Random Relationship Derailment Thread

[Jin+Guice]

Ah good points both.

What I resent is the implication by men who have difficulty with women that the changes they would need to make are, by definition, incongruent to themselves. They are forced by a cruel inhospitable world to make a choice between remaining alone yet valiantly true to their pop-tart and video game loving selves or give into the soul shattering expectation that they learn to hold eye contact and have an interesting conversation.



Since the op is in reference to a second hand source, we will never know which changes he found intolerable. However, I suggest that the devil to this myth is in its details. While I'm sure there does exist a small subset of men who are incapable or uninterested in become appealing to women, I think for most, these changes are perhaps not so bad, once we examine what they actually are?

If the op found that he had to put on an act, he could perhaps question which of the changes felt like an act and whether or not these changes were strictly necessary to achieve his romantic goals (which are also unstated). If what feels fake is required perhaps he should ask whether his goals are authentic to himself?

To use Jacob's job analogy, it sounds like he trained, applied for and was given a highly paid, yet ill-suited job. But I feel like the implication is that being "timid and quiet" is the amorous equivalent to unemployment.

Did the OP train to get women he didn't need, in which case there is no real conflict, or did he determine that all of the things he would need to do to increase his dating prospects were untrue to his soul? The job/ skills equivalent would seem to be "my truest self is a trustfund kid."

[7Wannabe5]

more than sex men want the social validation that women are attracted to them. Same way women want the validation that men think they are hot (

True, but getting beyond the need for sexual validation is the path to sexual maturity, because until you get beyond the need for validation you will not be able to express or explore what you want. IOW, no matter how objectively hawt/attractive you become, you will remain on some level unattractively "needy" to the extent that you still seeking validation. When somebody finds success by acting "as if" and then feels a repulsion back to previous state/behavior, that is an aspect of what Schnarch ("Passionate Marriage") refers to as Siamese Twin Syndrome. IOW, if you feel like you are putting on an act then you will reflexively not be attracted to anybody who falls for your act AND you will also often experience an unexpected misdirected renewal of feelings of resentment, because you now see how easy it all is. It's only when you have integrated a new skill set as part of your revised identity that you will be able to appropriately VALUE (as opposed to validate) the interplay of your sexuality with that of other. Also, there is the fear of success that comes into play when your new skill set messes with your old sense of identity, and therefore also your sense of belonging. For simplistic instance, you used to feel comfortable sitting at the table with all the other unattractive nerds, but now you've become more sexually and socially attractive, so where's the new lunch table for you?

A similar dilemma is often faced by, for instance, a broke-azz Bohemian type who has figured out how to get her financial life together. Nobody here would advise abandoning financial management skillz in order to once again feel comfortable with identity of broke-azz Bohemian.

[Henry]

"I used to be a totally inept handyman, couldn't tell a nail from a screw, and then I taught myself to build my own house, but somewhere between the erecting the frame and laying the pipe I lost myself.

I'm counting four double entendres.

[daylen]

May not be the best thread to post this, but I found this video interesting. Does anyone with more relationship experience find this model accurate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL13EeEhgag

He also made a video on spiral dynamics a couple days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kse87ocS0Uo

[Ego]

Does anyone with more relationship experience find this model accurate?

I believe it is accurate for some (increasing number of) people and inaccurate for others.

Human beings are doers. Our bias to action tempts us to emulate the things successful people do. It also blinds us to the more fruitful prerequisite to action; refraining from doing the things successful people refrain from doing.

A video like this not only describes a culture, it creates culture. Attention dictates direction. Refraining from buying into this relationship-economics meme keeps one open to the possibility of experiencing a relationship that somehow, mysteriously, is greater than the sum of its parts.

[jacob]

May not be the best thread to post this, but I found this video interesting. Does anyone with more relationship experience find this model accurate?

I have much more relationship experience than I have dating experience and this video is more about dating that relationships, so I can't really tell if this is a good dating model. I think it's a pretty bad relationship model, at least from the [simplistic] guys' perspective. Perhaps this is why so many relationships end in divorce/break-ups.

