Thanks so much for sharing this perspective. Mututality and shared norm exploitation are great lenses for understanding how casual sex seeking turns into fuckboi.
Wow. Just, wow! I looked you up here on Substack, after seeing a YouTube interview with you on France 24 English about your new book coming out. Primarily impressed by your comments and insights in the interview - a new viewpoint I had not heard before, I came to see if you had a Substack, and if so, investigate you more before ordering your book. Because the name attached to your Substack is a bit generic, I thought to look a bit closer at your posts. And what first catches my eye? …but an article entitled, “A Brief Theory of What’s Wrong with Being a Fuckboy”. Could this be the same author? Could this be a poser instead of the real author? I can’t say the subject matter compelled me much, because frankly…I find Fuckboys to be pitiful creatures, maybe lower on the social scale than say porn addicts - and at the very least, dopamine junkies who pollute our male social pool. (But of course, I feel them hardly relatable, because it is intellect and deep thoughtful women - for which our world has such a deep well - that first attracts and stimulates my attention. But I digress.)
I understand and have a new perspective thanks to you and your points written here. I would never thought to frame them this way, so it is a very insightful. Surely you must be the author and social scientist I came to find, as I can see the same idea of ‘social structure’ echoed here as from the interview I saw. So thank you for your thoughtful perspective here in this post on such an unexpected topic I didn’t realize could be taken much deeper.
I very much look forward to reading your book! I’m a bit tired of reading about ‘Authoritarianism’, ‘Authoritarian-personality’, tendencies, evangelicals, Prius vs Pickup trucks, and the like. These perspectives have moved my understanding only so far. I think your analysis will take me further forward.
I ordered your book last night, which I expect around the first week of June. (For context, I am a US Citizen, living in Romania.) Forgive me, but am a bit overextended in subscriptions this year. In spite of this, I humbly ask to return with a few questions after reading your book if an opportunity is presented. I am not a scientist like you, but curiosity compels me to better understand whatever I can.
Hi Sarah, Elizabeth Oldfield's substack, @morefullyalive alerted me to your post, and it was a fascinating read, I want to respond with a couple of thoughts on what you say here. In the interests of full disclosure, I'll say up front I am a Christian, and one who is interested in the principles and presuppositions that inform all our lives together as individuals and communities and societies, and I hope that I have reviewed your work here fairly and on its and your terms, I don't want to preach here, I want to debate from the ideas you present. There were lots of things that struck me in this article that I wanted to comment on. Here are a couple of them.
First, you say "this piece is not about moralizing fuckboy behavior or even analyzing individual motivations, but looking at this kind of behaviour as a relational structure of our times." But I suggest that you do, in fact, present a moral judgement here in much of this article, and that in fact you are right to do so. If people suggest you are moralizing or being 'judgy', that's right, you are, and so you should. Working towards a moral framework is an individual and corporate activity that is worth the effort, it involves thinking and wrestling with this stuff and inevitably it involves making judgements. I think you do make those judgements, and indicate to us that you will be doing so even in the title of the piece which includes the phrase 'what's wrong with being a fuckboy'. What indeed.
The kernel of your argument seems to be: "The fuckboy also isn’t wrong because they want to stop seeing someone....They’re “bad” because they are relying heavily on reciprocal norms and expectations about basic human relationality to get what they want: ...The violation of norms is about a willingness to provide a certain baseline of recognition, kindness and communication."
Yes, I agree with that, to the extent that their actions are indeed bad, and more to the point the thinking and orientiation behind those actions is wrong. And maybe here is where we could have a real debate. I would argue that the baseline here: kindness, communication (to use your words), and to add my own: respect, gentleness, patience, empathy. These are not at their heart relative, cultural products that we just happen to have in our society now, they are absolutes that exist as an objective best, and have been developed in competition with other moral propositions, and are the best way we have come up with to guide us as we work out how to all live together.
The second point is this: I agree with you when you say: "Not all of us have slept with a fuckboy; but all of us have probably been hurt by some adjacent phenomenon in another realm: the fake friend, the networker with ulterior motives, the scam artist, the catfisher... We’re all living in an alienated, un-relational, world."
Yes. Absoltuely. The fuckboy is an example of a broader cluster of objectively immoral actions and thinking which through their 'wrongness' together point to a broader moral vision. I would argue that the first principle if that moral vision is 'love your neighbour as yourself'. Of course, that's a jump from where we started, but first principles tend to do that. The good thing about principles is that they are open to being applied in many different ways and contexts.
To ground this practically, suppose we want to answer individual questions like:
How should I treat the person I sleep with?
How should I treat my child?
How should I treat my sibling, my colleague, my grandmother, my neighbour?
