site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11d ago (text post)   26654 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

German police chief Dirk Peglow has stated on national television that his advice to women who want to avoid violence is to avoid relationships with men. This has naturally caused some controversy, and although it will likely be forgotten soon, I do think it shines a spotlight on some topics worth discussing.

First, this is clearly not meant to be taken literally. In the broader context, the comment is based on the fact that reports of sexual assaults have increased over the past year in Germany, and he simply meant to highlight the fact that most assaults are not perpetrated by strangers but people you know. Still, the way he chose to frame it matters. Public perception would have probably been much different if the man had specifically highlighted men with Arabic backgrounds as being dangerous, even though a similar argument of "just educating people on statistics" would still have been accurate. He could have also chosen to to warn women against certain behaviors. "If your man is violent, get out before it escalates" is a complete sentence with a clear call to action that fits neatly into a soundbite. If the goal was to help women, this advice would also be much more actionable than the ridiculous "don't date men at all", making it more likely to actually help people. Alternatively, he could have chosen to not be alarmist at all. "German streets are quite safe, and crime overall is down" would have emphasized that women are unlikely to be assaulted by strangers in public, and would have helped to spread some confidence in the population.

The field of medicine is very aware that undue anxiety presents a risk to personal health. Doctors are generally quite conservative when it comes to recommending blood tests or other diagnostic procedures to seemingly healthy patients. This is because false positives and the associated stress can lead the patient down an expensive and anxiety ridden path of uncertainty and increasingly invasive medical procedures that can significantly affect quality of life and mental health. The risk of overdiagnosis is great enough, that even if you were a billionaire with ample money to spare, a good doctor would still recommend against screening for illnesses when you show no significant symptoms. When you are a public official though, care for the mental health of your citizens apparently goes out the window. Making inflammatory statements that cause anxiety among women, shame among men, and divide the population are apparently fine as long as they result in viral video clips and conform to feminist dogma.

So I wonder: Why did he phrase it like this? Telling women to blanket avoid men is a borderline impossible ask. If he really wanted to help women, he should have spoken of specific character traits (violence or addiction for example) that they should stay away from. Is he part of some invisible cabal, attempting to lower German fertility rate and weaken the nation?

Maybe he just doesn't care about the repercussions his words may have on the German people. Politics seems to often select for people that care very little about their constituents, and are mostly just there to climb the social hierarchy whatever it takes, so maybe this message was a way for him to fit in with his peers. If so, this is potentially quite worrying. The incentive structure should ideally reward public officials who have the best interests of the citizens at heart, and punish those who use their position as a means to a selfish end. If this is not the case, the we could see some truly horrible politicians in the future.

Or maybe the man is actually a devout feminist. A true believer who legitimately thinks that "Men are dangerous" is an important message that must be spread in order to turn society into a better place. It just seems insane to me that an adult man would believe this. Surely he must see that his warning implicates himself and his friends as dangers to women as well. Do men like that even exist?

Or maybe the man is actually a devout feminist. A true believer who legitimately thinks that "Men are dangerous" is an important message that must be spread in order to turn society into a better place. It just seems insane to me that an adult man would believe this. Surely he must see that his warning implicates himself and his friends as dangers to women as well. Do men like that even exist?

Don't traditionalists essentially come from the premise that men are dangerous (and should strive to be besides), and thus men should have a framework of mutual respect and women should stick with men that have personal reasons to protect them (fathers/vetted husbands)?

Do men like that even exist?

Yes, although if I'm any indication they're at high risk for gender dysphoria.

You and everyone in this thread so far are straining to make a big deal out of very little.

This is how you start out:

First, this is clearly not meant to be taken literally.

And yea, the man made a joke about statistics, as you noticed. But then you go off the deep end.

Why did he phrase it like this? Telling women to blanket avoid men is a borderline impossible ask.

Maybe he just doesn't care about the repercussions his words may have on the German people.

Or maybe the man is actually a devout feminist

Come on. His brand of alarmism is the bread and butter of German conversation. It's entirely unremarkable. German electricians will tell you the wires in your house will kill you, German butchers tell you never to ask what's in the sausage, German policemen dealing with rape will tell you to be very careful around people you know because that's what they deal with on a daily basis. Germans will always be alarmist about whatever field they have expertise in, because that's how we establish conversational dominance. By demonstrating that we know something you don't, and that what you felt safe around is actually hazardous, which hopefully somewhat shocks you and makes you remember that you're dealing with a very intelligent expert who carefully navigates a dangerous world, while you just stumble blindly through it. This is how Germans like to make each other feel. This isn't some nefarious social engineering or negligent panic-mongering, but completely pedestrian everyday talk.

Which isn't to say that public broadcasting isn't staffed by people who would love to exterminate ethnic Germans and replace them with arabs, but that's a different issue.

The risk of overdiagnosis is great enough, that even if you were a billionaire with ample money to spare, a good doctor would still recommend against screening for illnesses when you show no significant symptoms.

This seems stupid. If I was a billionaire intent on living a long and healthy life, I would probably get a full MRI scan once per quarter year. "Oh, we could have detected that tumor three years ago but the scan might have made you anxious" seems like a stupid way to die. If you care about anxiety, simply tell your medical staff not to tell you everything.

--

Regarding the topic of men being dangerous, the elephant in the room is that bad boys and dark triad traits are broadly considered attractive by (some) women. There is certainly the trope of a woman falling for a guy who did time for some violent crime, and then becoming his next victim.

Some might call this victim-blaming, but I would argue that it is not. If I go into a bar full of bikers and loudly declare that their favorite brand of motorbikes is garbage, then I might find myself get assaulted. The one responsible for the assault would be whoever decides to punch me in the face, not me. However, far apart from the fact that people are morally and legally responsible for whom they assault, there exists the wisdom that my own behavior can have a bearing on the probability of me becoming victimized.

The main difference is that I am not naturally inclined to educate rockers on the technical superiority of Japanese bikes (or whatever). People can however not freely pick whom they are attracted to, telling women have you tried to be into low-T accountant types? is no more actionable than telling me if you were into guys, you could get laid with little effort.

It just seems insane to me that an adult man would believe this. Surely he must see that his warning implicates himself and his friends as dangers to women as well. Do men like that even exist?

It's interesting that you call this guy "insane" to say this, but then never actually claim the statement is untrue, just that it could "implicate himself and his friends as dangers to women."

That last isn't correct, by the way: the speaker could easily have noticed that some proportion of other men talk in private about women as non-sapient hypergamous slutwhores who might benefit from some smacking around, but also have noticed that those men seldom share those views with romantic partners until they've made it hard for them to leave.