I am a sucker for 2D models though. I note that the "good guy" scale takes longer time to develop than the "bad boy" scale. Some strategic concerns obtain from this. Also note that the male model is pretty much the female model with the "good girl" dimension rolled up.

[7Wannabe5]

Also note that the male model is pretty much the female model with the "good girl" dimension rolled up.

Yes, this is because men are pretty much unable to distinguish between the pretty and the good in the short run. And this is why women sometimes prefer pure "bad boys" over "Prince Charming" in the short run; the pure "bad boy" seems less delusional than the guy who is willing to go all in on investing in a relationship with you immediately (ergo clearly mostly just on the basis of your looks.) One of my sisters-in-law, who was married 3 times, was super apple-pie conventionally pretty, and she once told me "Men always think I am so sweet, because of my face, but eventually they discover that I am really a bitch." However, over the long run, a woman who is consistently kind may magically begin to appear to be prettier than a woman who is consistently cruel. MMV.

I would also note that the male model might look somewhat more like the female model if "looks" were subdivided into "great, sexy, body" and "pretty face", because men don't confuse "sexy body" with "the good" like they confuse "pretty face" with "the good." Also, once daters are middle-aged, a relative age difference will generally read the same as "pretty face." You can join me in indulging in the slow-moving train-wreck which is "The Golden Bachelor" if you want additional evidence.

Anyways, because I have gone on plenty of coffee dates, it has become completely predictable to me that if a man says something complimentary about my hair or my eyes, he is probably already putting me in the High Sleeper or Keeper category. (I'm only very moderately pretty, and sometimes I don't make much effort with my looks and/or date men who are prettier/younger than me, so there's enough variance in my experience to provide for control.)It's pretty easy to avoid interacting with men who are putting you in the Sweeper category simply by following rules such as Only Date Men Who Date You, Don't Have Sex Until Third Date, Don't Chase Boys, etc.

So, my take would be that the models presented do have some merit, but only limited and first order. Even putting aside the further dimensions that may come to bear on long-term relationships, levels of Play can theoretically be much more abstracted. For instance, if you wanna guy to put a ring on it, radically improving your looks after you start dating him may prove more effective than doing it prior, due to the likelihood that he will sub-consciously give himself some credit for your transformation. Another example would be that a man who is innately "good guy" and already married, but crazy about you, will often exhibit almost schizophrenic "good guy" behavior in relationship to you, etc. etc. etc. Unfortunately, the romantic attachment of men can become pretty meaningless to the intelligent/experienced heterosexual female who is not (or no longer)very interested in being validated for her physical appearance, but still you sometimes want to get laid or entertained or companionship and it's kind of stupid to not make use of whatever not yet fully depreciated resources you possess.

[Ego]

If you have not yet read our own Peter Limberg's latest yet, do it now.

https://lessfoolish.substack.com/p/the- ... -is-coming

The unholy trifecta of the man-child is weed, video games, and porn. Weed makes them dopey fools. Video games give them ersatz agency. And porn—the worst of them all—serves as a visual training ground for such ownership. Think of it as a semi-conscious “law of attraction” for the upcoming AI sexbot revolution.

[daylen]

Real men inject steroids, whip lesser men into gaming their taxes, and star in their own pornos. Bad jokes aside.. sex bots seem like a brief steppingstone on the way to plastic utopia where bodies and experiences are finely engineered. The "matrix" becoming increasingly layered and contrived with no clear line between work and play. Games existing on a gradient from Palantir-like control interfaces to Mario Karts looping back into real stone monuments overlooking AR theme parks hosting generations of lifestyle drift.

How do the traditional masculine and feminine roles develop in a world of shape shifting and on-demand peak experiences?

[ertyu]

I personally don't think bots will replace porn because what porn provides is endless variety more than anything else. Owning a sex bot is ... just that one same sex bot. Meh.

