What To Do When Your Boyfriend, Who Is A Horny Anthropomorphic Sword, Is Stalking You (With Meghan Murphy) (early access, ad-free, extended cut)

JK Rowling’s didn’t claim that males oppressed her in that essay. She described the vulnerability of women in shared spaces with self ID. She also disclosed that she had been abused in her first marriage long before she was the author of a mega best seller. Money, or rather earning a lot of money later in life, doesn’t mean that a person is inoculated from being abused.

“They are free to talk, but others are free to criticize” OK, but same rules apply to anyone critizing you. We need one set of rules. I say: unless they are seriosuly making a plan to committ violent acts or actually admitting to having committed them (as opposed to talk which is vague enough to be interpreted as bragging or dirty talk or something else), then what a circle of men or circle of women say among themselves is no one’s business.

The way Megan and Katie talked about Canadian vs Latin American men is how every straight person should feel free to talk about the opposite sex when they are with their same-sex friends. We all objectify other people, because we all want and need them do things for us. It is just a matter of finding the right time and place to have those free exchanges of genuine desire. Circles of same-sex friends for straight people are sacred places. Their rules. Their way. These are not the places for anti-discrimination policy.

Great interview, a really interesting concept of, as the hosts have talked about before, going back and re-reporting a big story and seeing what has changed. Still, I admit to more than a little schadenfreude that the tired oppressor/oppressed template that fuels woke bullshit was used against one of its preistesses. It was the same mixed feelings I had when JK Rowling got, well, rolled by her fellow pseudo-religious zealots. I agreed with her points but found it difficult to side with a woman who insists that males oppress her filthy rich self. (An idea that, as Katie pinted out, has aged especially poorly given current events in the middle east). Ultimately, feminists lately, the ones that are burdened with the curse of heterosexuality, they just remind me of the churchy girls of my rural youth: Men, with their evil penises, are sinners. Also, I keep hearing Bindel held up as an example. I listened to her on Andrew Doyle's podcast and her ideology just sounds unhinged.

Klondike

It'd be great if she did, Paglia is pretty reasonable but instead I get JK Rowling after the mob used the same Franfurt school BS to come for her as she had employed on "The Patriarchy".

Klondike

This was a really good interview! I didn’t find Meghan or Katie’s arguments re prostitution and surrogacy particularly compelling but then they didn’t have much time for such a complex topic

Brilliant episode, Katie is a great long-form interviewer. Let’s have more like this.

Gabi Brahm

Wrong, so wrong. Great episode! So courageous, insightful and illuminating. Go Katie/Meghan!

Gabi Brahm

Thought that was interesting word choice too.

What does "Use Porn" mean here?

Manzell Blakeley

I would only note that the notion that small business is somehow always good for workers but large business always exploits is a vast oversimplification. Large business are often easier to regulate for one thing. I can think of a lot of situations, porn would probably be one, where I'd prefer to work for a large business that was identifiable, had accountants, regulators, named firm officers etc than just some dudes who ran something out of their house. Executives might be bastards but ill take them over the mobsters Linda Lovelace had to deal with. For that matter I have a family member who has a small retail food business. If you gave me the choice of working for them or Starbucks I think I'd choose Starbucks. I mean at Starbucks you can get health insurance...... Actually as Ive moved left economically I've become more favorable to large business precisely because of the regulatory/managerial advantages. When I was a crazy anarcho-capitalist libertarian I was always up for the new guy to crush the old line firm...... now I kind of think keeping the old line behemoths is not always bad. Anyway, not black and white is all I'm saying.

Been a BAR subscriber for about a year, and this is the first episode that I just couldn’t be bothered finishing. I’d heard a lot of good and bad things said about Meghan Murphy, and it was sort of interesting to finally hear her perspective first-hand, but beyond that novelty value she just has very little to say. It all comes across as intellectually vacuous self-justification for her own shallow, unpleasant instincts, and after her take on pronouns, I had zero interest slogging through another half hour of her talking. The culture war has a bad habit of elevating sour mediocrities to the forefront just for having opinions that piss off the correct tribe, and that seems to be all Murphy has going for her. I can’t see any more value seeking out her views than I would in interviewing, like, Dave Rubin.

Julius Black

Is it just me or does Meagan Murphy give off Camille Paglia vibes?

