A lot here. I'm going to focus on relationship liberalism. I think you are correct that there is a monopsony of power that will influence any decisions after a relationship. But even before there is the possibility that being sexually enamorated by someone even before determining if one chooses to be in a relationship can lead to assenting to what the partner might actually resent, or which they might agree to before a relationship and then balk after forming a relationship.
First of all I think that sexual desire and emotional satisfaction are often confused to be equal. Way back a 1000 years ago in an ethics class at Phillips Exeter's summer program threw a book at me (paperback) and hit squarely in the nose for suggesting this, yelling at me, "all you think love is is lust." Actually I mean the opposite. I've had many satisfactory and very fulfilling emotional relationships with members of both sexes that had nothing to do with sex. On the other hand, I've given into sexual desire and attempted very unemotionally fulfilling relationships. It is better (in my opinion) not to base relationships on sexuality whatsoever and on whether there is a bond that is based on wanting to be with and learn from and share with the other whether sex ever becomes a part of that relationship. Sex, i do not think can be the basis for an emotional bond that is necessarily going to fulfill personal needs, but the converse might sometimes be true, or sometimes might not be sexually fulfilling. The problem with relationship liberalism (and maybe I misinterpret its definition) is that it is about sexually liberated relationships, or requests for a participate in sexual acts the other may not necessarily enjoy, but in some way relates to sexual requests---it doesn't matter if it is upfront, or never known (cheating) if the prime focus of the relationship is sexual rather emotional. Sex is a purely biological (whether the intent is to procreate or not) and while emotional fulfillment is not totally unaligned with biology, the individual needs that any person needs are much more varied than just sex. But if sex is the determinant factor in establishing or defining factor and other needs are not being met (intellectual companionship, compassion and attempting to understand each other rather than agree with each, the ability to listen and not demand, common bonds of experience--not growing up with similar backgrounds--but experiences that have developed personalities and shaped their very thoughts, ideals, and needs); for instance, my wife and I are grew up in differing backgrounds but connected because our personalities had both been formed by feelings of oppression by our educational system that we sensed rejected our strengths and tried to conform our we learned. All of this are more powerful means of formulating enduring bonds than bonds that attempt to develop only around sexual desires and relationship liberalism does nothing to fulfill our more important. We can have sex with no bonds, but it cannot create the bonds necessary for mutual fulfillment.
One of the most important bonds in my life was formed with a man I never met but he was kind enough to respond to reply to a 'fan" letter about a book he wrote and we continued to write throughout our lifetime and tell each other our feelings, thoughts and desires way beyond the original book that incited my initial letter to him. His name is Paul Ehrlich, a college professor with a bestselling book and I was a high school dropout at the time--it could have simply ended with his reply, but it developed into something much more rewarding.
So I guess I am attempting to cut sexually based relationships not out of the equation, but as the basis that attempt to exclude relationships. Because then relationship liberalism or relationship totalitarianism or relationship equality are all structured around the sexual relationship.
Regarding race and IQ, I read The Bell Curve almost 30 years ago, and it estimate IQs at white 103, Asian 108, Jew 113; Asian is 60% of humanity. This does not seem like a good platform for white supremacy, or minority supremacy of any kind except, ah, Jewish... One might measure intelligence as the number and quality of distinctions one can make; why wouldn't scientists be interested in race and IQ? Practical reasons might include intelligence increase research; figuring out that lead paint was bad was important.
A lot here. I'm going to focus on relationship liberalism. I think you are correct that there is a monopsony of power that will influence any decisions after a relationship. But even before there is the possibility that being sexually enamorated by someone even before determining if one chooses to be in a relationship can lead to assenting to what the partner might actually resent, or which they might agree to before a relationship and then balk after forming a relationship.
First of all I think that sexual desire and emotional satisfaction are often confused to be equal. Way back a 1000 years ago in an ethics class at Phillips Exeter's summer program threw a book at me (paperback) and hit squarely in the nose for suggesting this, yelling at me, "all you think love is is lust." Actually I mean the opposite. I've had many satisfactory and very fulfilling emotional relationships with members of both sexes that had nothing to do with sex. On the other hand, I've given into sexual desire and attempted very unemotionally fulfilling relationships. It is better (in my opinion) not to base relationships on sexuality whatsoever and on whether there is a bond that is based on wanting to be with and learn from and share with the other whether sex ever becomes a part of that relationship. Sex, i do not think can be the basis for an emotional bond that is necessarily going to fulfill personal needs, but the converse might sometimes be true, or sometimes might not be sexually fulfilling. The problem with relationship liberalism (and maybe I misinterpret its definition) is that it is about sexually liberated relationships, or requests for a participate in sexual acts the other may not necessarily enjoy, but in some way relates to sexual requests---it doesn't matter if it is upfront, or never known (cheating) if the prime focus of the relationship is sexual rather emotional. Sex is a purely biological (whether the intent is to procreate or not) and while emotional fulfillment is not totally unaligned with biology, the individual needs that any person needs are much more varied than just sex. But if sex is the determinant factor in establishing or defining factor and other needs are not being met (intellectual companionship, compassion and attempting to understand each other rather than agree with each, the ability to listen and not demand, common bonds of experience--not growing up with similar backgrounds--but experiences that have developed personalities and shaped their very thoughts, ideals, and needs); for instance, my wife and I are grew up in differing backgrounds but connected because our personalities had both been formed by feelings of oppression by our educational system that we sensed rejected our strengths and tried to conform our we learned. All of this are more powerful means of formulating enduring bonds than bonds that attempt to develop only around sexual desires and relationship liberalism does nothing to fulfill our more important. We can have sex with no bonds, but it cannot create the bonds necessary for mutual fulfillment.
One of the most important bonds in my life was formed with a man I never met but he was kind enough to respond to reply to a 'fan" letter about a book he wrote and we continued to write throughout our lifetime and tell each other our feelings, thoughts and desires way beyond the original book that incited my initial letter to him. His name is Paul Ehrlich, a college professor with a bestselling book and I was a high school dropout at the time--it could have simply ended with his reply, but it developed into something much more rewarding.
So I guess I am attempting to cut sexually based relationships not out of the equation, but as the basis that attempt to exclude relationships. Because then relationship liberalism or relationship totalitarianism or relationship equality are all structured around the sexual relationship.
I’m never gonna use Notes but would love these roundups occasionally.
Regarding race and IQ, I read The Bell Curve almost 30 years ago, and it estimate IQs at white 103, Asian 108, Jew 113; Asian is 60% of humanity. This does not seem like a good platform for white supremacy, or minority supremacy of any kind except, ah, Jewish... One might measure intelligence as the number and quality of distinctions one can make; why wouldn't scientists be interested in race and IQ? Practical reasons might include intelligence increase research; figuring out that lead paint was bad was important.
Lead more generally, and heavy metals even more generally than that, cost us an awful lot IQ over the decades. Leaded gasoline, oops.