Alain de Botton

Hi, I'd like to try start a conversation on Romanticism and progressive values around sex and relationships. Alain de Botton has some excellent videos which give a good introduction to the problems with Romanticism:

Despite being on the same side of most issues, I sometimes find myself disagreeing with progressive and feminist types online, especially on topics of sex and relationships, and especially in venues where there are a lot of Americans. There are these Romantic views which many American progressives hold, identify with, and dress up in academic feminist language, but which I consider to be more American than progressive.

American religious conservatives have similar views but explain them in terms of sin and Christian morality. I would say the main ones are:

• "Pure" love is asexual, and this is the greatest ideal, loving someone regardless of sexual attraction. One sees this a lot in Disney films. Sexual compatibility is not important, because true love "just happens".

• Sexuality, particularly male sexuality, is a ravening corrupting monster from which the innocent and good must be protected. It's not a normal, happy, healthy part of life as a sexual being, its objectifying, imposed, destructive involuntary sexualization by default. Finding porn as a kid, for example, isn't a journey of growth, curiosity and self discovery, it's a damaging loss of innocence. I think this is the influence of Puritanism which over hundreds of years has leached out of its original religious context and into the wider cultural background.

• Relationships are not tedious, not work, should not require sacrifice or compromise. Any problems mean that the love wasn't real, the partner is no good, and the relationship should be abandoned. Love will last forever if real. I'm sure that's in the middle of the mood board of whoever designs Barbie's Dream Wedding^tm doll sets. and many other subs believe this.

• Sexual attraction is disrespectful and degrading, particularly to women. Wanting to have sex with someone based off their physical appearance somehow demeans, diminishes and disempowers them. Sexual attraction is thus presumed predatory, gross and inappropriate. "Loving" someone for their "personality" is OK, though, it's OK to be obsessive and possessive if that's the explanation.

• The correct purpose of sex is to support emotional intimacy in monogamous relationships, and to produce children. Sex for its own sake, for pleasure, outside of monogamy is error, sin, selfishness, reckless, irresponsible or otherwise "problematic". Emotional intimacy for men is only to be found in sexual relationships, and so must be prioritized there. Transactional sex is not "meaningful" because it is based on pleasure and not on creating emotional intimacy.

• Sexual fulfilment is not a worthwhile, dignified goal. Wanting to have children, start a business, climb a mountain or set a sporting record are acceptable personal goals. Wanting to experience ones kinky sexual fantasies is less noble and does not deserve society's support.

• Sex is not a need like healthcare or electricity, it's not that important to living a worthwhile life, and it is not of concern if society creates conditions for the broadest range of people to live good sexual lives. Sex education should thus be about preventing sex, and laws should limit any kinds of sexuality which might be disfavored or potentially troublesome, rather than protecting the broadest possible variety of consenting sexual behavior.

• Porn and sex work are bad because what they provide for are not needs, so there's no valuable positive purpose to balance their negatives. This last is also common outside of America, as seen in Britain and Australia's porn laws, or the Nordic Model on sex work.

Obviously I don't think all this leads to good sex or good relationships, is not very progressive or inclusive, and will not be a blueprint for a flourishing, happy society. But at the point where I'm disagreeing with someone, it's not usually the time or place to get into their entire worldview around sex, or Romanticisms role in shaping it. It's too big a diversion from whatever the topic is. So I figured I'd make a thread just for that, I'd especially like to hear the opinions of other Europeans about talking sexual politics with Americans online.

In case it needs saying, I'm generally on board with the vast majority of progressive and feminist issues, give money and time to feminist causes, but have little to say in discussions except "me too".

Recently I've been reading the social philosopher Alain de Botton's Religion for Atheists, in which he argues pretty persuasively that humanism/atheism/freethought/et al are suffering for having thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Starting from the premise that there is no "supernatural", he proceeds to demonstrate all the ways that supernaturally-based religions succeed and flourish at the cultural, institutional and political levels by appealing to human emotion rather than to human reason. He also suggests ways that freethinkers can adapt those methods to their own ends.

Well worth reading if you're interested in the potentials of non-theistic religion and similar topics.

I remember going through the FAQ and being surprised to see that Sam Harris isn't as highly regarded as I thought? What about Alain de Botton? Also very popular with his YouTube channel but I vaguely remember him getting into a yelling match with some journalist or blogger.