Having a conversation about sex and porn without any men on the panel was an odd choice, and I didn't listen any further once I realized what limited perspectives were in store.
This is probably an act of futility: paying $5 to make a comment that no one will read as it is attached to an older podcast. Better to give the money to homeless person, I suspect. Anyway…
I hope that this comment does not come across as hostile. I am not. I offer the following as feedback and commentary.
The next time you have people on to speak about men and their relationship to porn, I suggest that one of your guests be a man (ouch, that does sound nasty, but it reflects my weak writing skills rather than my intent).
On the podcast, Louise Perry suggested that men are attracted to porn for the variety. I think it is more because men are hornier than women, which makes evolutionary sense. Heather Heying writes (sorry, I looked for the piece, but could not find it. It may be on her Substack) that the sex with the larger gametes invests more in producing offspring and, therefore, is more selective. In a lifetime, a woman can theoretically have only about 40 offspring. For men, the number is almost unlimited, and the investment is minimal, hence their propensity to seek more interactions.
Sexually active males in relationships have been jerking off since well before internet porn, even before homo sapiens. Many decades ago, I worked at a zoo where you could often observe our young chimpanzee in the act of self stimulation. I would suggest that men watch porn because they cannot get the real thing as frequently as they would like.
And then one needs to ask is there a difference between erotica and porn and where does one begin and the other end? Early Playboy: Erotica or porn? Would it be OK with Ms Perry if her husband jerked off to Playboy? Or is it the masturbating to which she objects? If the latter, is she willing/able to get enthusiastic every time her hubby is horny?
One of the phrases I object to in discussions of the power of men and women is that men have always been able to “have it all”. This is meant to mean family and career, but it is a phrase that is often substituted for “the perfect life”. Let me break it to you: Nobody has the perfect life.
Here is some anecdata from the Greatest Generation. Sure, the men had careers and families, but their role was as provider. While the wives took care of the home and the kids, the husbands went out and worked as hard as they could so that their families would live a decent life. One I knew told me that when he was working, he needed to be laser focused on earning an income and getting ahead. His relationship with his sons was well down the list of priorities and suffered. Two of the three did not attend his funeral.
Men of that era had families in name only. They derived little pleasure from being a father. Another from that generation told me that in his time, as a man, you found a job, got married, secured a mortgage, had kids, and worked your ass off. There was no choice. It was simply what you did.
I think many of that generation would question whether they “had it all”.
Finally made the time to listen to this! Great work, Bari. As always.
Sex has consequences. Full stop. Just like driving does. Sometimes the consequences are dire. With driving, our teens are required to study, take a course, practice, and pass a test. It’s regulated and not everyone earns that privilege. We can’t do that with sex but we can teach our children to understand the responsibility and maturity needed when you engage in the act. Casual sex undermines these critical lessons. I’m not advocating abstinence, but can’t society embrace adulting?? Our kids are aching for ethics and morals that don’t necessarily compromise human desires. We can do this.
Is it possible Jill is overestimating the average women’s desire to have a “career”? They require a ton of work and a real time commitment not to mention involves participating in a high stress environment. If a women wants that I say you go girl. But many women don’t and it seems like their voices aren’t being heard.
Glad to read these comments. I just listened to this podcast on a walk and talked back to my phone. Great topic, not good guest choices, to put it kindly. Who are these people???!!!
This is from a letter to all women before the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 and it is worth making present today:
"Thank you, every woman, for the simple fact of being a woman! Through the insight which is so much a part of your womanhood you enrich the world's understanding and help to make human relations more honest and authentic."
One topic that I was hoping Bari would have raised was the economic impact of some of the policies discussed. There was plenty of talk about paid parental leave and government helping in the early years of motherhood, but nothing about the economic impact of these proposed policies. The government (both State and Federal) enjoy more tax receipts today due to the prevalence of two working parents. If suddenly the government needs to subsidize one parent while at the same time businesses lose the economic value of that worker, it is a double whammy on the economy. Less tax receipts and less economic productivity.