So... are you saying it's inaccurate that women's relationships with men entail some risk of violence? Or just that it's foolish of him to go voicing inconvenient truths to scare the hoes?

I am saying that as far as advice to women for avoiding violence goes "Don't get into relationships with men" is worse than useless.

First, it makes all men out to be equally dangerous, as there is no attempt to distinguish between different men. Something that simply is not true. The statement is unnecessary fearmongering that necessarily includes himself, as he is a man.

Second, women want relationships with men and are going to seek them out. Women are going to fall in love and want sex and relationships regardless of what they yare told. Useful advice would be to warn women against dangerous traits so they know what to avoid. In the worst case, if you think that all men are equally dangerous you may fail to notice actual warning signs, as you assume every man would act the same way.

As a result, these kinds of statements only really serve to increase tension between the genders and cause excessive fear amongst women. It encourages them to be constantly suspicious of any man close to them, something that for most people is unwarranted and will only serve to reduce their quality of life.

I am not saying dangerous men are not out there, simply that his advice is bad for most people who will hear it. It is similar to advising men that they should avoid women entirely, to reduce risks of false accusations. Technically true, but bereft of nuance to the point of causing more harm than good.

First, it makes all men out to be equally dangerous, as there is no attempt to distinguish between different men. Something that simply is not true.

I think that's very reasonable, but I'm also curious as to what proportion of men you'd estimate are in the dangerous vs. safe category, and what clear warning signs a woman might use to distinguish between the two.

At least here on TheMotte, there are regular assertions in redpill threads that all men are secretly just as sexist (but lie to women about it, or else are leftist cucks who hold it in the silence of their hearts). Empirically, when women are being pilloried as subhuman irrational whores who need to be forced into line for the future of the race, it's uncommon to see another male poster speak up to contradict those claims. That might lead a casual observer to conclude that yes, most men do either actively or passively feel resentment and contempt for women, that most men do regard women as less human than themselves, and that most many men would not mind correcting a female partner's behavior through some physical intervention if the opportunity presented itself, and that therefore "just don't" is not unreasonable advice, particularly for the type of woman whose relationship models might already have been distorted by past abusive parents or partners.

If that's not the case, what would be better advice about how a woman might gauge the odds of eventually experiencing violence at the outset of any given relationship?

it's uncommon to see another male poster speak up to contradict those claims

As someone who doesn't speak up to contradict those claims, it's not because I tacitly agree with them, it's because a debate like this is not worth it:

  • I need to back my words with data, and no one cares enough this issue to publish a paper that seriously examines the moral worth of women and finds it equal to men's. Just like no one is actively remeasuring the curvature of the Earth to own the flat-earthers
  • "If you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, and only the pig likes it." Do I really want to challenge someone who's on his hobby horse? He's only too eager to talk more about his favorite topic, he has layers upon layers of battle-honed arguments, what are the odds that either of us changes their opinion?

So, when I see someone talk about the foids or the joos again, I just minimize the thread and get on with my day.

I am sure that a police officer probably knows much more about violent men than I (a person who has not been in a fight since middle school), and could thus give better advice. My social circle is quite respectful towards women, and the problem there is often that my friends are not forward enough. That said:

  1. Take some time getting to know him before having sex or committing. If you like to go clubbing, stick to places vetted by people you trust, and don't hook up with guys you just met.

  2. If he is violent towards other people, or you find out he has abused others in the past, then leave. Same goes if he is an addict, alcoholic, gang member, or otherwise a criminal. You can probably get quite far by observing the kinds of people he spends time around, and assuming he is similar to them. If he does not want you around his friends or is secretive about his personal life, that is a red flag in and of itself.

  3. Talk with him. If he makes degenerate remarks about women and you can't tell if he is joking, assume that he is serious. If a man has strong prejudices, they are likely to reveal themselves sooner rather than later. If he is needlessly disrespectful towards other women, assume that he will eventually be disrespectful of you.

  4. Make sure to have a good social group. Have friends with whom you can discuss your relationship and struggles so you are not on your own if you have to leave.

Not that any of this removes the risk completely (everything we do in life is risky to an extent), but I think it reduces the risk substantially. At least in my experience, most people will let their mask slip as you start getting to know them, and the kind of manipulator who keeps everyone fooled is very rare.

All of that is great advice for an emotionally healthy person, although I wonder how actionable any of this would be for the kind of person who's already imprinted hardcore on abusive relationship patterns over the course of a bad childhood and a few bad starter boyfriends. For that person, the cleanness of abstinence might genuinely be the best approach, like intermittent fasting for the person who can't manage their sugar cravings.

Fair enough. hereandgone2 had a similar point, and it does make sense.

intermittent fasting for the person who can't manage their sugar cravings

Ah yes, the "I'm sufficiently antisocial on my own, so why can't everyone else be" solution. This isn't actually a problem with the women, by the way; much like it isn't actually a problem with the men who aren't self-aware enough to notice it.

The reason we tend to end up with people who are Cluster Bs to some degree, or at least have some of that behavior- is that it's very difficult to find ourselves, as it were. So what ultimately ends up happening is that, much as the proto-feminists note, is that we kind of end up boxing off/contain the other member. In other words, we settle, for what you may (or may not) know in the workforce as a "shitty" or "subpar" boss, because we're not made of stone and actually do require human companionship.

And that whole "I get to be the authority and better than you" thing is just as much a payment from participant to participant as financial resources and everything else is. We don't teach the nature of this exchange very much[0]- mainly because the question makes men and women who should notice it very uncomfortable, especially in Western nations, and especially especially in New World ones. That attitude has a lot of pros, but this is one of its weaknesses.

Empirically, when women are being pilloried as subhuman irrational whores who need to be forced into line for the future of the race, it's uncommon to see another male poster speak up to contradict those claims.

Yes, because doms take not being better than [their] subs very personally, and it's very important for their proper functioning they get to do this! Both partners do this from time to time; women usually exhibit it differently than men, almost like they compliment each other or something.

[0] By the way, the core of the BDSM movement are mostly autistic weirdos who have both noticed this and have it under control, or use it to keep it under control (or are weird/open enough to cosplay or cargo-cult it). This is why it usually makes relationships go sideways when one or more non-autists get a hold of it, especially when they start saying "liberation".

I wish there were more reliable surveys on the rate of sexual assaults in the Gulf Arab countries. If it’s true that their rate sits at < 2 per capita (Oman reports essentially zero) then we’ve found the social policy that can actually solve the Rape Problem. And maybe their reported stats are correct, because in Qatar 83% of women feel safe walking alone at night, while in Italy it’s only 44%

https://archive.is/asOMc

https://www.gallup.com/file/analytics/695138/Gallup_Global-Safety-Report-2025.pdf

So I wonder: Why did he phrase it like this?

