Of course that would be the best solution. It is just that these are risk-averse and socially shy men who tended to either not go to the school dance or if they did were glued to the walls, not getting picked by any girl and not in possession of enough testicular fortitude to go and ask one because (shock and horror) she might (would) say no and start giggling with her friends about that "weirdo" wanting to dance with her.
Fast forward a decade and there was #MeToo which meant that even glancing at a woman could get them ostracised for being the creeps they already thought they were while those girls from school put up Tinder profiles where they all competed for the top 10% of men - looks like a movie star, makes a zillion $currency_units, might be a bastard who already has a number of girls but that doesn't matter.
These ´AI girlfriends' and 'AI boyfriends' (I guess those exist as well) are just another sign of the way dating and sexuality have been dehumanised, commercialised and in some ways ideologically weaponised.
If this is what the sexual revolution has brought us it is time to rethink the premise of the concepts. In some ways that is already happening - viz. the 'trad wife' phenomenon - but the real solution would be to find a way to retain the good bits from said sexual revolution while getting rid of the parts which led us [1] to where we are now. Something which would appeal not only to those of a more conservative bent, i.e. a way which also appeals to most women [2].
Our future is at stake, quite literally: no relationships means no children means no future. This does not mean that children will not be born any more, it just means that they won't be our children who carry along our traditions and cultures - those traditions and cultures which we claim to value where people are born equal with the same rights, where men and women are equal under the law, where freedom of consciousness, religion and speech are guaranteed to a differing but mostly large extent, where those who happen to be romantically attracted to their own sex do not get thrown off buildings or sentenced to prison or 'converted' or chemically castrated. We fought quite hard to arrive where we were a few decades ago, by no means perfect - perfection is the enemy of good - but certainly better than before and also better than most other places so it does not make sense to throw all those gains to the wind in the name of... what, exactly?
[1] as in 'those parts of the world where the sexual revolution took place and had these detrimental effects'
[2] for just another proof of the fact that men and women are not interchangeable it suffices to look at the difference in political opinions between 'the average man' and 'the average woman'. Yes, there are 'liberal' men. Yes, there are 'conservative' women. That does not negate the fact that women on average lean more towards 'liberalism' while men tend to lean more towards 'conservatism'.
> It is just that these are risk-averse and socially shy men who tended to either not go to the school dance or if they did were glued to the walls, not getting picked by any girl and not in possession of enough testicular fortitude to go and ask one because (shock and horror) she might (would) say no and start giggling with her friends about that "weirdo" wanting to dance with her.
I understand that what I wrote is much (much!) easier to say rather than do, but well... there's only one way to find out :).
> These ´AI girlfriends' and 'AI boyfriends' (I guess those exist as well) are just another sign of the way dating and sexuality have been dehumanised, commercialised and in some ways ideologically weaponised.
Interesting take. I'm lucky that I've been in a great relationship since before hyper internet dating became a thing (tinder, bumble, etc)
> We fought quite hard to arrive where we were a few decades ago, by no means perfect - perfection is the enemy of good - but certainly better than before and also better than most other places so it does not make sense to throw all those gains to the wind in the name of... what, exactly?
I think the new thing here is that it is not "shareholder profits" but "stakeholder benefits" which are supposed to drive decisions, raising the ESG score and thus the likelihood of being able to procure loans and land investments.
Your second footnote doesn't follow at all. I'm sure the star-bellied sneetches would be far more likely to be in favor of a star-belly supremacist platform as compared with the star-less. The right consistently embraces overt sexism to appeal to their religious zealot base, so it should be no surprise that women tend away from them.
Could you restate what you're trying to tell in normal unbiased language? It would make it easier (or 'possible') to react to your statement. Take out the labels and expletives and come back with what's left (if any).
I'm sorry, I assumed everybody was familiar with the classic Dr. Seuss story "The Sneetches", which is about a race of bird things where some have stars on their bellies and some don't but are otherwise indistinguishable but have a segregated society that devolves into chaos when some guy makes a machine that can add or remove stars. The whole thing is an allegory for racism, but it applies here:
You state that women shying away from the right is evidence of fundamental sexual differences, when in fact the right has made a point of adopting anti-women positions which make them unappealing to all but the most self-sabotaging.
> I assumed everybody was familiar with the classic Dr. Seuss story "The Sneetches"
Dr. Seuss is not really part of a Dutch or Swedish upbringing. We do get a whiff every now and then but the Sneetches? Nope.
> You state that women shying away from the right is evidence of fundamental sexual differences
You mistake correlation with causation. I state that women on average are more liberal leaning while men on average lean more towards conservatism. I did not state why this was so, only that it is so. As to why women on average lean more towards liberalism I suspect it does not have much to do with your statements about 'the right' but is related to the fact that women on average score significantly higher on the agreeableness and compassion scales than men do [1], two traits which are more prevalent in those who tend towards liberalism [2].
On the subject of 'the right' having adopted 'anti-women positions' I´ll state that it depends on your political opinion as to whether those positions are 'anti-women' or not. The fact that there are plenty of women on 'the right' who do not agree with your claim should give you cause to doubt the absolute veracity of your claim - unless you also insist that women on 'the right' are somehow not informed about what 'the right' has in mind for them? If you think it through a bit you'll find that it is your own (or your own community's/your own group's) political bias which informs this statement. Simone de Beauvoir [3] made a statement in a 1975 interview [4] with Betty Friedan [5] which clearly shows what I mean:
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one… In my opinion, as long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed.”
A woman of conservative persuasion most likely considers that statement to be proof of the authoritarian and revolutionary bent of these liberals or, to restate this in your terminology, 'the fact that the left has made a point of adopting anti-women positions which make them unappealing to all but the most self-sabotaging'.
Fast forward a decade and there was #MeToo which meant that even glancing at a woman could get them ostracised for being the creeps they already thought they were while those girls from school put up Tinder profiles where they all competed for the top 10% of men - looks like a movie star, makes a zillion $currency_units, might be a bastard who already has a number of girls but that doesn't matter.
These ´AI girlfriends' and 'AI boyfriends' (I guess those exist as well) are just another sign of the way dating and sexuality have been dehumanised, commercialised and in some ways ideologically weaponised.
If this is what the sexual revolution has brought us it is time to rethink the premise of the concepts. In some ways that is already happening - viz. the 'trad wife' phenomenon - but the real solution would be to find a way to retain the good bits from said sexual revolution while getting rid of the parts which led us [1] to where we are now. Something which would appeal not only to those of a more conservative bent, i.e. a way which also appeals to most women [2].
Our future is at stake, quite literally: no relationships means no children means no future. This does not mean that children will not be born any more, it just means that they won't be our children who carry along our traditions and cultures - those traditions and cultures which we claim to value where people are born equal with the same rights, where men and women are equal under the law, where freedom of consciousness, religion and speech are guaranteed to a differing but mostly large extent, where those who happen to be romantically attracted to their own sex do not get thrown off buildings or sentenced to prison or 'converted' or chemically castrated. We fought quite hard to arrive where we were a few decades ago, by no means perfect - perfection is the enemy of good - but certainly better than before and also better than most other places so it does not make sense to throw all those gains to the wind in the name of... what, exactly?
[1] as in 'those parts of the world where the sexual revolution took place and had these detrimental effects'
[2] for just another proof of the fact that men and women are not interchangeable it suffices to look at the difference in political opinions between 'the average man' and 'the average woman'. Yes, there are 'liberal' men. Yes, there are 'conservative' women. That does not negate the fact that women on average lean more towards 'liberalism' while men tend to lean more towards 'conservatism'.