-status men, and the guys are asserting their status by getting large numbers of women to sleep with them. This variant of casual sex isn't as bad as revenge or manipulation sex, but I'd argue that it's still detrimental. The casual sex subculture represents a regression to pre-monogamous society. Especially in the early, formative years (16-20) a few men get all the casual play, as is also the case in the warlike, lawless, and polygamous societies that humanity had to transcend in order to build civilization. With causal sex, the successful "alpha" males turn into overconfident jerks and date rapists. The frustrated "gammas" become stalkers, serial killers, and school shooters.
No one should underestimate the social value of monogamy. It's a necessity for higher civilization. The alpha male spreads his genes wide and forms no empathic bonds to wives or children (we regard those with strong alpha tendencies, in modern society, as sociopaths). The monogamous beta male seeks one highly desirable partner, has small numbers of children and must invest in the relationships, giving the progeny the best odds of being successful. This makes him egalitarian (toward his wife, whereas alphas treat their wives as chattel) and future-oriented; for this reason, high-ranking betas are the drivers of civilization.
Monogamy attempts to render us all shades of "beta" status, and by reducing the reproductive stakes of social status, causes status-related violence to become a rarity rather than a common aspect of male life. Casual sex (anti-monogamy) undoes this, increasing social conflict and eroding respect and equality between the genders.
Ugh!! Stop already! This thread is dragging on and on. Everybody's view points are clear and what's happening now is argument for the sake of argument.
Also, we do need a social stigma against cads. Cads are men who take advantage of women. Why is this good?
That's not an aspect of feminism. It's a justification that slutty women use for behavior they know is self-destructive. "I'm not a whore, I'm liberated." Bull-fucking-shit. There's nothing liberating about having some meathead alpha-male ram a flashlight into you while his drunken fraternity brothers cheer him on. Male sluts (they exist), players, and cads don't have that excuse and therefore, at least, have to admit that what they're doing is fucked up and embarrassing.
The only feminist argument for casual sex is that women should be socially permitted to have casual sex as much as men are. Fine. I'll go that far. I think the social stigmas should be equal rather than hypocritically lopsided as they are now.
I mostly go the other way on how to equalize these attitudes. I think that casual hookup sex is contemptible and destructive behavior, but that the man should be condemned as strongly as the woman. After all, he's as much at fault as she is.
We've seen the unicorns and butterflies. (I missed the poetry) Now we're seeing the shining armor.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that you haven't had an SO for the majority of your post-15 year-old life. You have deep friendships with women who tell you how wonderful you are but they have someone else or do without. In some cases, they even say things like "why can't my boyfriend be more like you".
Here's today's clue. When women say "it's not you, it's me", they're lying.
LJBF.
Correct. I bloomed late. I'm a pwncat now, but I'm also mature enough to use my "power" in constructive and appropriate ways.
You have deep friendships with women who tell you how wonderful you are but they have someone else or do without.
Sounds like my high school experience. You're not terribly far off-- 8 years or so.
* In some cases, they even say things like "why can't my boyfriend be more like you".*
I've only heard that one once, from a girl I probably could have "turned" because her boyfriend cheated and was generally mean to her (and she was smarter and much more attractive than he was). I had a girlfriend at the time.
Here's today's clue. When women say "it's not you, it's me", they're lying.
Indeed.
LJBF.
Ah, the acronyms. Do you fancy yourself a PUA or an AFC?
Correct. I bloomed late. I'm a pwncat now, but I'm also mature enough to use my "power" in constructive and appropriate ways.
You have deep friendships with women who tell you how wonderful you are but they have someone else or do without.
Sounds like my high school experience. You're not terribly far off-- 8 years or so.
* In some cases, they even say things like "why can't my boyfriend be more like you".*
I've only heard that one once, from a girl I probably could have "turned" because her boyfriend cheated and was generally mean to her (and she was smarter and much more attractive than he was). I had a girlfriend at the time.
Here's today's clue. When women say "it's not you, it's me", they're lying.
Indeed.
LJBF.
Ah, the acronyms. Do you fancy yourself a PUA or an AFC?
NOTA.
> I'm also mature enough to use my "power" in constructive and appropriate ways.
> I've only heard that one once, from a girl I probably could have "turned" because her boyfriend cheated and was generally mean to her
ROTFL.
I suspect that your own sex life could use less theory and more practice.