There are already subcultures that are into dolls. Humans will imprint on anything, people name their roombas and treat them like a house pet. So I do assume the dolls would appeal to at least some. There will probably be unanticipated positive side effects: a bot can be trained to provide subtle cognitive behavioral therapy, for instance, or to praise you when you apply for a job and go to the gym. If ChatGPT can do it now, Aimee will do it, too.

I disagree that this will switch the dating balance of power towards men. For one, men who are actually good, well-adjusted humans with decent social skills etc., and who an educated professional is likely to want to be in a relationship with, are already seen as a very scarce commodity -- if one eavesdrops on the "dating" servers of the discord servers where I hand out, women will not complain about getting dates, they will complain about how few of the men they encounter behave in civilized ways and are likely to make worthwhile relationship partners. Still, even with that perceived dearth, none of the women I know who would like to be in a heterosexual relationship has started raiding basements.

Women's sex toys are also good. AI porn for women is being developed apace -- several adult, professional women I know [millenials, fwiw] enjoy play-acting with AI boyfriend chatbots. You can integrate one with your calendar to give you sweetly phrased reminders about your appointments, to give encouraging, ego-free feedback when you share your aspirations and successes, and so forth. Such chatbots are more knowledgeable and not squeamish about women's bodies and reproductive health. Can be used to track one's period as well.

Tldr, given that women spend so regularly and habtually on romance reading material, I highly doubt they will not be the first market explored and served, esp given they appear to do ok with text based communication and to not require visuals like men (the chatbot thing I'm talking about has "boyfriend" avatars that look like anime characters, for instance). Tltldr, "they will finally be as desperate for us as we are for them, and they will have to settle," the core of the incell/redpill projected fantasy, is a long way coming. The only thing that will make women settle is economic hardship, and bless their hearts, multiple politicians in multiple parts of the world are already working on eroding recent gains in employment, educational, and reproductive rights for various groups. So, there's still hope.

I don't think, as argued further down, the redpill/incel crowd wants a mechanical doll. I think what they want is not to have to look into themselves, and not to have to do anything to improve or to grow into a full-fledged human who has the social skills and emotional sensitivity to bond and maintain long-term relationships with others. They want to avoid the feelbad that comes with the consequences of what is, essentially, a skill issue - skill in relating to oneself as well as skill in relating to others.

Also, I resent the implication that one must smoke weed, play videogames, and watch porn to be a manchild. I seem to be doing quite fine at being one without them . One just needs to be unambitious and escapist.

[7Wannabe5]

Interesting article. However, I would suggest that there has never been a shortage of man-children, and it's more that the man-child style changes with technology, culture, and fashion. For example, the triumvirate I would associate with a somewhat more old-fashioned, significantly more extroverted man-child would be alcohol, gambling (in the real world), and prostitution/being-player. Also, some virtual spaces or affordaments exist in between the extroverted vs. introverted man-child preferments. For example, OnlyFans could be seen as either porn or prostitution, and multi-player video games are more like playing poker or sports with a group of male friends. Think about all the depictions of men of all types being forced into female-scarce environments during time or war or while out fur-trapping or similar. For example, in M.A.S.H., Frank Burns, the man who is too uptight/prissy/rule-driven (ISTJ?)to drink and play cards with all the other men is also the character who is seen as a man-child through that cultural perspective. OTOH, Hawkeye, who being an ENTP is a type likely to always remain rather lively in juvenile masculine energy, although certainly a player, seems to genuinely like women and also respect them within warranted context.

Also, there are plenty of tall, attractive, financially and romantically successful men who make some degree of use of porn, pot, and video games. Each of these "vices" is too varied and ubiquitous over a spectrum to appeal to only "basement dwellers." In fact, if I combine my list of more extroverted male vices (alcohol, gambling, prostitution/being-player) with this "basement dweller list", I am hard-pressed to come up with a male in my acquaintance over the last 45 years who did not at least occasionally indulge in one or another. Although, I have observed that successful African-American men of an age to be in my dating cohort are the least likely to make use of porn, and this is likely because regarded as too juvenile or passive/submissive or not cool, but this is not to in any way imply that they don't have their own unique micro-cultural and/or personal style of vibing "man-child."