It's noteworthy that these sex work markets specifically tend to consolidate--porn was monopolized by MindGeek, brothels are monopolized/oligopolized in Germany (and Aus, I think, but I'd have to check). When markets consolidate, lower ranking employees--like Amazon's warehouse workers or entry-level pornstars or even Uber drivers--are pushed beyond their compensated boundaries or underpaid. It's not fair that a warehouse employee can't take a pee break, and it's definitely not fair that a brand new pornstar who said "Only women" is told she has to do anal with a male actor or pay thousands for the set since the producers "can't shoot" if she refuses. I think it's unproductive to debate whether porn should be legal; it would be impossible to prohibit at this point. Furthermore, I dislike debating the morality of sex work. Some people like doing it, and many more people globally are exploited. The markets will continue to exist, so the goal should be to minimize harm. Debating "but these women like it!" is inane and meaningless if the concern is murdered streetwalkers. Again, no one will erase the industries, so I think it's equally stupid to talk about completely getting rid of pornography. (I dislike idealism in general.) Anyway, these markets need significantly greater protections and oversight, and a longitudinal study on the mental health of porn actors and pornographers would inform whether compensation is meeting the full cost of employment. (To wit, just like people who work dangerous or physically demanding jobs make more to compensate for body wear-and-tear, prostitutes and porn actors should probably make more if they'll need antidepressants and thirty years of therapy, particularly if we incorporate the difficulty of finding non-sex work employment and leaving the industry.) I want to note that full legalization is probably NOT the solution for prostitution (or surrogacy) as evidenced by Germany's huge issues with pimps and brothel consolidation which also gets reflected in their spikes in sex trafficking. I personally like the Nordic model since it tries to minimize supply of sex workers despite decriminalization and simultaneously works on social mores and penalizing johns to ultimately heavily mitigate demand. The social sanction against purchasing sex is an important component in decreasing demand just like telling people cigarettes are gross cancer sticks that make you smell bad was a good way to prevent new smokers.

I think Gordon’s comment of Jesse’s “perpetual smugness” boomerangs and smacks him in the face.

LTO

Just read the review of Jesse's book in The Nation, by Jeremy Gordon. He pans the book and implies that Jesse is a transphobic and racist troll making bank from like minded rubes. I used to love The Nation.

Maybe I'm wrong but I took that claim to mean that 1. The changes in the world are now making people who would have called themselves"radical feminists" 20 years ago bedfellows (no pun intended) with old school conservatives. 2. Ideas are weirdly cross pollinating thus scrambling everything. Its hard to call yourself a radical feminist if the only place that wants to hear a talk from you is the Heritage Foundation.

I found Meghan Murphy’s claim that she’s not only not now, but *has never been*, a radical feminist to be a bit disingenuous and like she’s trying to rework her past a bit as she’s politically migrated away from the left. She runs a website that has articulated a lot of rad fem positions over the years. I’ve definitely heard her distinguish herself from “liberal feminists” in the way that many radical feminists do. I was at the SPL event Katie mentioned in the interview and it was hosted by WoLF which certainly bills itself as being a radical feminist organization. She says she’s not a radical feminist now because she “doesn’t want to tear down the system” but I’ve heard her say things that do seem to indicate she wanted “the system” turned upside down. One thing that I recall specifically is a dismissive attitude in a couple of her interviews towards women who are married to men. Flatly saying she wished women wouldn’t get married? That’s wanting to significantly change the way society has been structured for a long time now. I actually have a somewhat similar evolution as Katie and Meghan discussed- no longer fully embracing the label of feminist or pretty much any thing so I don’t make this observation out of being upset that she’s moved away from radical feminism. Just more of an observation that I don’t think she’s being truly honest. I watched her Rogan interview. I don’t think she’s dumb. I don’t think she’s inarticulate. But she does seem to be going through a big change and might not be the most articulate about a change that is still in progress. I had to wonder if her laugh on the Rogan show was nervousness, which is rather understandable given the enormous size of that platflorm. She seemed less nervous with Katie.

"Misgendering" isn't the same as bullying though. I want pronouns to be sex-based, because I don't want to reinforce gender stereotypes. Why is my personal preference for how pronouns are used crueler than the gender-based pronoun preference? Both have implications for society. My compromise with this is I personally either avoid using pronouns for people who have preferred pronouns that differ from their sex, or I use "they" since the "singular they" can be used for either sex. I don't go out my way to rub the undesired pronoun in people's faces. But I don't like the idea that "she=feminine" and "he=masculine." I don't want to imply that by using "she" I'm putting you in the feminine box, and by using "he" I'm putting you in the masculine box. My use only refers to being female or male, nothing to do with personality/style. That's why I care about using sexed pronouns.

Usually a fan of Katie's work, but this interview was too softball. A lot of anecdotal claims whose veracity and significance was not challenged. Also, Katie seems to say she doesn't misgender people not to give them right to victimhood or to come off as a bully. Aren't there better reasons not to be a bully, like, because bullying/insulting people is morally wrong?

