Eh Steve Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Howdy Y'all. I wanted to share some thoughts about this call in show, particularly the last caller is on my mind. But I also think I'll share a brief opinion on the other topics. Edit: I'm now realizing this is no longer brief at all So here are my long opinions on things, I'd be happy to hear your opinions as well if you listened to the show or just thoughts on my thoughts. This is pretty off the cuff and caffeine induced, I hope it is pleasant but at times I express well frankly throughout I express a lot of criticism. Let me know what you think if you're so inclined And just to be clear this is all my off the cuff opinion so I could be totally wrong or other people could have valid differing opinions Edit: I have pg13'ed up my swearing, I can't recall if there are kids around Topic 1: Boyfriend and Girlfriend call in to discuss criticisms to the Truth About Sex video. If you listen very closely at the beginning, even in the email they wrote to Mike, you can perfectly predict what the call will be about. They don't debate the facts very strongly. The girlfriend primarily has had a lot of sex with people, and the facts behind that were uncomfortable for her and fudged. "Mostly long term guys". But she claims to have been with one guy for 3 years, a few guys for about a year, other guys for six months, and had 25-30 sexual partners in a 10 year sexual history. The numbers simply didn't add up and she didn't want to talk about the fact that her flings far outnumbered her serious relationships. That is at least six years of single partner with 3-4 partners. Not including the six month guys who were not given a specific number. So that leaves 4 years of 21-26 guys (averaging 5-6 guys per year or about 2 months per) if you do the math based on what she told us. Edit: She said 15-20 so my conclusions were hasty and misinformed. Sorry about that. Anyways.. I just found that a bit telling. They were upset with the information and had a lot of history with repressive irrational sexual parents etc. etc. But they weren't forthcoming on the implications the information had on them that was actually distressing them. It was somewhat difficult to sit through waiting to get to the point. Haha a funny way I thought of it at the time was the imagining the girlfriend saying to Stef: "Are you basically calling me a whore?". That was the unspoken discomfort throughout the whole damn call that was never addressed and was fogged and avoided continuously. Overall I didn't feel like very much was accomplished in the call. I did like the clarity that the "numbers game" is certainly not deterministic and that self-knowledge can overcome the tendencies. But it was just so clear when the subject of having kids coming up that they were sort of spaced out to the realities of their decisions. She was early 30's and still hadn't made up her mind about having kids...I just got the sense they didn't take things very seriously yet were coming in with criticisms. Which seems like...i dunno not very UPB. I care a lot about this and must debate with you! Now I will hide all the pertinent facts and pretend to be laizze faire in my opinions! It seemed disingenuous and they were clearly uncomfortable discussing the personal ramifications the data had.. Topic 2: The validity of persuasion in Marketing. I felt like this conversation really kicked off when Stef started talking about make-up. I think people get too abstract when caring about the ethics of business etc. etc. Stef was on the nose when he said "Do you believe in the product?" "Are you lying to people about the product?" "Then you're fine, no moral issue here, fair play" The issue of manipulation and persuasion has sooooo much more to do with your personal life. The fact that this guy isn't comfortable with it is precisely why he needed to hear about makeup. If you aren't comfortable with manipulation and you're abstracting it into semi-abstractions you are missing the point. People are trying to manipulate you in real life, in your personal life. Figure that shit out and then worry about the minor ethics of marketing. Topic 3: Okay so this one got my goat and it is something I've been thinking about lately. So this guy calls in with what I believe is a very very common issue for Smarty von Smartypantses. Certainly myself included. The basic gist of it was "How do I build intimate relationships with people". And then he goes on and on detailing how he discusses his ideological beliefs with people. It's not friggen about ideology. Like really... And seriously if anyone is so inclined I'd love to hear some opinions on this because I could be totally wrong. Here's my mini rant: Screw rationality and screw your ideologies. In a lot of ways screw morality in any abstract sense. Because that isn't the damn point! It is a guideline and yes it is very important and interesting and useful and lifesaving and world saving. But talking about honesty isn't honesty! Talking about Anarchy isn't Anarchy! Talking about morality isn't morality! Get out of your damn head! It was sooo clear and I was so happy when Stef asked this guy to change his tone. The endless drone of the smug superior intellectual with his cherished ideas but no emotional connection to them. This guy had nooooooo emotion, no passion, no spark, no integrity in the emotional sense, no connection to the topics he was discussing in any gut level. It was all abstractions! There was no "how do I appear to others" from him. Understanding how you appear to others is friggen intimacy! Your beliefs are only going to ring true to other people if you actually do it! He had no emotional connection to his ideologies that he was fond of discussing. He was setting a standard of "People just aren't being intimate with me" "What is wrong with them?" It was pure projection! He wasn't being intimate. He wasn't being honest. And he got all bitchy and snippy at the end when that was pointed out. Good lord did I find that irritating...I'm clearly still irritated TLDR: Caller 1 was offended and not forthright. They