In answering these questions individually, we begin to see a moral pattern emerge. And this pattern can allow for truths that might make some Christians twitch, yes there are power dynamics in relationships and societies, yes there is power in gender, age, class, race, and a host of other dimensions. But if we ask the questions:
How should I as a man treat my female colleagues?
How should I treat the young person I know who is finding their way in terms of their identity and values?
A serious engagement with these questions yields the same moral pattern. Be patient, be kind, be generous, communicate, listen, 'turn up' for the person.
So, yes judge the fuckboy, you do and you should, or perhaps better still, judge his behaviour, and identify its moral shortcomings with reference to the principles we can discern as we explore a better way to be across the whole spectrum of relationships and behaviour. And also, I would contend that if anyone examines the whole array of human relationships and from the micro to the macro, and all their different interactions and their consequences, they will see the timeless, objective principles that guide all of these engagements, in the arena of human engagement, these things are objective and timeless.
Hi Andrew--sure, you're right, I and somewhat do in this piece develop moral judgements about how people should treat each other. But the piece is not structured with that as the starting point; rather, the focus is on first what the structure of attention and and logic of exchange are that lead to this behaviour. It's a sort of economics-first approach, if that makes any sense. I don't actually think you are debating me--it sounds like we agree about treating people as we'd ideally like to be treated!
Thanks, Sarah. Yes I think we agree on some things, and perhaps they're the most important things. I think I get what you're saying, although I'm guessing I'd have to sit in the pub with you for an hour to explore more deeply your PoV to really see if I'm getting to grips with this. On reflection, I think I'd approach an understanding of your point via the discussion about porn and the exchange (or lack of) inherent in the porn mindset. Maybe the barriers between porn and person are eroded for the FB. I happen to think porn erodes those distinctions in everyone, but perhaps while some people resist that insidious effect, perhaps the FB embraces it, and goes for a uniformity of approach, everything and everyone and every act even an intimate act, is a transaction, a bargain to be driven.
The FB brings a kind of 'art of the deal' mentality to the exchange, what can he get out of it? What's the best margin he can make on this deal? And of course human relationships of just about every kind, and certainly intimate ones, just don't work on that basis, or if they do they become the porn you describe.
Anyway, I'm glad I wrestled with this, and thank you for your work.
Thanks so much for sharing this perspective. Mututality and shared norm exploitation are great lenses for understanding how casual sex seeking turns into fuckboi.
Thank you so much for understanding it!
Wow. Just, wow! I looked you up here on Substack, after seeing a YouTube interview with you on France 24 English about your new book coming out. Primarily impressed by your comments and insights in the interview - a new viewpoint I had not heard before, I came to see if you had a Substack, and if so, investigate you more before ordering your book. Because the name attached to your Substack is a bit generic, I thought to look a bit closer at your posts. And what first catches my eye? …but an article entitled, “A Brief Theory of What’s Wrong with Being a Fuckboy”. Could this be the same author? Could this be a poser instead of the real author? I can’t say the subject matter compelled me much, because frankly…I find Fuckboys to be pitiful creatures, maybe lower on the social scale than say porn addicts - and at the very least, dopamine junkies who pollute our male social pool. (But of course, I feel them hardly relatable, because it is intellect and deep thoughtful women - for which our world has such a deep well - that first attracts and stimulates my attention. But I digress.)
I understand and have a new perspective thanks to you and your points written here. I would never thought to frame them this way, so it is a very insightful. Surely you must be the author and social scientist I came to find, as I can see the same idea of ‘social structure’ echoed here as from the interview I saw. So thank you for your thoughtful perspective here in this post on such an unexpected topic I didn’t realize could be taken much deeper.
I very much look forward to reading your book! I’m a bit tired of reading about ‘Authoritarianism’, ‘Authoritarian-personality’, tendencies, evangelicals, Prius vs Pickup trucks, and the like. These perspectives have moved my understanding only so far. I think your analysis will take me further forward.
I am indeed she! Thanks for coming to my platform and hope you stick around and find good insights :) thanks for the kind words!
I ordered your book last night, which I expect around the first week of June. (For context, I am a US Citizen, living in Romania.) Forgive me, but am a bit overextended in subscriptions this year. In spite of this, I humbly ask to return with a few questions after reading your book if an opportunity is presented. I am not a scientist like you, but curiosity compels me to better understand whatever I can.
write me and I'll see what I can do :)
The relational / transactional difference is great, and I'm interested in reading more about it. I feel it's elusive.
Perfect intro--encapsulates the whole.