I no longer identify as a Feminist, since it became clear the movement is a slate of bad idea's, with the organizing principle being "equality of outcomes".
Feminism has always been more of an elitist, professional class movement that has difficulty incorporating mother's & homemakers into the movement. How is it that women in the USA have no guaranteed paid maternity leave but we all cheer when Mark Zuckerberg & Pete Buttigieg take "paid parental leave?
Why is the "ideal" of a liberated existence, based on men?
Why is "girl boss", having "sex like a man" & working 60 hours a week at a professional job considered feminist ideals? Why does a woman have to assume male roles in order to be considered a success? Why is paid "parental leave" for men celebrated as a win for women?
Why are WOMEN so quick to give up our sex based right for nonsensical, mysginistic, homophobic, gender ideology?
My niece is 14 years old, at school she has learned about a) consent b) gender ideology c) violent relationships.
What she has NOT learned is the biological, sex based differences between boys and girls. What she has NOT learned is what happens to human bodies during puberty and how girls and boys experience that change differently. What she has NOT learned is the correct language for female and male reproductive anatomy. How being anxious, self conscious, weird, scared, unsure is normal at 14.
She has learned about birth control but she had not learned about how the pill works to stop pregnancy. What she has not learned is the limitation on the years women are fertile. What she has not learned is WOMENS unique role in human reproduction. She has been taught to devalue everything that is unique about being a women, in favor of a script that dehumanizes her and sexual relations.
In the last decade, sex has become as dangerous for boys/young men as women because of the "consent issue". The Kangaroo Courts at universities,, where men are deprived of due process rights, when sexual misconduct allegations are made against them, raise the risk of bad sexual outcomes for men, far beyond an unwanted pregnancy.
Women are equal to men but NOT equivalent.
Gender is a belief (like religion) but biological sex is a scientific fact. To the extent, the woke puritans have managed to conflate sex and gender, to the extent the focus on gender identity (and its insane "rules") has been substituted for sex and sexuality, the vast majority of adolescents have opted out of sex and sexual relationships.
If fourth wave feminism wants women to waive their rights to safety and single sex spaces to men who identify as female, wave women's rights to sex based healthcare & ignores the meaning women derive from pregnancy and motherhood, well that feminism sounds more like a cross between Stalinism and Pol Pot's Year Zero than a movement to further women's rights.
Jill seems to have a shockingly narrow view of what constitutes "real feminism," to the point where she doesn't deny and even embraces the fact most women don't identify with feminism. It's an odd position to take. What does it say when a movement touts itself as furthering women's interests, is rejected by a majority of those women? Disconnected? Irrelevant?
The other issue is that Jill firmly sees the defining feature between men and women as two groups with fundamentally different priorities, goals, and values that is largely in competition with each other. She fails to understand that the decline in male achievement will invariably hurt women too. In other words, we're in this TOGETHER and do not live out our daily existence in this hyper-individualized state Jill seems to cherish.
I grew up in a conservative southern evangelical church. Clearly Jill is talking about something she doesn’t understand and, growing as an atheist in Seattle, she never will. Men and their behavior are very much a part of the sexual ethics discussion in the evangelical church.
I was very disappointed by this podcast. The two guests (and indeed even Bari) did not talk like real people. Their oblique academic speak was like "inside baseball." I expected a thoughtful discussion of porn and how it affects those who watch (mostly men, and young unformed ones at that), and those who interact with them (mostly women, and young unformed ones). Not one person brought up concepts like love, loyalty, monogamy, respect, romance. What a shame that even people who are aware of the harms of porn have forgotten other aspects of sexual relationships.
Jill was shrill, out of touch/clueless, privileged. I stuck with the episode only to hear Louise's views. Going forward, I will not engage with any of Jill's output. A random grandmother would have more wisdom and heart.
