Interesting conversation that shows the limits of the purely descriptive, non-moral, approach to gender discourse.

At this stage everyone honest knows that men and women only create functional pair-bonds and families under specific moral circumstances, very different from the consent-only sexual free-for-all we have now. If our society is to survive, we need to re-moralize. There is literally nothing else interesting we need to describe about the problem at hand.

However, proposing we re-moralize seems uncool, moral language applied to sex “codes as low status”, so people are forced to just “describe” the same simple problem over and over and over again using different words, from different angles, never-coming to a conclusion.

Moreover, since everyone knows moralism is needed (even if they don’t want to provide it), each side of the gender discourse is incentivized to “describe” the problem of modern sex in language that insinuates a need for moral action from the other side. No one wants to admit action is needed and no one wants to speak in terms of morals, so frame is never conceded and what results is the most passive aggressive game of moral “hot potato” imaginable.

“Hey, Kate why don’t you hold the moral hot potato !”

“No thank you Walt, why don’t you hold the moral hot potato instead!”