Hi Sarah, Elizabeth Oldfield's substack, @morefullyalive alerted me to your post, and it was a fascinating read, I want to respond with a couple of thoughts on what you say here. In the interests of full disclosure, I'll say up front I am a Christian, and one who is interested in the principles and presuppositions that inform all our lives together as individuals and communities and societies, and I hope that I have reviewed your work here fairly and on its and your terms, I don't want to preach here, I want to debate from the ideas you present. There were lots of things that struck me in this article that I wanted to comment on. Here are a couple of them.
First, you say "this piece is not about moralizing fuckboy behavior or even analyzing individual motivations, but looking at this kind of behaviour as a relational structure of our times." But I suggest that you do, in fact, present a moral judgement here in much of this article, and that in fact you are right to do so. If people suggest you are moralizing or being 'judgy', that's right, you are, and so you should. Working towards a moral framework is an individual and corporate activity that is worth the effort, it involves thinking and wrestling with this stuff and inevitably it involves making judgements. I think you do make those judgements, and indicate to us that you will be doing so even in the title of the piece which includes the phrase 'what's wrong with being a fuckboy'. What indeed.
The kernel of your argument seems to be: "The fuckboy also isn’t wrong because they want to stop seeing someone....They’re “bad” because they are relying heavily on reciprocal norms and expectations about basic human relationality to get what they want: ...The violation of norms is about a willingness to provide a certain baseline of recognition, kindness and communication."
Yes, I agree with that, to the extent that their actions are indeed bad, and more to the point the thinking and orientiation behind those actions is wrong. And maybe here is where we could have a real debate. I would argue that the baseline here: kindness, communication (to use your words), and to add my own: respect, gentleness, patience, empathy. These are not at their heart relative, cultural products that we just happen to have in our society now, they are absolutes that exist as an objective best, and have been developed in competition with other moral propositions, and are the best way we have come up with to guide us as we work out how to all live together.
The second point is this: I agree with you when you say: "Not all of us have slept with a fuckboy; but all of us have probably been hurt by some adjacent phenomenon in another realm: the fake friend, the networker with ulterior motives, the scam artist, the catfisher... We’re all living in an alienated, un-relational, world."
Yes. Absoltuely. The fuckboy is an example of a broader cluster of objectively immoral actions and thinking which through their 'wrongness' together point to a broader moral vision. I would argue that the first principle if that moral vision is 'love your neighbour as yourself'. Of course, that's a jump from where we started, but first principles tend to do that. The good thing about principles is that they are open to being applied in many different ways and contexts.
To ground this practically, suppose we want to answer individual questions like:
How should I treat the person I sleep with?
How should I treat my child?
How should I treat my sibling, my colleague, my grandmother, my neighbour?
In answering these questions individually, we begin to see a moral pattern emerge. And this pattern can allow for truths that might make some Christians twitch, yes there are power dynamics in relationships and societies, yes there is power in gender, age, class, race, and a host of other dimensions. But if we ask the questions:
How should I as a man treat my female colleagues?
How should I treat the young person I know who is finding their way in terms of their identity and values?
A serious engagement with these questions yields the same moral pattern. Be patient, be kind, be generous, communicate, listen, 'turn up' for the person.
So, yes judge the fuckboy, you do and you should, or perhaps better still, judge his behaviour, and identify its moral shortcomings with reference to the principles we can discern as we explore a better way to be across the whole spectrum of relationships and behaviour. And also, I would contend that if anyone examines the whole array of human relationships and from the micro to the macro, and all their different interactions and their consequences, they will see the timeless, objective principles that guide all of these engagements, in the arena of human engagement, these things are objective and timeless.
Hi Andrew--sure, you're right, I and somewhat do in this piece develop moral judgements about how people should treat each other. But the piece is not structured with that as the starting point; rather, the focus is on first what the structure of attention and and logic of exchange are that lead to this behaviour. It's a sort of economics-first approach, if that makes any sense. I don't actually think you are debating me--it sounds like we agree about treating people as we'd ideally like to be treated!
Thanks, Sarah. Yes I think we agree on some things, and perhaps they're the most important things. I think I get what you're saying, although I'm guessing I'd have to sit in the pub with you for an hour to explore more deeply your PoV to really see if I'm getting to grips with this. On reflection, I think I'd approach an understanding of your point via the discussion about porn and the exchange (or lack of) inherent in the porn mindset. Maybe the barriers between porn and person are eroded for the FB. I happen to think porn erodes those distinctions in everyone, but perhaps while some people resist that insidious effect, perhaps the FB embraces it, and goes for a uniformity of approach, everything and everyone and every act even an intimate act, is a transaction, a bargain to be driven.
The FB brings a kind of 'art of the deal' mentality to the exchange, what can he get out of it? What's the best margin he can make on this deal? And of course human relationships of just about every kind, and certainly intimate ones, just don't work on that basis, or if they do they become the porn you describe.
Anyway, I'm glad I wrestled with this, and thank you for your work.