Well said. I've been an expat most of my adult life, and she really gave off expat bubble vibes. Her lack of insightfulness on gender and feminism considering that's what she's devoted her life to really demonstrates a low digit IQ.

Michael

In the 1.5 years that I’ve been listening to this podcast, nothing has annoyed me as much as listening to MM rambling on about machismo in Mexico while trying to not “offend” Mexicans. If you’re living in Sayulita or Tulum and hanging with an international crowd, just say that you don’t know enough about the complexity of the country you’re in. Mexico is in North America and the patriarchal system is real. That’s why it’s useful to understand concepts instead of just dismissing silly older feminists insisting that we repeat their words.

Yeah--I'd love to hear them interview someone with a firmer grasp on the arguments. I know there was a brief "counterpoint" interview with Julie Bindel a while ago; would be nice to get a longer interview with her.

I totally agree. I honestly felt kind of creeped out listening to them talk (I'm a really big Katie fan normally and I usually think she comes across as a decent, thoughtful person). It felt a bit like they were mocking transwomen in general which isn't typical on the show at all. Yes, of course, a news article referencing how rare it is for women to commit violent crimes and then leaving out that the perpetrator was trans is on its face ridiculous. But like........that's why you're a dick to all transpeople?? You don't want to use people's pronouns and chosen names to protect against (rare) and poorly reported/edited news stories? Or totally fringe legal cases?? Does not seem like a logical conclusion to me. I'm really grateful for a level-headed discussion about sex vs. gender and the implications of AMABs or natal-males or whatever having access to historically (and for good-reason) all-female spaces. But nothing that MM said was, to me, a compelling case for not respecting people's chosen names and pronouns. She just comes across as bitter and mean. And, for the record, I think it's stupid she got kicked off Twitter.

Hey Michelle—do you have an examples of articles like that? Just listening to the episode now and I came on here to see if anyone had examples of the kinds of news articles Megan and Katie were talking about—specifically the ones about trans women committing violent crimes. I totally agree that would be an absolutely ridiculous detail to leave out, *especially* if the article mentioned how rare it is for women to commit violent crimes 🤯. I tried to google it but it's hard to google a non-mention of something.

While I do use people’s preferred pronouns, I was glad to hear MM’s view on that issue expressed, because it does make me sick to my stomach to see news stories about “women” committing violent crimes. I know that women can be violent, and can be sexual predators, but I think we all know that it is far far less common and by and large a male problem. It’s unfair not to clarify that in a news article, for example. While I agree with Katie’s point that “misgendering” is unnecessarily hostile most of the time, it’s not lost on me that despite Katie using preferred pronouns in order to not be “the bad guy,” she’s still “the bad guy” to much if that community, because ultimately it seems that many activists will call you bigoted unless you believe in your bones that TWAW on a literal level. So I’m not sure how much good it really does unless you keep your actual views about the issue quiet, and it’s assumed that you’re fully on board.

She had a great interview on this pod as well

DrSmart

I always appreciate the willingness of Katie and BAR to have open conversations with people they disagree with. That said, MM's obtuseness around pronouns grinds my gears. At least trying is literally one of the easiest ways to not be an asshole, provided pronouns stay within he/she/they and are not some fantastical TikTok demilibragender bullshit. I think the rainbow explosion of gender is a farce that intentionally seeks to fatigue straights and cis people, but rather than collapse into consent it's causing a backlash, and I think MM is part of it. The legal example she gave is such an edge case and I think we can examine its ramifications by looking at a comparable example with disabled people The ADA, unfortunately, has been abused more than a handful of times to bring personal injury lawsuits against business and other entities for non-compliance for the sake of personal gain. The existence, however, of unscrupulous lawyers and plaintiffs does NOT negate the real need for the ADA. Similarly, a person abusing a gender-affirming law does not mean the law that the principle from which the law was formed is itself invalid. If I were interviewing MM, I would ask her what would do if, after a woman having introduced themselves to her, she suspected they were trans. Would she insist on misgendering them? Would she press them to admit they are trans? Why is she entitled to know? So much of what she says are edge cases. Just how many times are the statistics about violent crime and abuse by woman being skewed by including transwomen?

I agree. She didn't really have good arguments other than pointing to anecdotes and appealing to emotion. I also thought her comment about Mexican vs Canadian men was revealing. You want to ditch gender stereotypes but degrade people for doing so? Her philosophy seems to be "It's feminism when I, a woman, like it." I also think the intentional misgendering is kind of cruel when it's earnest for lots of people. Honestly she feels like the worst kind of synthesis between radical feminism and the alt right.