likely experience a fear of commitment and haven't processed a lot around the topic yet. This was also indicated by their traveling lifestyle and unsurity around children. They are not emotionally comfortable with commitment. Caller 2 needed to develop emotional knowledge about manipulation in his personal life before abstracting it into business. He seemed like a fine fellow but a bit too stuck in abstractions and not understanding his concerns were because he understands manipulation on an intellectual level, but not at an emotional or social level. Caller 3 needed to connect emotionally to his beliefs and was experiencing a lack of intimacy because he's stuck in his head. He did not have a great grasp of how he appeared to others and was placing blame on other people without analyzing his own behavior. He has not confirmed his ideological beliefs empirically and thus comes off as disconnected emotionally in his conversations. He isn't truly certain about his beliefs from an emotional standpoint. This manifests in poor connection with others. Anyways! Thanks for reading if you made it this far. What did you think about the call in show? Any thoughts on my rambly thoughts above? Have a great day and I look forward to a discussion or to hear others thoughts 3
Matthew Ed Moran Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Just commenting on the first callers: If you re-listen you will notice she actually claims she had 15-20 sexual partners over ten years. She did sound like she was uncomfortable sharing personal information to me. She didn't sound very confident or clear about the questions she was answering. After Stef asked one question she even said "woah" before going on to answer it. I'm not sure exactly what "woah" means, but it does seem like a hesitation to be honest and open. I thought it was odd because she specifically made her issue with the Truth About Sex presentation about her personal history, but then seemed reluctant to share details. I do empathize with the vulnerability it requires on her part, but I'm not sure I sympathize with her reluctance. To be honest, her thoughts seemed like a bit of a mess to me. If it was not about the facts in the first place, but how the facts hit her emotionally, you'd think that would have been brought up at the forefront. But their issue was phrased as if it was about the facts, or the interpretation of the facts. Stef shot that down pretty quickly, and then they seemed to change what their issue was. Maybe they were totally clueless before going in what their issue actually was, but it seemed dishonest to me how they initially phrased their question. I also was confused and a a bit personally offended when they were talking about the male caller's mom while laughing about her relationship with cats or something. I was confused exactly what was funny, and why he said his mom was "amazing." Really confusing to me. But as someone who was raised by a similarly dysfunctional mom, I felt angry when they took the tone they did. His childhood seems to be very tragic, but I didn't hear sadness or anger or anything like that - instead I heard laughs from him and his girlfriend. Kinda pissed me off. But like I said it was confusing to me, so perhaps I didn't understand what they were laughing about. From how they talked about their parents and their justification for not wanting children, I formed the impression that they were pretty lacking in self-knowledge. But kudos to them for at least accepting a lot of Stef's points - they could have been defensive and less open to counter-criticism. I remember her saying Stef had a point when he tore apart their justifications for not wanting children, so I think that is courageous. But overall I think they were a bit audacious to call in as critics. I think it would have been more interesting as a personal call, maybe to discuss the female caller's history with religion, rather than a discussion of whether Stef had the facts right. Seemed a bit disingenuous to phrase their issue as they did. Thanks for your thoughts and the post! You mentioning this call gave me something to listen to last night before going to bed 2
Eh Steve Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 Thanks for the reply Oh was it 15-20? My bad...lemme recheck that before I go spitting out bad math and making wrong conclusions :X My apologies if I am wrong about that. My interpretation of the mom issue for the male caller.. I also had a horrible mother (who didn't really...) But my interpretation was they were so certain of her negative qualities and were being sarcastic about how great she was. I don't know a whole lot about the emotional implications of sarcasm vs. being more blunt/honest about your opinions. I'm interested to hear you found their sarcasm problematic, though I'm not certain you picked up on the sarcasm. Sarcasm may be a defense of laughing off tragedy without facing it fully, I'm not really sure myself. The sarcasm to me played into a bit of their overall intellectual approach without the emotional depth around the topic. Often in this situation when people laugh about tragedy Stef will say "It's not funny", I am a bit curious about his approach to sarcasm compared to nervous laughter. Lloyd Demause did a lot of this laughing off tragedy stuff in his various interviews with Stef that never felt quite right to me. I also had a lightening of opinion around them towards the end of the call when they considered the pro arguments around having children after having the over-population and other concerns taken down. I think that was the main issue in my experience with these callers, which they worked on at the end, was they were so certain in their beliefs. Once they were flexible to the data and flexible to arguments that contradicted their beliefs and actions I felt better about them. To me it seems crazy to come in going "I have this messed up history but I have these conclusions I'm very certain about". Without the certainty you've dealt with your issues emotionally I find the idea of being certain about conclusions very unsettling.
