In defense of normies

Posted by – November 9, 2017

One has to assume that for every Hollywood sexual harassment case, there’s a hundred cases where the inappropriate advances led to quid pro quo sex. In that environment quite a lot of men turn into predators.

Maybe there’s something to having norms about sexuality after all?

1 Comment on In defense of normies

Respond | Trackback

  1. sam says:

    Facebook comments:

    Sampo Syreeni: Norms, certainly, but which norms precisely?

    My crowd works pretty well even if it’s composed of kinksters, polygamists and who knows what. It does have norms, which is a good thing, but the norms don’t so much aim at controlling sexual expression. Instead the morality (-ies) aims at addressing possible wrongdoing, particular to the sexual circuit, such as cheating, not respecting safewords, and what have you.

    Sam Hardwick: There are groups of people who tend towards mutual respect, at least at the best of times. Occasionally things tend to explode into drama even in them. And the people in those groups usually aren’t subject to the temptations of power, fame and wealth.

    But that isn’t true of people in general. Humanity requires not only constant moralization but actual reward-and-punishment systems to behave.

    Sampo Syreeni: What doesn’t work in smaller crowds, certainly doesn’t work in wider ones. My point being that you can’t moralize wider crowds into submission. They’ll do what they do, and at worst eschew sexual morality altogether.

    Sam Hardwick: Moralising is just the PR operation / strategy forum for social ostracism etc. which is where the real norm enforcement happens.

    Sampo Syreeni: I think here the question is about what you really mean by “norms”. Do you think sexuality should be restricted by a norm, or that each and every kind of sexuality with their own (sub?)cultures ought to have a set of norms, a morality, befitting them?

    I’d be all for the latter, but never the first.

    Sam Hardwick: I think out in the open sexuality has to be restricted by norms. The alternative is just too destructive.

    OTOH, there will always be undergrounds, whether I like it or not. Certainly I would prefer normies to be tolerant and understanding of them.

    Sampo Syreeni: The alternative? What is that, then? Or, rather, your idea of it?

    Sam Hardwick: The Hollywood predation / prostitution dynamic is one example of a destructive situation having to do with some useful norms not being enforced.

    Sampo Syreeni: Indeed, but would it not be more useful to have those norms enforced within the Hollywood social circuit, instead of globally? So that room would be left for parallel and intermeshing sexual subcultures?

    Sam Hardwick: Maybe we’re talking about different things. I’m not talking about norms against S&M or whatever, I’m talking about things like norms against sex for favours and runaway sexual competition.

    Sampo Syreeni: Some crowds can deal with such stuff as well, given proper norm. So I’m talking about not stumping out even that kind of behavior, but properly moderating it.

    Sampo Syreeni: In a word, predatorial behavior. It’s going to be addressed in any sane and consensual circuit, sooner or later. Quite without moralization of the circuit as a whole.

    Miikka Silfverberg: I guess the most important norms about sexuality which, in my opinion, should be strongly enforced are the requirement for consent and similar maturity level of partners. It seems to me that rape and sexual harassment may actually thrive in environments with very strict sexual norms such as religious communities. This might be due to the fact that it is more difficult to report crimes of a sexual nature in these environments which acts to protect the perpetrator. Strict sexual norms may hide the problem instead of reducing it. Sexual norms create shame which in turn can be used for extortion. This also applies to norms against exchanging sex for favors.