A piece about the absurdity of Gen Z's obsession with 'relationship gaps'.
https://www.brianribbon.com/home/americ ... nship-gaps
Also note, you might have missed my recent short - https://www.brianribbon.com/short-takes ... es-rapists
America leaking: Why give a fuck about relationship 'gaps'?
-
BLueRibbon
- Posts: 1502
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2024 12:03 pm
Re: America leaking: Why give a fuck about relationship 'gaps'?
I considered starting a thread on something related to this-by leftist logic, interracial and heterosexual relationships should be discouraged since (in the leftist belief system) there is a categorical power gap between blacks and whites (as blacks and whites) and between men and women (as men and women). So to prevent blacks from being exploited by whites and women by men, people should stick to their own racial group and gender (maybe if a black man dates a white woman the power advantage that stems from being a man would be balanced out by the helplessness that comes with being black, unless one group; whites or men, is seen as more powerful). I don't know if there's a point now, that's pretty much what I wanted to mention, I probably wouldn't have made it anyway.
I was browsing some reddit threads yesterday and I came across a female poster saying that she prefers short men (I started to feel good, not that I have much insecurity about my height. When I was younger I worried that a poorly planned vegan diet might have stunted my growth but I never had a problem with being my height per se. It's just that in grade 8/high school I started out as the same height or taller than the few friends I had but by the end of high school they were ALL taller than me, lol, two of them slightly and the other one possibly significantly, I can't remember. Even now it would bother me if my genetic potential was at a taller height but conditions in the womb or childhood nutrition or something made me shorter because I tend to coulda shoulda woulda. The things that tend to bother me the most when it comes to my appearance are things that changed and used to be different. I have no problem with being 5'5 per se, I kind of like it; to be honest, but it does bother me that you're never going to see a male superhero or start trek captain or great leader in some fiction series who's 5'5, in almost every U.S election the taller candidate has won. Sorry for the insane run-off aside) but then she mentioned some nonsense about the power gap between a short woman and a much taller man and it being like he was her father so that was a bummer (if she's opposed to significant height gaps, you can imagine what she thinks about age gaps; even if the man doesn't play a 'dominant' role which I wouldn't really be interested in doing). My point is that even a significant height gap is now considered problematic by some people even though the average woman is 5 inches shorter than the average man so they really should just have a problem with straight relationships (not that height is inherent to gender but hopefully you understand my point, the sentiment I'm talking about). I've wondered for a while now if some people might respond differently to a tall young woman dating a shorter older man because it defies some of their stereotypes about older man-younger woman relationships.
I'm not sure if this is totally applicable to your thread but I think we should focus more on what makes AMSC or age-gap relationships potentially valuable (as in good) and possibly less on the inconsistencies or beliefs that contradict available evidence that are used to support the anti-AMSC on principle position, I'm speaking mostly to myself because I have a hard time letting go of errors that I shouldn't ultimately be concerned with (and it's fine to point out an inconsistency or something that contradicts your personal experience and observations or documented evidence but the argument should go beyond that to the core value that justifies AMSC and beliefs related to that) and focus on why I think opposing AMSC on principle is immoral (namely that it devalues the happiness of children/minors and adults for whom a significant age gap relationship could potentially be a source of pleasure. What distracts me more than anything from focusing on a basic hedonistic argument for AMSC being bad only insofar as it causes pain and good insofar as it can be a source of happiness for people is the widespread implicit attitude that adolescent sexuality or reproductively viable older man-teenage girl/young woman relationships are somehow deviant, inherently risky for age-related reasons or at odds with human biology and completely normal human sexuality, especially male sexuality, and whether or not someone's body is wired to be sexual is relevant to what extent sex can be a source of pleasure for them or that they might feel sexual frustration but it's the pretense that puberty is irrelevant to the conversation or that average men aren't physiologically wired to seek out girls/women who appear fertile; even if you think that morality requires overcoming those animalistic instincts, that bothers me, I'm sure I could better word this). Someone could argue for the permissibility of young teen (or even child)-adult relationships on the grounds that it seems to have been accepted in the Bible or the Quran but secular feminists could come along and argue that the existence of the god of Abraham is highly improbable and even if we agree that they've basically dismantled one justification for AMSC or significant age-gap relationships, they haven't shown why it's bad (only that ONE argument for it fails). This is why I think, whatever position someone is advocating for, they do their side a disservice when they over-focus on the inconsistencies of their opponents or false beliefs that support a position that wouldn't have to be defended by them.