OTOH, I do believe that there is something about the current dating/mating scene which makes the going rather tough for men. But, this is not just limited to the youthful basement dwellers. Even the older men I know who have little trouble with initially attracting women for dates or relationships are finding themselves having trouble with "keeping" women. And I think this is because outside of situations of economic hardship (which may be inclusive of prime child-rearing years and relative need to keep up with Jones'/ maintain upper-middle-class lifestyle') and/or the quite real erotic sexual potential it may offer, most women living in our increasiningly individualistic society do not want to be in anyway owned ,shackled or yoked. And while I appreciate Peter Limberg's take on the growth within relationship made available to those who keep it real on multiple levels within Level Yellow+/Kegan 5/etc., I feel like Limberg, and the other men who write/speak from this level/perspective are still not quite grokking that which would make such a relationship of equal overall economic value to an actual woman. Don't get me wrong, doing the work to become a man who is actually skilled at working at a relationship is definitely of value, so maybe it's just the never-ending speculation on what qualities will make you "deserve' to have a relationship with a woman.

However, anything I communicate should be taken with a grain of salt, because my perspective may not be that of the median female due to the fact that I possess the same sort of ENTP flavor of juvenile masculine energy as Hawkeye, so I genuinely like men, and I also respect them within warranted context, but now that I am truly free of the shackles of family formation and the remnants of societal slut-shaming, I truly don't know what/who would make me want to settle down and reduce my personal autonomy, unless I dysfunction in the (Fe-adult feminine energy) direction of feeling sorry/sentimental for some old guy who wants to keep me to himself for some reason OR I make an overt attempt to feel more romantic by focusing on my 7th position Fi (juvenile feminine energy), which because it is so low on my totem pole would just amount to something along the lines of desiring to be validated for my "pretty" in the form of strong masculine sacrifice. IOW, I desire that sort of thing to about the same extent that Bugs Bunny might.

OTOH, if I were to overtly make contract with a man to attempt to form relationship on basis that neither of us will be sexual with others, and he will also not resort to the use of porn (no worries with me, rarely touch the stuff), I know my curious, contrary, competitive nature would lead me to short order start questioning him down to the Jimmy Carter level of purity. As in, "Hah, I saw you checking out that waitress's azz. If you visualize her while forming an erection, I win the Purity Game, and you owe me penalty of either 20 sheckles or attendance of musical theater production." I'd be making bank on that contract/game day in and day out! Unless, there was also a conversational/intellectual interest/attention clause in our contract of monogamy. Then he would be like "Ha, I see you are really getting into that book by (snatching it rudely out of my hands)... Peter Turchin, so I win the Relationship Purity game, and you owe me either "the usual" or attendance at a baseball game with no treats from the stand."

[Ego]

I don't think, as argued further down, the redpill/incel crowd wants a mechanical doll. I think what they want is not to have to look into themselves, and not to have to do anything to improve or to grow into a full-fledged human who has the social skills and emotional sensitivity to bond and maintain long-term relationships with others. They want to avoid the feelbad that comes with the consequences of what is, essentially, a skill issue - skill in relating to oneself as well as skill in relating to others.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe he is saying they actually want a mechanical doll. Or, if they do, they want the doll because it represents something bigger. He makes an interesting point in his previous essay (which is linked to the current) that...

Horsley sets forth the provocative thesis that The Machine is one giant artificial womb engulfing us, de facto serving as an all-encompassing control system—what he calls “Big Mother” (like “Big Brother”)—that oppresses through seductive over-nurturing, a spectacle-induced pacification of the populace into total compliance.

Jesus, that sums it up perfectly. Seductive over-nurturing. Induced pacification. They want Big Mother.