Because he is a successful boomer man and it was tongue in cheek, because you can make every joke when deprecating yourself or “punching up”. (And of course it is assumed that the patriarchy rules).

The same reason 2 years ago the question “Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear?” did go viral because most women chose the bear. Rephrased to “stuck with a bear or a black man?” yields the opposite answer though which reveals that this is conflict theory and not mistake theory.

Was that really two years ago?

Politics seems to often select for people that care very little about their constituents, and are mostly just there to climb the social hierarchy whatever it takes

That's what the advocates of sortition have been saying.

Surely he must see that his warning implicates himself and his friends as dangers to women as well.

Per the German Wikipedia, he is married with two children; the article does not specify the gender of his spouse.

German Progessive Weirdo: "Ha! Don't get into relationships with men. Checkmate, incels!"

Tribal Afghani Chud: "No want to date. Only rape."

Antagonism? Low effort booing? It's not the first time, it's not the the second time, and not even the 5th time. You've been warned before, you've been temp banned before. Take a nap for 60 days and reconsider the way you engage here.

Or maybe the man is actually a devout feminist. A true believer who legitimately thinks that "Men are dangerous" is an important message that must be spread in order to turn society into a better place. It just seems insane to me that an adult man would believe this. Surely he must see that his warning implicates himself and his friends as dangers to women as well. Do men like that even exist?

Do you not encounter them? There are lots of these pitiful, willfully stupid male feminists in Europe, at least. Can't imagine they're not in "blue America" too.

Some women will indeed need this advice because they are absolutely stupid when it comes to men. Latest 'divorce diaries' story in national newspaper had me going "what the hell": women marries guy despite red flags because she's getting older (into her thirties) and absolutely desperate to have a child. It does not work out. She has a miscarriage and can't get pregnant again, but stays even when he does things like tell her "I could kill you now".

She only eventually leaves when she finally does fear for her life.

I was terrified most of the time, but the drive in me to have a baby was enormous. I’d had a miscarriage and it actually took me over to the point where I wasn’t even thinking straight, and I was prepared to tolerate that.

To be honest with you, another part of me stayed was because he was so powerless over himself – I felt like he had a wiring issue that stopped him being able to prevent his violence. He just didn’t have that stop button that most people have. And that’s not an excuse for his bad behaviour, but he just didn’t have it.

But then, I wasn’t safe and that was the biggest thing I got wrong – leaving myself unsafe.

I don't blame men in particular, but with women this nuts out there, the safest advice is "stay away from men" for both men and women, because a man who gets stuck in a relationship with a crazy woman isn't doing any better.

Did this woman need that advice? She would have ignored it and probably would be right to do so, given her values.

I think she did. Sometimes people need somebody to tell them that their emotions and habits are making them do really stupid things, like drink a lot of alcohol every day or regularly interact with a man who has a non-trivial chance of murdering them. That's one of the good things about friendship actually, the ability to have somebody tell you things like that and to help somebody else by telling them that.

She did need it, because her brain was too fried to make rational decisions. Maybe she would have gone ahead with the wrong decision anyway, but there would have been no doubt about "she was warned and did this herself".

Something something society-wide "Women are Wonderful" effect.

Also something something sex-havers (NOT incels) are statistically the biggest threats to women.

Sometimes I watch true crime documentaries with my girlfriend, and what always stands out in the rape or rape+murder situations is that many of them, even among stranger assaults, don't consist of a random guy grabbing a woman off the street and dragging her into a street corner. They often consist of date rape, or something like a group of guys and girls are hanging out after a party with some booze and one of the guys stays with one of the girls and then drags her into the figurative alley.

I think there's a feminist point to be made there that there is a group of men that believes such a situation entitles them to some sex afterward. But where I disagree with the feminist point is that I think this often goes along with innate personality traits or psychopathy, and there's no amount of education or re-education that can be done to fully eliminate their existence. Louis CK has a joke where he goes:

We're so afraid of pedophilia because it's and it's not going anywhere. That's a fact, it's not like there's a finite amount of pedophiles, and we got the last one. Now it keeps happening. Every generation there's more. Some of you have kids, and some of those kids are gonna grow up to fuck kids... So any real solution has to start with the basic reality that there will always be pedophiles.

I'd say the same is true of people who are psychopathic, and genuinely do see women (and men, and children, and animals, and everything) as inanimate objects to be used as they wish. There's another one born every minute. I think the reason some of the incel stuff sets of warning alarms is that there is some "women have instrumental value to me, redistribute the pussy-objects" language in there, especially in the extreme spaces. But the interesting difference is that these are often "someone else should give me a woman"-type complaints, which is... a pretty pathetic point of view, and not the worldview inhabited by most rapists, who are proud of their ability to coerce and overpower women on their own and often don't even see what they're doing as rape.

But the typical incel is a lonely, sad, and yeah often times angry and frustrated guy, but the very elements that cause his inceldom like shyness and seclusion are also traits that 'protect' him from attacking people. In an 'honor among thieves' sense, in the original meaning where Plato indicates that you have to have some level of real skill and mastery to pull off a heist (i.e. the Oceans films), there are often skills and traits possessed by many rapists, but not by the average incel, that would enable them to date and have consensual sex with a woman, though they choose not to. This is actually borne out by research on repeat offenders, who make up the vast majority of sexual assaults, and who are often skilled, socially competent, strategic, and careful. To me, this makes the crimes of rapists more evil -- they have the capacities built into them to do good, but choose evil.

And obviously when we talk about domestic violence, you have to be in a domicile with a woman to commit domestic violence against her. That's pretty non-incel.

I think society can do a lot to give resources and aid to victims, to prevent what crime can be prevented, and to try and catch these kinds of men early and get them the hell away from society and from women. My girlfriend's point, by the way, is that it's a horrific injustice for men who commit crimes like this to then be sentenced to something like 10 years in prison, of which he might serve 3 because of parole, and then he's out on the street again and rapes someone else. And it's often liberal and progressive groups who argue in favor of systems like parole, and in general for viewing the criminal justice system as a greater threat to safety and liberty than violent criminals.

But also alcohol is awful, and we should be screaming at young people not to go get drunk at parties, because alcohol impairs judgment for everyone who partakes and people can make decisions they never would sober, which can place even relatively normal people in a position to become involved in violence. In more ways than just sexual violence; see the persistence of the barfight as a concept, or the drunk uncles who always seem to get on the Florida news for doing something awful at EPCOT, or, say, the women's movement against alcohol because of the long, long history of daddy coming home drunk as a skunk and beating his wife and his children.