J. D. Stembal Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Regarding the "numbers" issue, most women exist in a quasi-moral plane where they are empowered by sex positive messages, and simultaneously fear being judged for it. Interestingly, in my experience, it is only men who are actually put on trial for sexual misuse of their genitals. In my early twenties, I recall being shamed by women on more than one occasion for being sexually indiscriminate. At the same time, I didn't closely consider the number of partners a women has had, and if I ever asked, the question was always deflected, minimized or guessed at. You can easily see this tactic used by Dina in the call. Stefan even asks, "Why so hazy all of a sudden?" When they move on to discussing polyamory, Dina takes the lead in describing her feelings and impressions of it, but when cornered by questions, suggests that her boyfriend knows more about it - ask him. I don't know where this fear of judged as a slut comes from, but I don't think it is generally directed at women by men. Perhaps it comes from within the collective female psyche. I know a mother of two that freely admits sleeping with over ninety people, male and female. As far as I know, her and her baby daddy are still introducing new female partners into the bedroom. Before she had children, was she as candid with her sexual history? I wonder.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 "But my interpretation was they were so certain of her negative qualities and were being sarcastic about how great she was." I actually re-listened since it was posted on Youtube. I am not sure he was being sarcastic. What he appeared to actually be saying was that "he has an amazing cat woman in his life," referring to his mother. So it seems his mother is in his life and that he thinks she is amazing. Tell me if you interpret it differently (the oddity of it is a bit confusing in itself, but I think he was being serious). I have time-stamped the part in the link below. https://youtu.be/z4rrKt7OPFk?t=35m48s
Eh Steve Posted April 21, 2015 Author Posted April 21, 2015 https://youtu.be/z4rrKt7OPFk?t=34m22s The conversation seems to start more around here a minute and a half back. The sarcasm I was picking up on here is more around him mocking the idea that his mother would have new boyfriends. As the conversation continues he talks about how DeFOOing came to him at a young age which is basically saying he disliked his parents at a young age. The amazing cat woman thing....I think if he was alone Stef would have been like...wait what? But he wanted to get onto the girlfriend and move the topic forward. The emotional tenor in his voice definitely lacks his prior sarcasm and does come off with like glowing reverance, which is bizarre because it doesn't match his previous tone or what seems to be his actual opinion. I prefer not to throw things off as "oh that was just an accident", but there is something there which doesn't make sense. I don't imagine he likes his mother but like most people probably still has some issues to work out there. I also picked this up a bit at the beginning where I linked where he rapid fires through his mothers divorce and later dating. A lot of the problem I had with this couple was that sort of lack of appreciating the depth or importance of the subject matter. But I can't say that is a hard and fast rule and one I know for sure I'm right about. Just seems to be how these subjects struck me. What do you think if you start back a minute further?
PatrickC Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 The emotional tenor in his voice definitely lacks his prior sarcasm and does come off with like glowing reverance, which is bizarre because it doesn't match his previous tone or what seems to be his actual opinion. I prefer not to throw things off as "oh that was just an accident", but there is something there which doesn't make sense. I don't imagine he likes his mother but like most people probably still has some issues to work out there. This could be way too much psycologising, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. It seemed to me that the offended party among them was her. He was there in an attempt to defend her disagreement with Stefan. If it's the case that he is defending her from bad decisions she has made, then it's entirely plausible that he might then dissociate from his true self when discussing his mother. Hence the emotional disconnect you mentioned above. In many ways he has a lot to be concerned with regarding the number of sexual partners she has had in her past. In regards to the long term future of their relationship. But like us guys are so prone to do when faced with losing access to some pussy. We can obfuscate, minimise and dismiss those concerns. Alternatively women are prone to the claim of being different from all the other women out there. MGTOW's sardonically refer to these women as 'unicorns'. Is she a unicorn? Perhaps, but I think if I were her boyfriend I'd want to see more introspection from her and less defensivness around this topic.
Recommended Posts