[7Wannabe5]

I recently read an article written by a woman in her 20s who conducted an experiment of signing up for a dating app pretending that she was a man. Her experience was very much like what I have heard from men of my age. Unfortunately, the format tends to promote certain forms of bad behavior from both genders, and one of the form of bad behavior it promotes in females is cruelty when rejecting overture. Since this tendency towards "cruelty" also occurs in what is usually otherwise a large vacuum of no response whatsoever, I can see how it could tend towards coloring young male's perspective on females towards the reflexively negative. I mean, yes, young men have always had to brave their way through some level of rejection to gain success with females, but in a real world setting, the ability to observe how this is working out for everybody else is likely some combination of mediating and constructive. I mean, if attractive older men who had experience being successful picking up women in discos in 1979 (roughly median guy I might date) are feeling like they are facing a good deal of uphill cruel rejection under the current paradigm, then how are the young men lacking experience likely to be coping?

To cut my fellow females some slack, I can also comprehend why the platform may cause them to vibe more cruel. It can often seem like a stampede of men approaching you, and this can oddly feel kind of frightening or overwhelming even in a virtual setting where all you really have to do is close your device. If you don't figure out some sort of organized practice for creating boundaries on the "stampede", it can be easy to have snappish reactions when men who from your perspective are clearly not compatible approach you. Also, short form written communication can be tricky, especially when not time synced, so men can come off as pervy or stalkerish if they aren't very controlled in their communication. For example, I am sometimes even annoyed when one of my poly-partners whom I have known quite well for many years sends me a sexual or mushy text out of the blue when I am not in that space myself. And this is 10X magnified when you are dealing with a stranger or circumstances of brief acquaintance. I often feel rather angry because suffocated when a guy texts something like "Sleep well, Angel" after a first dinner date. My advice for any guy out there would be: Keep it light. Keep it direct.

[jacob]

I'm frankly not following the "lobster-logic" here. (Sorry Peter) As I read it, the idea is to avoid supernormal stimulus because it's exponentially addictive. Instead we should stick to the more "natural" stimulus because the supernormal is simply too good for us to handle?!

Yet, supernormal stimulus exists in many other shapes and forms, yet while some people have problems, it does not universally result in problems for everybody.

We're not all obese because of the existence of cheap donuts.
We're not all alcoholics because of the existence of whiskey.
We're not all bodybuilders because of the existence of barbells.
We're not all reckless drivers because all our cars can exceed the speed limit.
We're not all losing sleep to gaming because of the existence of games.
We're not all drug addicts because of the existence of extremely addicting drugs.
We're not all incapable of setting roots because of the existence of airplanes.
We're not all incapable of putting down the smartphone because of the existence of push notifications.

And so on ...

Innovation is often hyped by some as if it will change everything and everyone. Innovation is resisted by some for pretty much the same reason. However, often there's little change but a variation on already existing themes.

As such I see this mainly as a turf war moralizing on values. Let me try: "This is the AirWagon 979. A flying machine that can transport over 8 passengers and instantly zip them across the world. A journey that once took 2 years can now be accomplished in under 2 days. Nothing is as addictive to the human explorer as traveling to new places but this infernal innovation will cheapen travel forever and ruin the spirit of exploration. No longer will travelers experience the vast sense of distance that traveling by horse buggy or sailing ship provides. No longer will they learn the language, cultures, and changing landscapes as they journey along meeting new people and discovering marvels along the way. No longer will travelers arrive with a mission to trade, teach, learn, or settle. Instead travel will be reduced to an artificial simulacrum of only taking pictures of mountains and dinner plates at the destination before they zip back to where they came from in their flying machines. And don't get me started on cameras, this new "art form" is no art at all. Only by the paint brush can the observer express the experience of the human self, which is after all what art is all about, but I digress... Did I mention that air travel is the single worst polluting act of consumption a human can make? Also that it's a well known fact to our most esteemed doctors that the human body disintegrates at speeds not much beyond that of our fastest locomotive "The Steam Baron of 1894". Anyway. I beg you. Do not board that plane! If you do, you will ruin travel forever. You'll be living in airports, perhaps even permanently on a plane, away from the natural soil humans were meant to touch and walk. The vast richness that is the world will be reduced to a photo album. The sense of adventure, gone."