I'd say the same is true of people who are psychopathic, and genuinely do see women (and men, and children, and animals, and everything) as inanimate objects to be used as they wish.

This problem is exacerbated by society's insistence, despite the efforts of 19th-century philosophers and fin-de-millénaire fantasy novelists, that there are some circumstances in which human beings do deserve to be treated as such; this makes declarations of "This isn't one of those times." less credible than "You shouldn't dehumanise them because no one ought to ever dehumanise anyone.".

The main point that I absolutely give the feminists is that physical abuse by males is far more dangerous for women, in terms of the actual harm that can be inflicted, casually.

Likewise, a male is much more capable of raping (in the most basic sense, literal forced penetration) the average female than the reverse.

Now this is based on the differential in physical strength between the genders, so acknowledging this issues dismantles almost all of the rest of the feminist perspective, but I accept it as truth.

So we are faced with a situation where male abusers are a far greater risk factor than female ones, all else equal. And they're absolutely able to deceive and manipulate their way into a position to be abusive, they don't wear a giant tattoo on their face saying "I <3 punching females" so its not trivial to pick them out of the crowd.

Okay, some of them DO wear the equivalent of such a tattoo.

I'm fully on board with the need to heavily police male behavior... but that has to be done by males. Such males ALSO have to be selected to not be abusive, so you want them to be males that also have some skin in the game, some investment in the safety of the females in question.

Sooooo: Fathers. Brothers. Husbands.

Sigh.

Obligatory link to Norm on Cosby and rapists

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ljaP2etvDc4?si=hOQKystfogIsEsz5

It needs to be said- dad can almost always recognize a future abuser. The normies just get intimately involved before they meet the parents.

It needs to be said- dad can almost always recognize a future abuser. The normies just get intimately involved before they meet the parents.

I think that society has a hard time admitting that women frequently have poor judgment in these types of situations. Of course, when it comes to a man going for the wrong woman, it's fine to say "he was thinking with his little head" or some such. But with women, you aren't supposed to observe that sexual desire often results in poor decisions. So instead we get the trope of the "master manipulator" i.e. the abusive man who is highly skilled at concealing his proclivities until it is too late for the poor damsel.

And, likewise, dad needs to be in the picture in some substantial way.

I'd bet, and it is just my hypothesis, that the epidemic of single moms raising kids means many girls making atrocious choices in boyfriends and this causes their downstream hysteria around men in general.

And of course, dad has to have some semblance of authority, ideally with legal backing, to act to remove bad suitors from the picture.

So we are faced with a situation where male abusers are a far greater risk factor than female ones, all else equal.

And that's the mistake that got you feminism/gynosupremacy in the first place- so instead of male abusers that beat you, you have female abusers who will [have] you beaten if you don't pay a pre-emptive penalty for the beating it's assumed you'll do.
A beating by proxy is still a beating.

And they're absolutely able to deceive and manipulate their way into a position to be abusive, they don't wear a giant tattoo on their face saying "I <3 punching females" so its not trivial to pick them out of the crowd.

Yeah, because it's out of fashion; given way to modern women putting giant tattoos on their faces saying "I <3 male tears". (It's the pointed librarian glasses and the danger hair, in case you were curious.) Ah yes, but that isn't "harmful", only the male version of it is- it's not like we can pre-emptively judge KKK members in full regalia for racism, right?

I'm fully on board with the need to heavily police male behavior

And I'm fully on board with the need to police female behavior just as heavily in the ways it generally acts out. This hysterical bullshit is just as destructive; but it's a burn slow enough that we can blame the designated abuse gender for not being happy with it. We can start by making it illegal to express opinions like the one this politician has.

Such males ALSO have to be selected to not be abusive, fathers/brothers/husbands

Which, given historic DV rates, they're not actually better (especially husbands). I get that the average traditionalists think men were ever any good at this, but they failed pretty hard in the '50s and '60s (and quite a bit before that, re: prohibition).

And that's the mistake that got you feminism/gynosupremacy in the first place- so instead of male abusers that beat you, you have female abusers who will [have] you beaten if you don't pay a pre-emptive penalty for the beating it's assumed you'll do.

Every time I start to feel that the he-man anti-women club section on here have a point or two, exaggerated messaging pops up and makes me go "Nope".

Oh gosh, gynosupremacy! Women Are Wonderful! Women have all the rights and men have none!

Congratulations, gentlemen, now you know what it was like to live, as a woman, in the world of androsupremacy, Men Are The Superior Sex, and women have no rights. That is why we got feminism in the first place.

It's better if everyone has rights and nobody gets turned into the inferior sex.

Why are women divorce-raping men, the bitches? Story published in 1904, set in 1897:

She shuddered and buried her face in her hands. As she did so, the loose gown fell back from her forearms. Holmes uttered an exclamation.

"You have other injuries, madam! What is this?" Two vivid red spots stood out on one of the white, round limbs. She hastily covered it.

"It is nothing. It has no connection with this hideous business to-night. If you and your friend will sit down, I will tell you all I can.

"I am the wife of Sir Eustace Brackenstall. I have been married about a year. I suppose that it is no use my attempting to conceal that our marriage has not been a happy one. I fear that all our neighbours would tell you that, even if I were to attempt to deny it. Perhaps the fault may be partly mine. I was brought up in the freer, less conventional atmosphere of South Australia, and this English life, with its proprieties and its primness, is not congenial to me. But the main reason lies in the one fact, which is notorious to everyone, and that is that Sir Eustace was a confirmed drunkard. To be with such a man for an hour is unpleasant. Can you imagine what it means for a sensitive and high-spirited woman to be tied to him for day and night? It is a sacrilege, a crime, a villainy to hold that such a marriage is binding. I say that these monstrous laws of yours will bring a curse upon the land -- God will not let such wickedness endure." For an instant she sat up, her cheeks flushed, and her eyes blazing from under the terrible mark upon her brow. Then the strong, soothing hand of the austere maid drew her head down on to the cushion, and the wild anger died away into passionate sobbing.

..."He was a good-hearted man when he was sober, but a perfect fiend when he was drunk, or rather when he was half drunk, for he seldom really went the whole way. The devil seemed to be in him at such times, and he was capable of anything. From what I hear, in spite of all his wealth and his title, he very nearly came our way once or twice. There was a scandal about his drenching a dog with petroleum and setting it on fire -- her ladyship's dog, to make the matter worse -- and that was only hushed up with difficulty. Then he threw a decanter at that maid, Theresa Wright -- there was trouble about that. On the whole, and between ourselves, it will be a brighter house without him. What are you looking at now?"

