Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Nothing New, of Course

Re: Nothing New, of Course

Jason Malloy — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:03:18 -0000

To the extent such campaigns do anything, it results in the opposite of what it's trying to accomplish, further ghettoizing male liberalism with the kind of effete, supplicant males females really don't like to choose. Among men who have a lot of sex partners, Republicanism and chauvinism are rampant, in part, because it serves as an honest signal of their capability of attracting women. Lesser men have to refashion their politics to please young single women, while attractive men don't need to. I suspect the hierarchy of male desirability looks like this:

Unattractive Pubs - Least desirable
Unattractive Dems - 2nd least desirable
Attractive Dems - 2nd most desirable
Attractive Pubs - Most desirable

And while men are more likely to tweak their politics to win over sexual partners, women are even more likely to conform their politics to their long term partner. So while these 'vote Dem, get laid' posters are rather cute, they better realize that it sets a precedent, and that Republicans could actually turn it around and cut even deeper, by suggesting that Democrat girls are just whores for sex and fun, while Republican girls are the valuable ones you invest in long term.

Re: Nothing New, of Course

Jayson Virissimo — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:34:44 -0000

Yes, but only after they get the girl.

Re: Nothing New, of Course

mk — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:12:31 -0000

"There exist at least two instances of a girl saying yes to a boy who says no."

That wouldn't make for quite as catchy a slogan, unfortunately.

Re: Nothing New, of Course

mk — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:09:33 -0000

A lot of ads work off this sort of ambiguity of language, w/r/t logician-speak. For example, "we offer the lowest prices and highest quality in town!!!" This statement makes a vague claim about optimization along two dimensions: (1) quality and (2) price. It might be saying that (a) for any level of quality, we have lower prices, AND we have more offerings at high quality levels; (b) Every single one of our products is cheaper than the equivalent-quality offering at other stores; (c) We have some crappy low-price products, and some high-quality expensive-as-hell products; (d) We have the best ratio of quality to price, averaged across all products; (e) etc. etc. etc.

Re: Nothing New, of Course

Michael Drake — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:14:19 -0000

Which opens up space for a possible meta-Draft Resistance Slogan:

What do we want to want?

PEACE!

When do we want to want it?

NOW!

Re: Nothing New, of Course

webgrrl — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:40:19 -0000

MD, when yes means no and when no means yes. . .

Ah, of course it brings us back to that age-old question: Why don't we want what we want to want?

Re: Nothing New, of Course

Freddie — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:14:08 -0000

No, warriors die in battle.

Re: Nothing New, of Course

Tim Lee — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:47:28 -0000

I think the idea is that girls are more likely to say yes to boys who say no.

Re: Nothing New, of Course

themightypuck — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:06:28 -0000

At least this speaks to a real historical perception: warriors get the girls.

Re: Nothing New, of Course

GilM — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:55:01 -0000

Wait. I think it's even weaker.

I think the most plausible interpretation is that some girls say yes to some boys who say no. Claiming that all girls say yes to all boys who say no, or even that some girls say yes to all boys who say no, is just too fantastic to be taken seriously.

So, saying no isn't even sufficient.

As you say, what it says is trivially true and says nothing about the value of saying "no".

What it's really saying, I think, is: "Hey boys who are stupid enough to think this means that saying 'no' will get you laid...Say 'no'!"

Re: Nothing New, of Course

Michael Drake — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:50:27 -0000

However, the fact that "yes" in some cases means "no" complicates the analysis.

Re: Nothing New, of Course

webgrrl — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:17:09 -0000

This poster is so cute!

To compare the visual message - just the amount of clothing, the postures, the setting - of this poster and the newer one for "I Only Sleep with Democrats" is in itself a veritable feminist media study.

Which one is actually more "objectifying" or "degrading" to women? Both are pretty bad, actually, but one's far worse than the other from a certain academic view.

IOSwD's model doesn't even have her eyes open - she's symbolically blind. We could go into a whole Lacanian woo about the castration complex here and the female entry into the Oedipal, but on second thought, let's not. . .

Re: Nothing New, of Course

Kevin B. O'Reilly — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:44:19 -0000

I agree with everything you said in your previous post, and with your point on the logic of this ad. That said, it's not only pithy but pretty powerful. "I only sleep with Democrats" is just blind partisanship and lends an air of exclusivity. "Girls say yes to boys who say no" was not only pithy, but valiantly attempted to battle the stigma of draft-dodging with a promise of access to endless hippie pussy. Pretty inspiring, I'd say.