Okay, then ...

Two things:

Moral turf wars often turn into orthopraxical declarations and purity tests. "Only by doing it this particular way will your life be good ..." and "This way good, that way bad". This approach is useful for the Jordan Peterson demographic, who lack both external structure (parenting and adulting figures telling them what to do) and the ability to generate internal structure (beyond "doing their own research on tiktok") and thus default to online influencer edicts. Having someone telling them to clean their room, shave off their neckbeards, and be respectful to their parents is a start. It's even a good start, but it shouldn't be confused with the end (pre/trans-fallacy).

Perhaps I'm too much of a moral relativist, but the point with such advice is not to declare what's righteous and what's not, but rather to provide a "self-consistent structure" to people who otherwise lack it. Puritanism/abstinence is one of the easier ones because it's easier to eliminate than it is to build or govern. This is probably why all these "abstinence" goals take off on social media. They're countable, clickable, shareable, and likeable. They don't require any appreciation of the complexity of the situation.

Second,

In all likelihood, sex robots will just become a kind of fetish enjoyed by a minority of humans and frowned upon by the three sexual types of conventional humans: blue, orange, and green. Blue takes offense when sex is not directed towards some mechanical act of begetting children with any "supernormal" enjoyment of the act being coincidental if not shameful. Orange sees sex as some kind of status game trying to improve their own market value while "scoring" (trading it for) similarly primped market value in others. And Green sees sex as some kind of deeper human connection (figuratively and literally) made possible by being naked and so the focus is on seeing the other person's subjectivity as opposed to Orange-objectively gauging how hot they are on a scale.

Sex robots basically throw a wrench in all three valueMemes and being Tier1, the memes struggle to deal with it. The bots don't have children, they're convincingly hotter than you, and they only pretend to care about your feelings. What's not to dislike about that?

Overall, I could write a tirade like this about any other point of value being made. Typically when it is being argued that "some new way is worse than the conventional ways", it's because the conventional way is losing ground. Not that the conventional way is necessarily bad but because the new way makes it clear that the old way was simply convention and nothing else.

[sky]

I'm just wondering if Aimee will be able to mow the lawn too.

[7Wannabe5]

The Level Yellow objection to Sex Robot might be that the relationship provides little challenge to competence or increased access to larger complexity.

My personal objection to Sex Robot would be that my preference is for sex that is even lower tech neo-primitive than the current median experience. However, this is likely due to the fact that I was imprinted with most of my early sexual experiences taking place on a beach, the grass, or in the woods, so MMV. I wonder whether there is a sub-genre of porn for intended heterosexual female audience with "Encounter on the hiking trail..." theme?
I rarely seek out porn on my own, but to the extent that I've watched it with male partners over many decades of changing styles, I would say that my favorite sub-genre would be "completely ridiculous situation " porn of the early 1980s. For example, "Oh no, my toe has somehow become stuck in the bathtub drain while I am naked. I guess I better call an emergency plumber on this landline phone that is installed in my bathroom." I think I like this sub-genre, because it seems like everybody is having fun, and the women are curvy and big-haired enough to look like full-grown adults from an affluent realm. Very short form porn, especially if towards a minor-key/dark-tone and featuring very small women (girls?) from lower income realms such as Asia often seems more exploitative. Like you are trying to eat a burger in a dimly lit diner with a live broadcast from the slaughterhouse out back. Maybe it's the much easier access to the creepier, less jolly forms of porn that is more towards the problem? Or this might just be me, because I never choose to watch horror or true crime movies either. The dark abyss is so not my thing.