"Women were hardly more valuable than horses at the start of the 20th century." That is a pretty naïve statement considering they were the great mothers they always have been at the very least. You don't build a country the way we did by 'using women as veritable slaves' for godsakes. They were central to our existence raising families.
Now, women are being abused to push political agenda's such as transgenderism which is equally as bad or even worse to being abused by men of 1910.
Also, republicans were responsible for ratifying the NINETEENTH amendment, not 20th. :-D
Wow. After about 15 minutes, I was able to predict in advance how Jill would respond to each question. For her, clearly, feminism is a religion, and she returned again and again not to thoughtful analysis, but rather to dogma. I almost (but not really) admired how committed she was to her world-view regardless of logic or evidence. NOT a nuanced view.
In particular, she revealed a VAST ignorance of both history, and Christian sexual ethics when she talked about the dangers of the "Christian purity" view. (After which, she said she wasn't reacting to the "Christian purity view", but never mind).
As an aside, historically, it Christianity that is mainly responsible for the elevation of women worldwide. It is the Christian sexual ethic that forced men to accept women as equals. (But don't let little things like facts bother you, Jill.)
Bari really didn't need Jill. She could have just said: "Insert typical American feminist response here," after each question.
On the other hand, Louise was very interesting and thought-provoking. I might even buy her book, after hearing this.
I loved the topic. I appreciate and respect one half of the guest list. But Bari had a rare miss by having Jill Filopvic as the second guest. I guess I'm used to better thinkers on this show.
Jill Filipovic spews a lot of word salad and makes a lot of claims that are patently false. Likes to say “misogyny” a lot. And finally, she has that Brooklyn Jouralist voice thing where she raises the pitch of her voice and uses the “question tone” when she’s not asking a question.
Having a conversation about sex and porn without any men on the panel was an odd choice, and I didn't listen any further once I realized what limited perspectives were in store.
This is probably an act of futility: paying $5 to make a comment that no one will read as it is attached to an older podcast. Better to give the money to homeless person, I suspect. Anyway…
I hope that this comment does not come across as hostile. I am not. I offer the following as feedback and commentary.
The next time you have people on to speak about men and their relationship to porn, I suggest that one of your guests be a man (ouch, that does sound nasty, but it reflects my weak writing skills rather than my intent).
On the podcast, Louise Perry suggested that men are attracted to porn for the variety. I think it is more because men are hornier than women, which makes evolutionary sense. Heather Heying writes (sorry, I looked for the piece, but could not find it. It may be on her Substack) that the sex with the larger gametes invests more in producing offspring and, therefore, is more selective. In a lifetime, a woman can theoretically have only about 40 offspring. For men, the number is almost unlimited, and the investment is minimal, hence their propensity to seek more interactions.
Sexually active males in relationships have been jerking off since well before internet porn, even before homo sapiens. Many decades ago, I worked at a zoo where you could often observe our young chimpanzee in the act of self stimulation. I would suggest that men watch porn because they cannot get the real thing as frequently as they would like.
And then one needs to ask is there a difference between erotica and porn and where does one begin and the other end? Early Playboy: Erotica or porn? Would it be OK with Ms Perry if her husband jerked off to Playboy? Or is it the masturbating to which she objects? If the latter, is she willing/able to get enthusiastic every time her hubby is horny?
One of the phrases I object to in discussions of the power of men and women is that men have always been able to “have it all”. This is meant to mean family and career, but it is a phrase that is often substituted for “the perfect life”. Let me break it to you: Nobody has the perfect life.
Here is some anecdata from the Greatest Generation. Sure, the men had careers and families, but their role was as provider. While the wives took care of the home and the kids, the husbands went out and worked as hard as they could so that their families would live a decent life. One I knew told me that when he was working, he needed to be laser focused on earning an income and getting ahead. His relationship with his sons was well down the list of priorities and suffered. Two of the three did not attend his funeral.
Men of that era had families in name only. They derived little pleasure from being a father. Another from that generation told me that in his time, as a man, you found a job, got married, secured a mortgage, had kids, and worked your ass off. There was no choice. It was simply what you did.