Libertarianism, when taken to its logical conclusion, would do a great job in preventing governments or random people from using physical force to discourage consensual AMSC (or to state things as neutrally as possible, AMSC that isn't against anyone's will; even if one maintains that minors can't "truly" consent to sexual intimacy with each other or older people), possibly even better than hedonistic consequentialism which could justify discouraging it out of risk aversion/for the sake of suffering reduction in some hypothetical scenarios (without an idea that AMSC is inherently bad or that a desire for it is inherently immoral), but it doesn't address the social prejudice against harmless age gap relationships or non-violent discrimination against MAPs (true pedophiles or people who admit that they're attracted to legal minors). Claiming that AMSC is inherently bad is not like claiming that rocks are inherently good, or that the world is flat, it's morally offensive because it devalues the sexual happiness and pleasurable emotional intimacy of adults and children or minors who are interested in one another. You could make the same claim from the standpoint of AMSC itself being intrinsically good but people realistically want to have relationships with people whom they find the prospect of intimacy with pleasurable (as opposed to concluding, upon reflection, that those relationships are positively valuable even if they cause both parties nothing but discomfort, stress or disgust), and what would set adult-minor relationships per se apart as inherently valuable, it seems more coherent to say that sexual/romantic relationships are inherently valuable but if that's the case then MAPs could always just have relationships with legal adults they're not as attracted to, if at all (this also relates to a thread that I will probably start eventually).
I think libertarianism itself is a meaningless idea because libertarians must realistically differentiate between 'supporting' a choice and 'agreeing' with it which is incoherent (if I view x as being of negative value, I cannot support a choice that serves it while simultaneously 'disagreeing' with it. Every choice is rooted in a value, choice isn't just some abstract idea floating around in a philosophical vacuum. You can't be against hate speech while supporting one's choice to engage in it on principle. These last three paragraphs about defending AMSC have been rushed, by the way). Libertarianism is just politically useful in helping to manipulate other people into not interfering with some of your goals (those related to what you do with what's considered your property), I don't think it actually makes sense because it has moral relativism as its basis (i.e. respecting the value that someone's choice is rooted in, while simultaneously; potentially, rejecting that value. The extent to which I think it's bad for you to paint your garage door green is the extent to which I could not support your doing so, at least not on principle).
I was browsing some reddit threads yesterday and I came across a female poster saying that she prefers short men (I started to feel good, not that I have much insecurity about my height. When I was younger I worried that a poorly planned vegan diet might have stunted my growth but I never had a problem with being my height per se. It's just that in grade 8/high school I started out as the same height or taller than the few friends I had but by the end of high school they were ALL taller than me, lol, two of them slightly and the other one possibly significantly, I can't remember. Even now it would bother me if my genetic potential was at a taller height but conditions in the womb or childhood nutrition or something made me shorter because I tend to coulda shoulda woulda. The things that tend to bother me the most when it comes to my appearance are things that changed and used to be different. I have no problem with being 5'5 per se, I kind of like it; to be honest, but it does bother me that you're never going to see a male superhero or start trek captain or great leader in some fiction series who's 5'5, in almost every U.S election the taller candidate has won. Sorry for the insane run-off aside) but then she mentioned some nonsense about the power gap between a short woman and a much taller man and it being like he was her father so that was a bummer (if she's opposed to significant height gaps, you can imagine what she thinks about age gaps; even if the man doesn't play a 'dominant' role which I wouldn't really be interested in doing). My point is that even a significant height gap is now considered problematic by some people even though the average woman is 5 inches shorter than the average man so they really should just have a problem with straight relationships (not that height is inherent to gender but hopefully you understand my point, the sentiment I'm talking about). I've wondered for a while now if some people might respond differently to a tall young woman dating a shorter older man because it defies some of their stereotypes about older man-younger woman relationships.