As another person critical of porn, sex work and surrogacy from a feminist viewpoint, I’m disappointed that Meghan Murphy didn’t provide better justifications for her opinions. Someone like Katie is in favour of these things because some women are happy to do them. I agree that some women are happy to do sex work. However I am not sure if it is possible for that industry to be legal without exploitation. For example in Germany legalizing prostitution has led to a huge increase in trafficking because there simply are not enough German women who want to take the job, to keep up with the demand.

But isn’t that what one does when one does no agree with a new norm but does not want to be maligned for not agreeing with it? Are you accusing Katie of a thought crime? 😂

Excellent interview! Well done to both for having an intellectual disagreement without talking over one another. I always find the pornography argument intriguing. It always views the topic through an incredibly simplistic lens. Bad men taking advantage of women in order to make money from other bad men. It never takes into account all the other parts to the machine. What about women who watch porn? What does she think about women who make porn for women? If women are being financially exploited then what does she think about the male participants who get paid so much less? It’s funny how opponents of porn insist that it is nothing to do prudishness and all about mental and physical well-being of the women involved. This would be more convincing if they applied the same principles to the women working in the coal mines in West Virginia, and passing away with black lung at 55, or to the women who end up with crippling arthritis after cleaning houses for thirty years. Apparently those women don’t need advocates! The solution in porn is not to one dimensionally demonize men or to take away the autonomy of women. The solution is to identify the abuses and regulate the industry so that those abuses don’t happen! This has been happening recently with the crack down on pornhub amd the legislation regarding revenge porn. Anyway. A very thought provoking interview. Well done!

Dear Katie and Meghan, I listened to Jon Ronson’s “Last Days of August” podcast around the time there was a lot of news about the traumatic brain injuries suffered by football players. I left that podcast thinking that porn and football were both industries where two individuals doing the same work can have completely different outcomes. Any two porn performers may incur different levels of emotional stress from any given performance; any two football players may incur different long term hard for any given hit. These differ from conventionally dangerous jobs like coal mining where the spectrum of physical harm incurred from an accident is pretty narrow. If a mine collapses on any two people, their injuries are likely to be similar. While I suspect that I am more of a capitalist than either of you, I think grouping industries like porn and football together - industries where the potential harm of any day’s work is aggravated by the specific individual’s past - might lead to an interesting path to thinking about the ethics of different type of labor.

Also, I didn’t play much into the game, but I don’t think Eric can change into a sword, he’s just a blacksmith who makes actual swords. And is comically insulting from the start, so I just found him mildly amusing. Anyone finding him traumatising or upsetting in any way needs to stop playing dating games as they’re silly and over-the-top anyway.

Wowowowow

I downloaded Boyfriend Dungeon to play last week as it’s free on Xbox game pass. I thought it would be fun but to be honest it was tedious. I didn’t mind the dungeon parts, where you’re attacked by representations of issues from your psyche ( your character is attacked by things like mobile phones), but the dating game part was dull and repetitive and you’re obviously supposed to be drooling over the sexy boys with exaggerated personality characteristics. But the worst part was constantly having to text on your in-game mobile phone! It’s normal, boring text chats that you have to complete to get through the game. Plus, you have to keep texting mom about how you’re fine, several times a day, so I understand why one of the options at the beginning (besides pronouns) is whether you want someone called Mom to text you. It seemed strange to me and I guess it was aimed at people with mothers they didn’t like, but Mom really shouldn’t be in the game to begin with as she doesn’t add anything. I also downloaded Spiritfarer, that was a slow start but I’m really into now.

Wowowowow

The only reason Katie uses ppls preferred pronouns is because doing otherwise would give them the victimhood upperhand? Am I understanding this correctly? This is manipulative and cynical.

I agree. I think it’s time Katie and Jesse read “Material Girls” by Kathleen Stock. It puts the entire biology vs. Gender thing into such clear focus, and also gives a super overview of how transgender politics evolved. I know Jesse says he doesn’t want to go too much into the trans issue, but he should be informed and this is the best book I’ve read on the subject so far.

Is it just me or does Meghan Murphy come across as an airhead? Of course that doesn't mean it was right of Twitter to ban her or I even disagree with many of her beliefs, but she doesn't seem all that bright.

Michael

Isn’t using “they” for someone who identifies as “she/her” misgendering? I wonder if people think it’s better than saying he for men who identify as she/her.

I feel like pronouns are similar to names too. Like you tell Josh that he looks more like a Bob so you’re just gonna call him Bob from then on. At least behind his back. That would be weird.