[daylen]

A society that only glimpses into the light eventually develops a colossal dark shadow that suffocates what dim light remains after a hellish descent. [that sounds quite biblical but can be reimagined as the consequence of over-optimization or as being stuck in a thesis without means to an anti-thesis towards synthesis]

White hats drift off viable strategies in the absence of black hats to test against. Shire folk stand no chance against Mordor without the courageous humans and witty elves. Probably best to allocate some attention society-wide towards immersion in darkness at various degrees of simulation or "realness". War gaming all around might help stabilize cooperative/defective dynamics. [if they know that we know that they know that.. defection ends in global devastation]

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

Yeah, I grok this. Also, I was almost certainly overstating my lack of attraction to the abyss. For example, I very much appreciated Saramago's "Blindness", and "Night of the Hunter" is in the running for my top film of all time. Also, I have dated grouchy old men who are even grouchier than the title character as portrayed in "Hadestown" (which I also very much appreciated) and that is why I suffer a bit from Persephone Syndrome* (or vice-versa.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O--yUI2hRL4

[Ego]

Sex robots basically throw a wrench in all three valueMemes and being Tier1, the memes struggle to deal with it. The bots don't have children, they're convincingly hotter than you, and they only pretend to care about your feelings. What's not to dislike about that?

Overall, I could write a tirade like this about any other point of value being made. Typically when it is being argued that "some new way is worse than the conventional ways", it's because the conventional way is losing ground. Not that the conventional way is necessarily bad but because the new way makes it clear that the old way was simply convention and nothing else.

I could be wrong, but I believe you are missing the main point of Peter's argument.

We can all see how the very rudimentary forms of social media we have today have hijacked reward systems and changed the way human minds develop. Social media has provided an artificial substitute for real human connections and has begun to undermine people's ability to form bonds with one another. It is interesting that those who design these social media platforms do not allow their children to use them.

AI controlled (sex)bots will be orders of magnitude better at accomplishing this hijacking. The vast amount of funding flowing into these areas is not simply to profit from new forms of human connection. The goal is to create a populace of unmoored individuals. People who are atomized, insecure and anxious are far easier for Big Mother to control, manipulate and monetize.

Some may see this as a good thing if they believe that humanity is made up of a bunch of idiots who are making decisions that are not good for the future of humanity. Some may see the handing over of control as the lesser of two evils. Some may believe that while the idiots are vulnerable to this control and manipulation, they are not. I don't know what others are hoping to get out of it, but I know that I want to maintain my freedom.

This is a perfect example of the constant temptations we all face to expand horizontal-freedoms (the choices I have at my current horizon) at the expense of vertical-freedoms (my ability to elevate my horizon).

IMO, Peter is saying that by exercising a little self-control at the onset, we can tie ourselves to the mast and preserve our autonomy to expand our vertical-freedom.

I hope he chimes in here.

[7Wannabe5]

This is a perfect example of the constant temptations we all face to expand horizontal-freedoms (the choices I have at my current horizon) at the expense of vertical-freedoms (my ability to elevate my horizon).

Yes, increasing optionality is key, but there can also be a good deal of complexity engaged. A Keep-It-Simple-Stupid formula such as "You can never be too rich or too thin." rapidly breaks down under second order analysis. For example, all surveys reveal that the median user of porn is not a basement dwelling otherwise celibate youth, it is a middle-aged man currently in a monogamous relationship. Often this is the means by which otherwise functional men mediate the optionality they maintain within monogamous contract and their desire for sexual variety and/or the fact that their innate sex drive is higher than that of their female partner. When I was a teenager, I used to hang out with two Irish Catholic sisters from a large family whose very nice Christmas cookie baking party sort of mother actually bought their father a subscription to Playboy magazine, likely because she was beyond done with the sex and the babies, and she wanted the option of a part-time job at a yarn store.