I think many of that generation would question whether they “had it all”.
Finally made the time to listen to this! Great work, Bari. As always.
Sex has consequences. Full stop. Just like driving does. Sometimes the consequences are dire. With driving, our teens are required to study, take a course, practice, and pass a test. It’s regulated and not everyone earns that privilege. We can’t do that with sex but we can teach our children to understand the responsibility and maturity needed when you engage in the act. Casual sex undermines these critical lessons. I’m not advocating abstinence, but can’t society embrace adulting?? Our kids are aching for ethics and morals that don’t necessarily compromise human desires. We can do this.
Is it possible Jill is overestimating the average women’s desire to have a “career”? They require a ton of work and a real time commitment not to mention involves participating in a high stress environment. If a women wants that I say you go girl. But many women don’t and it seems like their voices aren’t being heard.
Great conversation though!! I never wanted to yell at anyone. Very professional and absolutely interesting.
What a wonderful hour plus of information!!!! Loved the show! Love the way Bari hosts! Awesome guests!! Keep up the good work!
Glad to read these comments. I just listened to this podcast on a walk and talked back to my phone. Great topic, not good guest choices, to put it kindly. Who are these people???!!!
This is from a letter to all women before the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 and it is worth making present today:
"Thank you, every woman, for the simple fact of being a woman! Through the insight which is so much a part of your womanhood you enrich the world's understanding and help to make human relations more honest and authentic."
One topic that I was hoping Bari would have raised was the economic impact of some of the policies discussed. There was plenty of talk about paid parental leave and government helping in the early years of motherhood, but nothing about the economic impact of these proposed policies. The government (both State and Federal) enjoy more tax receipts today due to the prevalence of two working parents. If suddenly the government needs to subsidize one parent while at the same time businesses lose the economic value of that worker, it is a double whammy on the economy. Less tax receipts and less economic productivity.
I am a man, I watch porn, and I was very much uneducated on this topic.
I was astonished at Louise's eloquence and clarity, especially when contrasted with Jil's generally vague talking points.
Bari, these kinds of debates are deeply educational and absolutely essential.
Thank you so much.
I no longer identify as a Feminist, since it became clear the movement is a slate of bad idea's, with the organizing principle being "equality of outcomes".
Feminism has always been more of an elitist, professional class movement that has difficulty incorporating mother's & homemakers into the movement. How is it that women in the USA have no guaranteed paid maternity leave but we all cheer when Mark Zuckerberg & Pete Buttigieg take "paid parental leave?
Why is the "ideal" of a liberated existence, based on men?
Why is "girl boss", having "sex like a man" & working 60 hours a week at a professional job considered feminist ideals? Why does a woman have to assume male roles in order to be considered a success? Why is paid "parental leave" for men celebrated as a win for women?
Why are WOMEN so quick to give up our sex based right for nonsensical, mysginistic, homophobic, gender ideology?
My niece is 14 years old, at school she has learned about a) consent b) gender ideology c) violent relationships.
What she has NOT learned is the biological, sex based differences between boys and girls. What she has NOT learned is what happens to human bodies during puberty and how girls and boys experience that change differently. What she has NOT learned is the correct language for female and male reproductive anatomy. How being anxious, self conscious, weird, scared, unsure is normal at 14.
She has learned about birth control but she had not learned about how the pill works to stop pregnancy. What she has not learned is the limitation on the years women are fertile. What she has not learned is WOMENS unique role in human reproduction. She has been taught to devalue everything that is unique about being a women, in favor of a script that dehumanizes her and sexual relations.
In the last decade, sex has become as dangerous for boys/young men as women because of the "consent issue". The Kangaroo Courts at universities,, where men are deprived of due process rights, when sexual misconduct allegations are made against them, raise the risk of bad sexual outcomes for men, far beyond an unwanted pregnancy.