I've always been of the opinion that pronouns are like when someone changes their name and that respecting that change is at least the ground floor to actually be able to discuss things with them on some level. By mis-gendering trans people I feel like people invite getting dismissed easily and everyone goes back to their corners.

Positivelypolarized69

at least Ricky didn't misgender yaniv so he doesn't get the ban-hammer.

Positivelypolarized69

Great segment. But you guys really twist yourselves into a philosophical pretzel when you try to insist you believe “trans women are women” on the one hand while being all grossed out and angered by “Jessica” Yaniv on the other. You are so, so close to facing the awful truth. Meghan Murphy is right.

I felt the same way! I feel like Meghan is almost playing dumb here. Even if she thinks the term is overused, to say she can't define it or whatever seems a little ridiculous.

I'm not a surrogacy advocate but I am a lawyer. There are all kinds of exceptions to contractual obligations, including that enforcement would be odious. I may be wrong, but I can't see many judges wanting to enforce this (though they could certainly require repayment or joint custody to a bio dad). I think the main problem with all of these industries is that it simply isn't something that the vast majority of women want to do, regardless of pay. There are definitely exceptions and I don't think the law should prohibit them from doing what they want with their bodies. But there will always be an enormous gulf between supply and demand, and that's where abuse and exploitation enter.

Judging from the trailer and reviews, "Boyfriend Dungeon" reminds me both of the anime "Soul Eater" and this: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/anime-news-nina/2010-10-13 😁

I wonder if Katie's decision to stop considering herself a feminist to prevent the label from clouding her thinking was inspired by this Paul Graham essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html. If not, I guess great minds think alike!

I think that's probably true to an extent, but there's plenty of abuse and exploitation in the perfectly-legal porn industry. And there are things that regulation won't resolve, like the fact that a majority of women in porn have a history of molestation. I am NOT in favor of banning porn and prostitution, but I don't think we should delude ourselves that there are enough women genuinely interested in doing this to satisfy the demand.

As a radical feminist and someone who has seen MM speak often, I've always felt sympathetic to her but also frustrated. The patriarchy is the assumption that male is better than female, it is the idea of male-default, the knee jerk instinct to think that men are better than women. I find it frustrating to hear both her and Katie be all hahaha feminists just say the words and don't understand it. It feels willfully naive and frustrating to say that radical feminists don't know what we mean when we say things.

Friend of the podcast Noah Berlatsky - https://mobile.twitter.com/JimmyJazz1968/status/1431519924522917889

This might surprise you, but despite what guys in the manosphere say, many women have a difficult time finding men who are interested in them that they are also attracted to. Just because someone may want to have sex with you, it doesn't mean that you want to have sex with them. There's also a tendency to generalize what casual sex opportunities may be available for young, attractive, heterosexual, childless women into women's ability to date in general. In reality, women who are older, not conventionally attractive, disabled, not straight, divorced, and/or have children tend to have a much more difficult time finding partners. While it's a stereotype, there's also a grain of truth to the notion that women tend to be less interested in casual sex than men. Men tend to have higher sex drives due to testosterone, plus the chances of pregnancy or the guy being dangerous makes casual sex riskier for women. The fact that some women may be able to find casual sex easily is something that doesn't matter to most of us. In fact, it can actually be an impediment, because if you're looking for a committed relationship and the men you're meeting are only looking for hookups, dating becomes particularly hard (especially for women who are already at a disadvantage when dating due to characteristics listed above.)

Interesting conversation between Katie and MM about misgendering is it a slippery slope to gaslighting (I lean in that direction) vs it is polite and doesn't allow the other to play the victim (good point and I am polite and wouldn't misgender someone to their face and generally just use "they" when referring because the gaslighting does seem real when referring to males as "she").

Jesse introduced MM by stating she has problematic views like not believing trans women are women. But should that be considered problematic? Or did Jesse mean "problematic"?

I think she has a GREAT misunderstanding of many men's sex opportunities vs womens'. It's....pretty easy for an attractive single woman to have almost unlimited opportunites for casual sex. Not so much for men. So this, "I don't understand why a man would pay for this.." Yeah, of course you don't. You could get laid walking out to your mailbox if you wanted.

Regarding Murphy's Twitter ban due to Jessica Yaniv, Ricky Gervis made a number of hilarious tweets about Yaniv. He got heat but he's not banned nor are the tweets deleted. Two examples: https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/1152821183445909504?s=20 https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/1152819777213218816?s=20

Yup. It’s like the comment about casual sex being risky. Yes - and that’s the point, for some people. Some people like risk. They find the adrenaline rush a turn-on. They actively seek out that kind of sex because they enjoy it. Now obviously this is not the majority of women - we know that women tend to be more risk-averse than men - but it’s certainly some of them.

