Lochemem Bruno Michael

People are talking about this, so let’s review why Yost lost this debate (no disrespect to Yost). In this clip the guest, pornographer, Erika Lust leans into the new atheist myth about Romans being sexually liberated swingers, while Yost counters with the old FT classic about Christianity being good for women’s “rights” actually. On the facts Yost is right and Lust is wrong. But Yost loses because she concedes the proper frame in two ways: first by arguing the question of pornography in the frame of “liberation” and second by having the debate to begin with. To see how this works, we can doa what Erika Lust wants and imagine that we are back in Rome of the first century. How would this conversation about pornography between the time period equivalent women proceed in that much more “liberated” culture? Well, it wouldn’t, because believe it or not, Rome wasn’t the liberated culture that Lust thinks it was. I am not an Antiquarian scholar, but I know enough about the Roman caste system to know better. The time period equivalent of Yost is a Patrician Lady, a Matriarch and the product of her society’s finest education and finishing. The time period equivalent of Lust is (charitably) an actress or (uncharitably) a prostitute. But this is mincing words because the Romans of the first century saw these jobs as THE SAME kind of thing. They were INFAMES who were BELOW society. Patrician Matriarchs do NOT engage in discussions with infames. Why is that? Because Romans understood that the point of debate is more symbolic than rational. When men (or women here) engage in conversation publicly they are acting as symbols for their side. The Patrician Matriach is not just a woman. She is the symbol, a banner of her family, her faith, the blood and honor of her sons and husband and father. Her image is the symbol of the city’s FUTURE made manifest. By contrast, the actress sells her image in the marketplace for MONEY. The prostitute has men willing to pay for honor. The Matriarch has men willing to die for her honor. See the difference? Of course you do. If you put these women in public popularity contest, what you are saying is: “Our societies faith and honor and future MIGHT be the same KIND of thing that can be purchased in the market cheaply” The Romans understood this symbolism and Christians a hundred years ago understood this too, though they didn’t like to SAY it bluntly. And it makes sense. Remember, you can’t DEBATE values. No one can prove that honor is more valuable than gold. Rather, people OBSERVE values which is why FRAME matters more than ARGUMENTS. Patrician women don’t have to plead the case of honor for the entertainment of actresses and prostitutes. That would be like some cruel punishment than Caligula might inflict upon the wives of his enemies. Instead of argument, sanity starts with the frame of behavior. It starts when Patrician Matriarchs see a low status woman in public and, instead of inviting them to a debate as equals, greet them the same word modern women love to apply to low status men: “ICK”