...She was an interesting person, this stern Australian nurse-taciturn, suspicious, ungracious, it took some time before Holmes's pleasant manner and frank acceptance of all that she said thawed her into a corresponding amiability. She did not attempt to conceal her hatred for her late employer.

"Yes, sir, it is true that he threw the decanter at me. I heard him call my mistress a name, and I told him that he would not dare to speak so if her brother had been there. Then it was that he threw it at me. He might have thrown a dozen if he had but left my bonny bird alone. He was forever ill-treating her, and she too proud to complain. She will not even tell me all that he has done to her. She never told me of those marks on her arm that you saw this morning, but I know very well that they come from a stab with a hatpin. The sly devil -- God forgive me that I should speak of him so, now that he is dead! But a devil he was, if ever one walked the earth. He was all honey when first we met him -- only eighteen months ago, and we both feel as if it were eighteen years. She had only just arrived in London. Yes, it was her first voyage -- she had never been from home before. He won her with his title and his money and his false London ways. If she made a mistake she has paid for it, if ever a woman did. What month did we meet him? Well, I tell you it was just after we arrived. We arrived in June, and it was July. They were married in January of last year. Yes, she is down in the morning-room again, and I have no doubt she will see you, but you must not ask too much of her, for she has gone through all that flesh and blood will stand."

Well, why didn't she just leave him? Under the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 You could only get divorce on the grounds of adultery, and if you were a woman seeking a divorce you also had to prove additional causes:

The act did not treat women's and men's grounds for divorce equally (largely on the grounds that women's adultery was more serious because it introduced doubt as to the paternity of possible heirs). Thus a husband could petition for divorce on the sole grounds that his wife had committed adultery, whereas a wife could only hope for a divorce based on adultery combined with other offences such as incest, cruelty, bigamy, desertion, etc.

More reform came later, but still grounds for divorce were limited:

Previously, before the Matrimonial Causes Act 1923, men could divorce women on the basis of adultery, but women were required to prove that their male partners had undertaken adultery and additional offences, such as incest, sodomy, cruelty (roughly equivalent to domestic violence) and other possible reasons.

The 1923 Act changed the need for women to prove additional causes plus adultery on the part of the husband, but it was not merely Women Are Wonderful alone that brought this about:

The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 included a double standard in its provisions. While a wife's adultery was sufficient cause to end a marriage, a woman could divorce her husband only if his adultery had been compounded by another matrimonial offense. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1923 granted a wife the right to divorce her husband for adultery alone and thus removed the double standard with respect to the grounds for divorce born English statutes. Although the 1923 act was contemporaneous with other reforms extending the legal rights of women, an analysis of the public debates regarding divorce reform indicates that the statute was not based solely on a desire to provide equitable matrimonial relief for husbands and wives. The belief that male adultery contributed to such problems as prostitution, illegitimacy, and the spread of venereal disease was as significant in the passage of the 1923 act as the demand for equal access to divorce for men and women.

It wasn't until 1937 that grounds other than adultery were sufficient for divorce:

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 was a law on divorce in the United Kingdom. It extended the grounds for divorce, which until then only included adultery, to include unlawful desertion for three years or more, cruelty, and incurable insanity, incest or sodomy.

So in 1897 Lady Brackenstall would have been stuck, still married, to her abusive husband. She could have separated from him, but she would still be legally married and still technically under his power.

Now, gentlemen, it may indeed be no-fault divorce has gone too far, but imagine if today you were in an abusive marriage but couldn't get out because your spouse may be a drunk who beats you but they're not an adulterer. Would men put up with that?

Now, before anyone jumps in with "yeah but that's only a story, not all marriages in 1897 or 1904 were like that", no, they were not.

But a story demonstrates social attitudes. Some things have to be believable; to abbreviate a Chesterton quote, people might or might not believe a story that Gladstone was haunted by Parnell's ghost, but they would not at all believe that Gladstone slapped Queen Victoria on the back and offered her a cigar.

People reading that story would have gone "Yeah, that happens", the same way somebody reading a story today where the wife took the husband to the cleaners in the divorce would go "Yeah, that happens". The motive for the murder would be explicable to them: the wife was stuck in an abusive marriage and had no legal means of getting out, and if she ran off with her lover then she would be the one in the wrong and socially ostracised and blamed. And why couldn't she get out of this marriage? Because that was the law at the time. Men Are Wonderful effect. Men had the power, women didn't.

Some things have to be believable; to abbreviate a Chesterton quote, people might or might not believe a story that Gladstone was haunted by Parnell's ghost, but they would not at all believe that Gladstone slapped Queen Victoria on the back and offered her a cigar.

See also the "Would you be more surprised to find a walrus or a fairy on your doorstep?" debate from two years ago.

Which, given historic DV rates, they're not actually better (especially husbands).

Nah, the issue here is that its not a random selection.

Its like the stat that more people are killed by cows than sharks every year.

There's a lot more cows, and humans interact with cows far more often. A shark is, all else equal, much more dangerous to the human.

So a stranger can in fact be more individually dangerous, even if the perpetrator of an incident of abuse is more likely to be someone they know.

If a woman interacts with her husband daily then of course the husband is the most likely person to commit any abuse. Doesn't mean he's the most dangerous male she actually encounters.

It partly boils down to this: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hello-human-resources/

If the seductive male is ever so evil, a lot of females would rather punish some innocent, less attractive male.

If only you knew how bad things really are.

Rejection by an Attractive Suitor Provokes Derogation of an Unattractive Suitor.

Brads get to deal with the aftermaths of Chads’ rejections/pump-and-dumps.

I think more like the story of the abusive husband who comes home from work and beats his wife because he feels powerless at work and DV allows him to feel powerful: such women take out their anger over their feelings of powerlessness on men they do have power over.

So there'd be a lot less nastiness in the world if we didn't make a habit of regularly putting anyone in a position where they 'feel powerless'? "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.", indeed.

There'd probably be a lot less nastiness in the world if we were better at recognizing the difference between power and entitlement.

What is the difference between those things, as you see it?

More comments

They often consist of date rape, or something like a group of guys and girls are hanging out after a party with some booze and one of the guys stays with one of the girls and then drags her into the figurative alley.

That's her story anyway. Of course this ignores that women get horny too and lowered inhibitions from alcohol can make them decide in the moment to have sex with someone they would be ashamed to have sex with otherwise, and "date rape" gives them a socially acceptable way of avoiding that shame. Drunk women can be extremely pushy and we let them get away with pushing all the blame onto their partner via "date rape".

But also alcohol is awful, and we should be screaming at young people not to go get drunk at parties, because alcohol impairs judgment for everyone who partakes and people can make decisions they never would sober

That's the point of alcohol. Both the direct effects of intoxication and the excuse intoxication provides allow people to make decisions which go against the advice of society (including that in the OP) -- which is good, because said advice, if followed, would lead to a very safe, but boring and lonely life.