IME, the least likely type of man to make use of porn is a sexually successful single male player with a moderate level sex drive and some degree of discipline. However, even if you are quite sexually successful, if you are in the fairly large minority group (5% maybe?)of men whose baseline sex drive is 3X/day, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to meet your needs only within sexual relationship with a woman. So, beyond developing the practice of jacking off twice/day in the shower while attempting to think of nothing, making some use of porn or fantasy is likely to be that guy's best option for not burning through female partners with his level of demand. OTOH, because I had (menopause has altered this somewhat) a fairly high sex drive for a woman, I am definitely capable of becoming annoyed if a partner with whom I am in monogamous contract chooses to jack off to porn rather than have sex with me. The only time I ever resorted to brief period of semi-regular porn use was when I was stuck in sex-dead relationship with my lower/blocked/lazy drive husband, so I hold a good deal of empathy for men stuck in similar circumstances. However, the realities of the modern sex/relationship marketplace are such that if it ever gets to a point in a monogamous contract where the reasonably attractive heterosexual female partner is resorting to porn use to maintain her end of the contract, the gig is going to be just about up, because far too easy to obtain both value and "validation" from other sources.

Anyways, due to the fact of suffering through a sex-starved marriage, I developed the practice of very early on openly questioning the middle-aged men I dated (and also male members of my sexual topics book group) about their baseline sex drive while/when single and also after several years in monogamous relationship, their porn use, and also how aging and desire for variety impacted on these. And I've also watched much more porn in the company of my male partners over the years than I have on my own, and it has been my experience that there is also a great deal of varying motivations, some more towards functional and some more towards dysfunctional, for encountering porn as a couple. Although quite common, I place relying on porn to "spice things up" when you are down to the dregs in a long-term monogamous relationship in the dysfunctional category. I never, ever, ever , ever want to view another reel of 1990s Girl on Girl porn, because this was the compromise effected to retain something resembling a sex life in my first marriage, and to add insult to injury, I was even the one who had to venture into the back room of the small town video store to rent this form of porn that was not even to my liking. It was very much like being stuck only being able to go to the movies with somebody who only likes stupid, boring Action movies, and you have to buy the tickets! OTOH, occasional or happenstance viewing of porn as a couple to spice things up seems quite functional to me. Another much more functional use of porn as a couple is as a means to better communicate a fantasy, preference, or skill set. Many men are too oppositional defiant to respond well to direct instruction, so porn can serve the same purpose as the old trick of white lie along the lines of, "I had this hawt dream last night. You were..." Then you have to let it percolate long enough that your male partner starts to think that it was his idea. This method is also fairly effective for getting men to do stuff around the house, but you have to have the patience to not mention it again during the "percolation" period. I was kind of surprised when I recently hooked up with my second "husband" after a very long hiatus that he had integrated some moves that I suggested into his playbook. Although, this may have been as much due to finally catching up with some popular sexual trends as a renewed desire to please me. Kind of like how eventually many people got around to reading Taleb or Harari or at least faking that they read "Godel, Escher, Bach." The other reasonably functional way in which I sometimes engaged in viewing porn with my second "husband", who has a higher sex drive than me, was that I would just happen to be around while he was openly viewing porn. This would happen fairly often, because in addition to having a higher sex drive, we had very off-sync sleep schedules. We had sex at least once/day in the evening before I fell asleep, and not infrequently also sometime in the afternoon, but he was in that 5% minority of 3X/day drive guys although on the decline due to age, so he might want it again at 2 in the morning while I was asleep. Also, his porn preferences, although somewhat towards throwing me into an objectified bundle, were pretty much zero-percent threatening to me, because it was like he just kept hitting search term variations on "woman with big butt" over and over again, and I am certain that those would also be his specifications if he were to ever order a robotic sex doll, which I can't really imagine him doing even though it likely would narrowly appeal to his engineer's mind on the level that compels men to get off on wax buffing their project car. Actually, now that I think about it, I believe the market for sex robot dolls would likely be greatly expanded if they came as DIY project kits requiring some skill and effort to assemble and personalize, because Pygmalion Syndrome is quite common in men.