Do you think they wouldn't? I don't think feminists are calling for the end of sex. segregated spaces for men. Unless you're talking about elite social clubs, or places where it's pretty clear that denying women has the impact of denying them access to power/access/education.

I wonder how many gender critical feminists who are opposed to natal males accessing female only spaces, like Meghan, enthusiastically support access to male single sex spaces for females. As a supporter of single sex spaces in general, it would be interesting to hear a defense of this double standard.

Paying someone for sex is using them. Johns do not respect prostituted women.

As a relatively new listener and patron, I often wonder how many of my questions with the podcast are related to having never joined Twitter. For example, I was surprised to hear Katie say she no longer considers herself a feminist. I remember being exposed to the work of Andrea Dworkin in college and thinking it was some of the most asinine crap I've ever come across. Nevertheless, I still consider myself a feminist, because I agree with the basic tenets, and I view Dworkin and her acolytes as simply the silliest and most dismissible end of that spectrum (I also don't care if -- being a man -- 2018 Meghan Murphy doesn't think I qualify as a feminist!). For similar reasons, I still consider myself a Democrat, a skeptic, an AA member -- I don't allow the silliest or worst examples (Anthony Weiner, Ilhan Omar, hardcore Libertarians, etc.) of those groups to define me or the group. But I can imagine that if I was on Twitter I'd find myself involved in far more contentious arguments regarding these personal classifications, so perhaps I'd see it differently.

SWer and Twitter weirdo (and I say that as a compliment) Aella had a fascinating convo with Bari Weiss on Bari’s podcast about sex work and related topics. Aella is very non-conforming in lots of ways and is able to explain her reasoning without the trite mantras that come up so often to justify either side of the argument. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/my-conversation-about-americas-sex

Manuel Fernandez

Whoa the surrogacy debate was totally fortold in like episode 6. Crazy.

I'm so happy you guys did this episode! Meghan Murphy is rad and so is Katie <3

Ally

Agreed! I don't want to limit any woman's choices for her own behaviour. I just want to drastically reduce the potential for abuse, rape, and exploitation. I think even Julie Bindel who is seen as very anti-prostitution says that if a woman is genuinely having a good time of it and wants to sell her body, she can go ahead. This is just not the case for the grand majority and a lot of women are drugging themselves to cope until they can escape the industry.

Ally

wow

I was trying to truly understand Murphy's position on porn and prostitution and if you listen closely you don't really get a good answer and I have an intuition here that a lot of her rejection is based on a subconscious emotional kernel, of like, itnrassexual female competition that maybe she herself doesn't even understand. which is why her intellectual justification comes out kinda half cooked. it's all "men shouldn't go to prostitutes bc why should they even want to?" Maybe this is crazy but I've been thinking about this and it occurs to me that it felt like it was coming from a place of insecurity. Like, oh you want to see porn? what am I not good enough?

Agreed

Most of the problems with sex work that MM complains about are a direct result of its legal prohibition.

man, glad the single add stuff is ending. boring

Aneros

This is just a thought of mine (I haven’t heard her say this) but I kind of assume that her goal is more along the lines of getting people to speak more freely and not be afraid to express gender critical views as opposed to trying to convert people to her point of view. I have heard/read her saying that she believes that most people aren’t aware of what is happening in this area but if they were, they would feel as she does about the situation. That might explain why she speaks the way she does. Sorry if that sounds convoluted - I’m clearly not a writer…

Megan Murphy is never going to convince anyone who isn’t already sympathetic to her views by calling trans women “men” or by deliberately dead naming people. She knows that people find it insulting. This is bad tactics. I can’t imagine she’s had any results with this strategy.

I generally like Murphy, but it's odd to claim that we can't define patriarchy. Gerda Lerner wrote a whole book about it, and it has a glossary. "In its narrow meaning, patriarchy refers to the system in which the male head of the household had absolute legal and economic power over his dependent female and male family members." This is the version that, Murphy is correct to say, does not normally exist in modern democracies. But later: This narrow definition "tends to foreclose accurate definition and analysis of [patriarchy's] continued presence in today's world. Patriarchy in its wider definition means the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general. It implies that men hold power in all the important institutions of society and that women are deprived of access to such power. It does not imply that women are either totally powerless or totally deprived of rights, influence, and resources." So for example: The great disparity in the proportion of male vs. female CEOs is a manifestation of patriarchy. So is the pressure that women in heterosexual relationships feel to shoulder the majority of housework and child care. Now, you can decide how much you personally care about those things, but it's undeniable that those situations are vestiges. If we had never had a world where patriarchy (in its narrow definition) was widespread, those disparities wouldn't exist today.