Besides all that, I've read many times that lesbian relationships have much higher rates of domestic violence, so...?

Women in lesbian relationships report having experienced domestic/sexual violence at some point in their lives at a higher rate than heterosexual women, which is not the same thing as 'lesbian relationships have higher rates domestic abuse.'

Sure, yeah, the map is never the territory therefore we can disregard the map.

When the map is not the territory one should consider the ways in which the map and the territory differ and avoid drawing strong conclusions from information you know isn't representing the question of interest.

I think I have already written my completely unfounded hypothesis trying to explain this on The Motte, but I'll summarize it again. Men have more ways to counter psychological manipulation. A husband angrily snaps at his wife who's trying to guilt him into doing something, and she stops; the cycle doesn't form. With two wives, neither of them is big and scary and aggressive enough to do so, so when one of them starts this, the other can either submit and leave herself open to further demands, or counterescalate with some manipulation of her own. A few escalations later there's a cold war in the house, and both women are thinking the other one is an abusive bitch.

what you are also looking at is more reporting in queer relationships, the recipient lesbian usually is empowered enough to seek her way out if things go south or get litigation/filing involved. Within a heterosexual relationship however, the recipient woman will likely find more emotional support and ways to cope so leaving a pragmatic alliance like a marriage doesn't make too much sense, if things aren't super horrible and danger isn't imminent. However, this is changing and most women even in hetero-relationships will try to get out at the very beginning of violent outbursts.

Women in general seem to like getting official enforcement involved, with officiating labels that give them a sense of security in the personal realm, lesbians also get married more, thus the misunderstood ''high divorce rate'' statistic that floats around. In general, women are trained to ''secure'' resources and alliances, and the current culture also empowers them to walk out more if things go south. For a queer woman to have fought against the practical norm of hetero-relations (let's be real, the hetero coupling is the best pairing for a multitude of socio-economic reasons), then to have gone so far as to get married to another woman requires a certain level of resilience and ability to strongarm (being queer is genuinely difficult), so the chances of such a person remaining passive and accepting abuse is fairly low, they are likely self-reliant enough to report and get out quick.

I don't know if I'm right, but my hunch is that even if that is true, men nonetheless have a higher rate of causing serious damage because they are much stronger than women.

There’s no way. Testosterone is a helluva drug.

The BJS has this survey, which shows ~2x rates for various crimes, but doesn’t separate lesbian from gay. It’s still a weird result. There’s definitely a higher reporting rate, but I’m not sure what causes that, either. More trust in the police? An urban bias?

If you download the NCVS stats yourself or otherwise figure out how to filter it, let me know!

There’s no way. Testosterone is a helluva drug.

It's probably mostly reporting bias -- women hit their partners all the time in relationships, but when that partner is a man it's:

a)no big deal because she hits like a girl

b) kind of embarrassing to report that your girlfriend is abusing you

In a lesbian relationship, neither partner is used to receiving any kind of violence, and both are socially predisposed to treat any kind of violence (done by someone other than themselves!) as a relationship red line -- so that cops/statisticians are much more likely to hear about it.

This. Women define the term expansively to cover as much behavior as possible, men do basically the opposite.

I've never struck a woman outside a training gym. But I've been struck by dozens, stabbed by one. And had a fork thrown at me which by sheer bad luck stuck in my leg by another. By my count that's one count of DV, unreported. If I were a chick, that would be two decades of abuse and it's all society's fault for the misandry that encouraged that sort of female behavior. I call it dating latinas and art hoes.

Note for the boys still in the game, one or the other, not both. That's how you get stabbed.

But I've been struck by dozens, stabbed by one. And had a fork thrown at me which by sheer bad luck stuck in my leg by another.

The paradox of women. A chick might look comically weak and silly when throwing a baseball or football, but then suddenly turn into a ninja when she has a fork in her hand and her stupid husband/boyfriend just isn’t doing the bare minimum in prioritizing her needs.

If I were a chick, that would be two decades of abuse and it's all society's fault for the misandry that encouraged that sort of female behavior. I call it dating latinas and art hoes.

Perhaps this joke/meme will trigger some fond memores for you.

And government and society are happy to enforce this double standard, and punish a man for raising his voice to a woman (with the excuse that his larger size and greater strength make that an implicit threat) while not punishing the woman for whaling (if ineffectively) on a man.

I’ve heard about this as well but when I looked at the research, it’s nothing very conclusive and the most famous study didn’t differentiate between lesbians who experienced violence from male only and male and female perpetrators.

This is an angle explored by thetinmen I honestly just take it for granted at this point that the other side of the coin gets completely ignored. Maybe public discourse is just fucked.

He could have also chosen to to warn women against certain behaviors. "If your man is violent, get out before it escalates" is a complete sentence with a clear call to action that fits neatly into a soundbite. If he really wanted to help women, he should have spoken of specific character traits (violence or addiction for example) that they should stay away from.

I suggest we unpack this wider issue from a culture war perspective.

In the context of the mating market and sexual politics, we often see advice getting handed out to women, especially young single women, usually by men and women that are at least ambiguous towards feminist theories, pieces of advice that are rather similar and claim to help women form happy romantic relationships:

Avoid dangerous and violent men

Don’t fall for bad boys

Don’t go clubbing in skimpy clothes late at night while getting drunk

Don’t hook up men who were not vetted by people that you trust from your social circle

Preferably avoid one-night stands completely

Dress modestly during the day and act ladylike

Smile a lot and be pleasant instead of being a standoffish cunt

Present yourself as available and show indicators of interest if you’re looking for a man

Give clear signals to men whom you’re willing to accept

And so on.

You might notice that such advice is usually met with sneering and disdain by feminist or feminist-adjacent, Blue Tribe (in other words, mainstream) middle-class single women. The simple reason is that the message that is actually coming across to them when they hear this stuff is roughly this:

Withdraw yourself from the sexual competition for the attention of the top men. Don’t even try. Don’t copy the antics of your feminist sassy riot grrrl girlfriends. In fact, don’t interact with them socially. Settle for an average boring chopped man instead and service him sexually instead. Do the sort of things with him that he likes watching on porn sites. Put up with all his icky antics. Give a chance to that icky programmer dude that keeps stalking you at the office. When rejecting a man, do it gracefully even if he’s icky as fuck.

All this stuff is just extremely revolting and nauseating to a modern woman. And I think this police chief guy knows it. This is the explanation.