Women are equal to men but NOT equivalent.
Gender is a belief (like religion) but biological sex is a scientific fact. To the extent, the woke puritans have managed to conflate sex and gender, to the extent the focus on gender identity (and its insane "rules") has been substituted for sex and sexuality, the vast majority of adolescents have opted out of sex and sexual relationships.
If fourth wave feminism wants women to waive their rights to safety and single sex spaces to men who identify as female, wave women's rights to sex based healthcare & ignores the meaning women derive from pregnancy and motherhood, well that feminism sounds more like a cross between Stalinism and Pol Pot's Year Zero than a movement to further women's rights.
Jill seems to have a shockingly narrow view of what constitutes "real feminism," to the point where she doesn't deny and even embraces the fact most women don't identify with feminism. It's an odd position to take. What does it say when a movement touts itself as furthering women's interests, is rejected by a majority of those women? Disconnected? Irrelevant?
The other issue is that Jill firmly sees the defining feature between men and women as two groups with fundamentally different priorities, goals, and values that is largely in competition with each other. She fails to understand that the decline in male achievement will invariably hurt women too. In other words, we're in this TOGETHER and do not live out our daily existence in this hyper-individualized state Jill seems to cherish.
I grew up in a conservative southern evangelical church. Clearly Jill is talking about something she doesn’t understand and, growing as an atheist in Seattle, she never will. Men and their behavior are very much a part of the sexual ethics discussion in the evangelical church.
I was very disappointed by this podcast. The two guests (and indeed even Bari) did not talk like real people. Their oblique academic speak was like "inside baseball." I expected a thoughtful discussion of porn and how it affects those who watch (mostly men, and young unformed ones at that), and those who interact with them (mostly women, and young unformed ones). Not one person brought up concepts like love, loyalty, monogamy, respect, romance. What a shame that even people who are aware of the harms of porn have forgotten other aspects of sexual relationships.
Jill was shrill, out of touch/clueless, privileged. I stuck with the episode only to hear Louise's views. Going forward, I will not engage with any of Jill's output. A random grandmother would have more wisdom and heart.
As for Louise, I wish she had been more direct.
"Women were hardly more valuable than horses at the start of the 20th century." That is a pretty naïve statement considering they were the great mothers they always have been at the very least. You don't build a country the way we did by 'using women as veritable slaves' for godsakes. They were central to our existence raising families.
Now, women are being abused to push political agenda's such as transgenderism which is equally as bad or even worse to being abused by men of 1910.
Also, republicans were responsible for ratifying the NINETEENTH amendment, not 20th. :-D
Wow. After about 15 minutes, I was able to predict in advance how Jill would respond to each question. For her, clearly, feminism is a religion, and she returned again and again not to thoughtful analysis, but rather to dogma. I almost (but not really) admired how committed she was to her world-view regardless of logic or evidence. NOT a nuanced view.
In particular, she revealed a VAST ignorance of both history, and Christian sexual ethics when she talked about the dangers of the "Christian purity" view. (After which, she said she wasn't reacting to the "Christian purity view", but never mind).
As an aside, historically, it Christianity that is mainly responsible for the elevation of women worldwide. It is the Christian sexual ethic that forced men to accept women as equals. (But don't let little things like facts bother you, Jill.)
Bari really didn't need Jill. She could have just said: "Insert typical American feminist response here," after each question.
On the other hand, Louise was very interesting and thought-provoking. I might even buy her book, after hearing this.
I loved the topic. I appreciate and respect one half of the guest list. But Bari had a rare miss by having Jill Filopvic as the second guest. I guess I'm used to better thinkers on this show.
Jill Filipovic spews a lot of word salad and makes a lot of claims that are patently false. Likes to say “misogyny” a lot. And finally, she has that Brooklyn Jouralist voice thing where she raises the pitch of her voice and uses the “question tone” when she’s not asking a question.
Max, thank you. I had no idea there was a term for the most annoying speech affectation in modern time.