I like Meghan Murphy, but I find a lot of her arguments frustrating bc it seems like she never really tries to make a good moral argument for why she thinks certain things should not be allowed. It sounds to my ear what she's saying is SHE wouldn't want to do that thing, or SHE doesn't like that thing, and therefore it shouldn't exist or just shouldn't happen. It's surprising how a lot of radfem views feel similar to right wing views. there is some morality code around the prohibition of something, but the argument WHY thy thing is immoral is never really fleshed out, which can make listening to her position a bit frustrating at times. It's basically like "Ick! I don't like that thing! ban it!" I think a lot of times a lot of people's views are created by base instincts, and the intellectual justifications come later, and I get a deep sense of that happening here. and a lot of times it feel like Murphy isn't great at figuring out what the post hoc intellectual justification is

New Patreon goal: a dating sim where players can romance Jesse and/or Katie. There will be microaggressions.

Just from a financial standpoint, it seems like a good idea. You can reach a much bigger audience since many listeners don't live in or around NYC and you don't have to worry about space limitations or potential venue costs. Maybe it could also be more interactive than a typical podcast to compensate for the fact that it wouldn't be in person.

Great interview by Katie, I appreciate getting a clearer understanding about Meghan's beliefs without any yelling. It did make me laugh, her idea that casual sex with strangers is somehow bad in general. If I were more of a snowflake I might feel kink shamed :D I think as long as you take certain precautions for safety, there is literally nothing wrong with that.

It sounds like there was a non-zero chance that the adult fan was the groomer.

‘Hello you have called 911. If you are in any immediate danger, please hang up now and reach out to Broadway star Alice Ripley immediately’

Jules O'D

Why don’t you do a live show online for now? Charge money and you can donate part of the money to a charity helps animals or something?

JGraves

Also, loads of women watch porn. I do. Most of my friends do. Sure, we might not be seeking out some of the most depraved jailbait videos or violent content like some men do, but it's wild to me that feminists still act like only men are watching run of the mill porn. Like all women are so pure we couldn't possibly get off on watching strangers have sex on video because we know in our hearts that it's exploitative towards women? C'mon. I also totally agree that lots of women do genuinely enjoy random sex...plus, it's not like random sex with strangers is the only thing you can use a dating app for (re: Katie and Meghan's conversation to that effect). I've had many fun relationships with both men and women whom I met on dating apps, all of whom were totally decent human beings. I find that these moralizing arguments against hook up culture or Tinder tend to take one specific situation and generalize it to conclude that the entire thing is rotten, which just doesn't match reality (at least in my experience). Sure, I don't LOVE Tinder, but to act like it inevitably ends with women feeling used and abused the way Nancy Jo Sales did makes no sense to me. I guess the moral of the story is that I just dislike moralizing in all its forms.

kf

Another thing is, you guys discussed what sort of men would want to pay a woman for sex. The assumption was that it was men who can't get sex on their own without paying for it. And there was a comment made about why someone would want to have sex with someone that doesn't want to have sex with them. Men who are unable to find a sexual partner normally are certainly part of the demographic, but I wouldn't even say that they're the majority. Lots of men enjoy sex workers because they can experiment with them in ways that they are too afraid to talk to a romantic partner about. They're not afraid of being judged for thinking about butt stuff. Sex workers are literally the professionals, they're confident and experienced, and getting a blow job from a sex worker lets them relax in ways that they're not normally able to. It's the difference between your friend offering to do a whole bunch of yard work, vs. paying a gardener. You don't have to worry about whether you should feel guilty, because a gardener wouldn't be in business if he didn't mind exchanging garden services for money. He has weighed the pros and cons and finds that to be a fair trade. So have sex workers. Not all men who hire sex workers are unconcerned with her pleasure either. In fact, lots of men want to go to the professional because they want to learn more. They want the freedom to explore, experiment, without the social pressure of being rejected if they're not good enjoy, or say something silly. It's their safe space. They want them to give honest feedback. OR, they are trying to build up their confidence, and are too worried about their performance during normal relationship sex, and the sex worker can help them feel special and build up their sexual comfort level. Many men are *very* concerned about whether he can make them achieve orgasm, and that's a huge part of the enjoyment. Sex workers will be more confident in expressing their needs, they'll have a wider lexicon and array of experiences and are more comfortable using the "dirty" words that less experienced women struggle with. Lots of time men also just don't want to deal with the whole relationship back and forth thing. They're busy, they don't have the time to dedicate to a monogamous relationship, hookups can be more risky through an app, because you never know if you're sticking your dick in crazy and you don't want to lead anyone on or have emotional attachments. Why not hire a professional? Cut through the nonsense. I think it's more ethical sometimes to even pay someone for sex than to *use* someone for sex.