But the advice he did give was "avoid relationships entirely". Surely this is worse in every way you highlight. You can go to the club, have casual sex, and dress in skimpy clothing while also avoiding relationships with men that are violent or addicts. You cannot do these things and not have relationships with men at all.

You cannot do these things and not have relationships with men at all.

Sure you can. The obvious zinger is that you can have relationships with women instead (though as mentioned elsewhere in the thread this is, of course, no guarantee of an abuse-free relationship). But also, you can dress skimpily and go clubbing for you own enjoyment with no intention of pursuing sexual or romantic relationships of any kind. For one thing, there are certainly people who enjoy dancing and getting hammered in a crowd - going to the club is, in fact, meant to be an enjoyable experience in itself, not some cumbersome prerequisite protocol for finding a mate.

(As for the skimpy clothing, setting aside the possibility that they just feel more comfortable with more skin showing - and we cannot underestimate that; naturist camps are attractive to non-swingers! - there are also people who enjoy feeling like a center of attention in a crowd, but don't particularly want that diffuse attention to translate into one-on-one flirtation.)

Naturally doing all those things increases one's odds of being sexually assaulted by strangers. But Peglow's whole point was that this effect is less than you'd think, and the bigger abuse risks are in established relationships. So the takeaway can actually be "what you've been told is backwards: you're more likely to be abused if you go steady with a boy than if you party without settling down". It's a bold point but a perfectly coherent one, and it's certainly not isomorphic to conservative sexual mores.

going to the club is, in fact, meant to be an enjoyable experience in itself, not some cumbersome prerequisite protocol for finding a mate.

I think this is a folk etymology. Dances as rituals for finding mates are one of the oldest human institutions, to the point that they aren't even peculiar to humans.

I'm not claiming that dancing doesn't or shouldn't act as a mating ritual. I'm saying that dancing is supposed to be fun in and of itself, to the extent that some people do it for its own sake - not a chore you need to slog through to get to the good bit. (Compare: sex, procreation.)

Sex is also fun enough that people use a variety of methods to stop it from reaching the whole point of the thing.

But the advice he did give was "avoid relationships entirely".

What else is he supposed to say in the political environment he's in? You mentioned that he made this comment on the issue of rising rates of sexual assault on women. Obviously he was expected to at least say something.

I did suggest some other ways of phrasing it, and outlined why I think the way he said it does more harm than good. If you are correct that women will twist your words from "Avoid dangerous and violent men" to "be a good domestic housewife and serve your man that you don't really like" then I honestly don't know what to say. At that point you are literally making up words and putting them in my mouth.

What else is he supposed to say in the political environment he's in?

I think that he should either give actual advice that can help women (traits to stay away from) or at least avoid causing undue worry through his phrasing. "Call the police when you are in trouble" would have also been useless, but it would have sufficed as a politically neutral and non-inflammatory response.

Because too many of them will accept continued abuse before they will ever accept accountability. "I shouldn't have any obligation to reflect on harm reduction, because people shouldn't behave this way." This is symptom of what I call "living in the should be universe." Regardless of what should be the case that's the way that things are. And if you deal with the way things are, you'll often find that life becomes much more navigable and leads to better overall outcomes rather than walking into situations expecting everything to conform to your idealized picture of the world.

These are problems with people's value systems. A psychopath on one hand is somewhat more forgivable for this hideous acts only on the grounds that they're quite literally mentally deficient people who need professional management. Someone who abuses and manipulates others because they are selfish and were trained to think all their lives that it's simply "okay" to treat people this way are far worse people.

If you are correct that women will twist your words from "Avoid dangerous and violent men" to "be a good domestic housewife and serve your man that you don't really like" then I honestly don't know what to say

I think there is a real risk that "avoid dangerous and violent men" will be twisted to "if a woman is a victim of domestic violence, it's her fault because she made a bad choice." Feminists LOVE to scream about victim-blaming.

I'll never get people who are always permanently adamant and obstinate when it comes to accepting blame for anything and yet can turn around and declare like a harp that you "hold the other party accountable" for days on end without a trace of irony. You can't have accountability without blame. Those things are two sides of the same coin. Physical abuse is never justifiable but that doesn't mean you aren't an idiot if you choose not to leave. How many of these people have you met that live by the same code they decry having their own feet held to the fire over?:

  1. If a man cheats in a relationship he's an asshole.
  2. If a woman cheats in a relationship, he's an asshole.

The cheater will almost always consider themselves justified if they can't spin themselves as a victim. In both cases, it's because the person was lacking in character and should be held accountable for their own choices and actions. But this is about how socially it is perceived more often than not. A lot of people rightfully can blame a man for cheating on a woman, no matter how good or bad things are in their relationship. But when women cheat, it's far more common to feel sense of questioning and empathy regarding the actions of their partner; it's often seen as understandable because he was lacking in some ways. "He was driven to cheat because he can't control himself." "She was driven to cheat... By him."

I'm guessing you're familiar with the phenomenon that were the so-called Slut Walks and what started them? This police chief is probably aware and wanted to avoid the same fate.

The answer is simple. It's not about making women safe, it's about dragging men as a political class. There's never much trouble finding a member of a group to be the public face of opposing it. Mearsheimer, Candace Owens, Milo etc.

This is not a public service announcement to reduce female risk of victimization, this is a political blood libel aimed at shoring up the paranoia of the sort of bigots who think all men are racist patriarchal scum (but not the good Mr. Peglow).

Right, but using "men" as your outgroup is ridiculous, no? Like, we are talking about literally half the population here, including the speaker himself.

I understand that there is political power in uniting behind a common course, and that there is utility in naming a smaller but still decently big group (immigrants, jews, roma, etc.) that you can blame for all your problems. But the fact that it is possible to just blame "men" is wild. Even wilder that so many men men go along with it. The same "bigots who think all men are racist patriarchal scum" will absolutely turn on him the moment it becomes politically opportune to do so.

In practice it's only "men who self consciously see themselves as men in terms of political class".

But yes, it's generally a bad idea in any democracy to gain a reputation for hating half the country.

Right, but using "men" as your outgroup is ridiculous, no?

It is less than optimal, certainly; however, it can be made reasonable with a slight change: namely, reduce the scope from 'all men' to 'men who claim that certain actions by a woman constitute irrevocable consent to sex'¹.

If Alice does not want to have sex with Bob at this time, and has made this clear to him, and Bob forces himself upon Alice, Bob is always in the wrong. This does not change if Alice stays overnight at Bob's house rather than risk dying of hypothermia, it does not change if Bob paid for Alice's dinner, it does not change if Alice got drunk and pursued sex with every other man in their circle, it does not change if Alice eagerly consented to sex with Bob last week, and it does not change if Alice and Bob declared at a large public ceremony and in official records that they intended to have an ongoing sexual relationship; the same applies if the gender of either or both is reversed.