I'm not sure if this is totally applicable to your thread but I think we should focus more on what makes AMSC or age-gap relationships potentially valuable (as in good) and possibly less on the inconsistencies or beliefs that contradict available evidence that are used to support the anti-AMSC on principle position, I'm speaking mostly to myself because I have a hard time letting go of errors that I shouldn't ultimately be concerned with (and it's fine to point out an inconsistency or something that contradicts your personal experience and observations or documented evidence but the argument should go beyond that to the core value that justifies AMSC and beliefs related to that) and focus on why I think opposing AMSC on principle is immoral (namely that it devalues the happiness of children/minors and adults for whom a significant age gap relationship could potentially be a source of pleasure. What distracts me more than anything from focusing on a basic hedonistic argument for AMSC being bad only insofar as it causes pain and good insofar as it can be a source of happiness for people is the widespread implicit attitude that adolescent sexuality or reproductively viable older man-teenage girl/young woman relationships are somehow deviant, inherently risky for age-related reasons or at odds with human biology and completely normal human sexuality, especially male sexuality, and whether or not someone's body is wired to be sexual is relevant to what extent sex can be a source of pleasure for them or that they might feel sexual frustration but it's the pretense that puberty is irrelevant to the conversation or that average men aren't physiologically wired to seek out girls/women who appear fertile; even if you think that morality requires overcoming those animalistic instincts, that bothers me, I'm sure I could better word this). Someone could argue for the permissibility of young teen (or even child)-adult relationships on the grounds that it seems to have been accepted in the Bible or the Quran but secular feminists could come along and argue that the existence of the god of Abraham is highly improbable and even if we agree that they've basically dismantled one justification for AMSC or significant age-gap relationships, they haven't shown why it's bad (only that ONE argument for it fails). This is why I think, whatever position someone is advocating for, they do their side a disservice when they over-focus on the inconsistencies of their opponents or false beliefs that support a position that wouldn't have to be defended by them.
Libertarianism, when taken to its logical conclusion, would do a great job in preventing governments or random people from using physical force to discourage consensual AMSC (or to state things as neutrally as possible, AMSC that isn't against anyone's will; even if one maintains that minors can't "truly" consent to sexual intimacy with each other or older people), possibly even better than hedonistic consequentialism which could justify discouraging it out of risk aversion/for the sake of suffering reduction in some hypothetical scenarios (without an idea that AMSC is inherently bad or that a desire for it is inherently immoral), but it doesn't address the social prejudice against harmless age gap relationships or non-violent discrimination against MAPs (true pedophiles or people who admit that they're attracted to legal minors). Claiming that AMSC is inherently bad is not like claiming that rocks are inherently good, or that the world is flat, it's morally offensive because it devalues the sexual happiness and pleasurable emotional intimacy of adults and children or minors who are interested in one another. You could make the same claim from the standpoint of AMSC itself being intrinsically good but people realistically want to have relationships with people whom they find the prospect of intimacy with pleasurable (as opposed to concluding, upon reflection, that those relationships are positively valuable even if they cause both parties nothing but discomfort, stress or disgust), and what would set adult-minor relationships per se apart as inherently valuable, it seems more coherent to say that sexual/romantic relationships are inherently valuable but if that's the case then MAPs could always just have relationships with legal adults they're not as attracted to, if at all (this also relates to a thread that I will probably start eventually).
I think libertarianism itself is a meaningless idea because libertarians must realistically differentiate between 'supporting' a choice and 'agreeing' with it which is incoherent (if I view x as being of negative value, I cannot support a choice that serves it while simultaneously 'disagreeing' with it. Every choice is rooted in a value, choice isn't just some abstract idea floating around in a philosophical vacuum. You can't be against hate speech while supporting one's choice to engage in it on principle. These last three paragraphs about defending AMSC have been rushed, by the way). Libertarianism is just politically useful in helping to manipulate other people into not interfering with some of your goals (those related to what you do with what's considered your property), I don't think it actually makes sense because it has moral relativism as its basis (i.e. respecting the value that someone's choice is rooted in, while simultaneously; potentially, rejecting that value. The extent to which I think it's bad for you to paint your garage door green is the extent to which I could not support your doing so, at least not on principle).