Looks like Nike is getting a hard stomping in this podcast lately :)

I really liked this episode, because your conversation with Meghan touched on something that I desperately wish more people talked about, which is that the moralizing that comes with sex work/pornography feels like it's infantalizing women and it's reinforcing toxic stereotypes about women not enjoying sex just as much as men. I noticed that when talking about the effects someone feels from doing sex work, you guys solely focused on women. I don't think that's a coincidence, because whenever I read stories about how someone is very upset about their history with sex work, it's a woman. Nobody seems to be concerned about the way that the men feel...being filmed having sex with women constantly, feeling like they're being used solely for their genitalia, the pressure of maintaining an erection... etc. And I think that's because it's very easy to assume that men in porn are super lucky and love it, while women are being exploited. When you talk about the men who watch pornography not caring about about what *she's* feeling, if *she's* enjoying it... they're also not caring about whether *he's* enjoying it... because the assumption is "of course he is, why wouldn't he?" To which I respond, why wouldn't *she*? Some people need to feel deeper emotional attachments to their partner in order to enjoy sex. And I can understand that if that's how you are oriented, it's easy to believe that other people feel the same way, and you're incinced to sympathize with the position of being fucked by lots of random dudes all the time. But there are *lots* of women who *want* that.

Re: individual choice arguments around surrogacy and sex work There's a difference between banning a behavior and banning/limiting a market based on that behavior. Sleeping with a new person every night does not make you a prostitute. Charging for it does. Radical feminists aren't trying to limit behavior choice, as Katie appears to frame it, though they certainly critique the behavior. They are trying to ban/limit the marketplace which is built disproportionately, and in the case of surrogacy exclusively, on access and use of women's bodies and sexual/reproductive organs. Creating a marketplace around them not only expands access and demand -- drawing more women in -- but enables exploitation and objectification. It turns people into products, because that's what markets do.

In other comments: I think the dating sim/dungeon crawler is the funniest segment I've heard from you guys. I just listened to that part again...so enjoyable!

I used to be somewhat Internet fame-ish (long time ago and never that much and there was no money involved which is why I just stopped) and the good boundaries expressed in this episode were fantastic. Appropriate adult fan relationships should involve vaguely approving of the existence of other people that you never see in real life and don’t talk to that often.

Libertarian here. I dont agree, nor did Bloomberg columnist Virginia Postrel, who put her kidney where her mouth was and donated to save her friend Sally Satel. She makes a very moral and well-reasoned argument for paying people for kidney donations, as doing so will ultimately*help* poor people languishing on waiting lists. Here's Postrel's Atlantic article: https://vpostrel.com/articles/need-transplant-donors-pay-them

Such a great interview - I was really put off by Meghan’s Same Drugs podcast because of her attitude towards the pandemic but hearing this makes me want to give it a listen again. Her interviews on Feminist Current are really great and I’ve stuck with it - recommend it highly. Hopefully you guys and Rogen having her on makes those twits at Twitter reconsider.

Loved the interview. Katie and Meghan both kept cool heads when things got heated and opinions clashed. I was particularly impressed by the exchange of ideas around pronoun usage. Both parties gave excellent reasoning and I was shocked at how compelled I was by Katie and Meghan individually.

Re: Arguments for sex work and surrogacy that appeal to bodily autonomy/being against paternalism. I do think that most people at least draw the line somewhere. For example, most people (except for very libertarian people in certain cases) oppose the legalization of selling one's own organs/body parts, on the grounds that the potential for exploitation is just too high (we know it's only the very poor who would do something irreversible like that for money...economic coercion is the only way it would happen). Surrogacy and prostitution can be viewed along these lines. Yes, they're "softer" versions (since people keep their full bodies for the most part...though pregnancy can go very wrong too and both cases can lead to irreversible bodily effects), but the economic arguments of who turns to these things (because they're economically coerced) still hold. I think waving opposition off as paternalism isn't quite careful enough. We all draw the line somewhere....the question is where.

Genuinely curious. Do surrogacy advocates think a surrogate can be forced to pay damages if they later change their minds/wish to abort/want to keep the baby/etc? Usually self employed ppl can’t just escape their contractual obligations. Courts can force such workers to pay damages or even to fulfil the terms they originally agreed to - which leads to thorny issues if applied to surrogacy/sex work.

Ram Adrian