I would advise my daughter to avoid dating anyone who disputes this.

¹cf. claims that consenting to sex constitutes an absolute acceptance of the obligation to pregnancy.

This again seems like putting words in my mouth. I already stated I would be fine with specifying the advice into avoiding men who exhibit certain traits. Pressuring you into sex against your will could reasonably be one such. But that is not what this man did. He implicated every man as equally dangerous. This is useless and makes every man his outgroup. Retreating to your motte when criticized does not erase the bailey argument.

I do not endorse Herr Peglow's remarks. I have elsewhere argued against his apparent worldview. I was merely stating an argument he could have made, and that if he had done so instead of blaming half of humanity, he would have been on more solid ground.

I don't really understand this consent-maximizing worldview.

What is the point of these statements? The best way to avoid rape is to avoid being in the physical proximity of any given person that would rape you.

What does telling your daughter this accomplish exactly?

it does not change if Alice got drunk and pursued sex with every other man in their circle

Are you making a formal promise that she can freely get intoxicated around any given man and if anything she does not like happen, some kind of system will provide satisfying retribution on her behalf? Are you also teaching your sons that it is their duty to go and start fights with drunk men who are 'preying' on women who are enthusiastically following your teachings?

Is it rape if she is drunk? Is it rape if he is drunk? Is it murder if the killer of your son is drunk?

This does not change if Alice stays overnight at Bob's house rather than risk dying of hypothermia

If your daughter is stranded on an island with Bob and Bob controls the one safe shelter, is it rape if they have sex? Sometimes the choice is between rape and murder, I suppose, or manslaughter by exposure.

But either way, nobody is likely to adjudicate any kind of justice or protection on her behalf any time soon. Making your daughter more fearful of consequences of being alone with a man might actually prevent her from taking that far-away vacation in a plane with a man that led her to being stranded on the island, however.

What is the point of these statements? The best way to avoid rape is to avoid being in the physical proximity of any given person that would rape you.

Which is a lot more practical if we establish a standard that "No person is ever justified in forcing himself on another person, regardless of what choices that other person made.", thus reducing the number of potential perpetrators.

What does telling your daughter this accomplish exactly?

Giving her advice that (1.) she can follow while still dating people of the gender to which she is attracted, and (2.) will steer her towards people who are not pre-positioned to decide that they are entitled to take advantage of her.

Are you making a formal promise that she can freely get intoxicated around any given man and if anything she does not like happen, some kind of system will provide satisfying retribution on her behalf?

If by 'anything she does not like' means 'some arsehole decides that he is entitled to access to her body notwithstanding her clearly expressed unwillingness', and 'satisfying retribution on her behalf' means 'assailant not given leniency relative to the counter-factual case in which he grabbed a woman who was following the "Saved, Sanctified, Separated, and Suit-Wearing Baptist Church Manual for Godly Courtship" to the letter', then yes, society owes her such a promise.

Are you also teaching your sons that it is their duty to go and start fights with drunk men who are 'preying' on women who are enthusiastically following your teachings?

No, but I would teach him that it is his duty to Notify The Proper Authorities; he would have a duty to personally intervene if (a.) he were one of the Proper Authorities, being issued with armaments and drawing a salary from all of our tax money, or (b.) he fell through a portal into an anarchist world in which the Proper Authorities did not exist.

Is it rape if she is drunk?

Her being drunk doesn't make him less culpable for ignoring her unambiguous refusal. Whether enthusiastic consent can be invalidated by intoxication is a matter which will have to be left for a later time.

Is it rape if he is drunk? Is it murder if the killer of your son is drunk?

Yes.

If your daughter is stranded on an island with Bob and Bob controls the one safe shelter, is it rape if they have sex?

If he makes access to the shelter contingent on sexual favours, or implies that it is, yes. If he lets her in unconditionally, and their liaison is solely motivated by mutual desire, no.

But either way, nobody is likely to adjudicate any kind of justice or protection on her behalf any time soon.

Until they get back to civilisation....

Which is a lot more practical if we establish a standard that "No person is ever justified in forcing himself on another person, regardless of what choices that other person made.", thus reducing the number of potential perpetrators.

How is talking to your daughter going to reduce the number of potential perpetrators? Or are you talking about a different kind of action you are simultaneously undertaking to affect wider society? If you believe that a more comprehensive 'consent maximalist' approach is needed on a societal level, do you also simultaneously advocate for the mass importation of men from countries notorious for a comparatively more 'laisser-faire approach to consent', so to speak? 'Bad hombres' as one quite laisser-faire man himself put it.

then yes, society owes her such a promise.

Do you also teach your children that the most important consideration while crossing the street is whether or not the light says they are owed the right-of-way, and not whether or not the fast-travelling vehicles actually stop?

Giving her advice that (1.) she can follow while still dating people of the gender to which she is attracted, and (2.) will steer her towards people who are not pre-positioned to decide that they are entitled to take advantage of her.

Given the fallout of the #MeToo movement in the past few years, is it not questionable whether the most vocal proponents of a maximalist approach to consent are not also themselves prone to consent infractions?

It seems likely to me that the people who need to come up with complicated rules around intoxication and consent in the first place probably are involved in higher-than-average 'complicated' sexual situations that may or may not have to involve a judge at some point.

Whether enthusiastic consent can be invalidated by intoxication is a matter which will have to be left for a later time.

Isn't that the crux of the matter? If her being intoxicated invalidates her 'enthusiastic consent', his being intoxicated also invalidates his own 'enthusiastic consent' to the rape, he is being falsely accused of what he did not consciously engage in.

Similarly for killing a family while drunk driving. Somehow the important factor is not whether or not the booze cruiser purposefully plowed into the minivan, but that they decided to get drunk in the first place.

In my humble opinion, it should be illegal to serve young women alcohol, as they may unknowingly be carrying a child, to spare potential fetal alcohol syndrome.

Until they get back to civilisation....

If

How is talking to your daughter going to reduce the number of potential perpetrators?

Well, for one thing, if her date tries to force himself on her using one of the aforementioned excuses, he is less likely to gain her acquiescence and more likely to end up with a face full of pepper spray, a kick to the nadgers, and/or a court summons.

Or are you talking about a different kind of action you are simultaneously undertaking to affect wider society?

Yes. I am referring to the arcane art known as 'teaching my sons that a woman is entitled a veto over her nether regions, and cannot forfeit it by inchastity.'

do you also simultaneously advocate for the mass importation of men from countries notorious for a comparatively more 'laisser-faire approach to consent', so to speak?

I reject the framing of 'importation'. Immigrants are human beings with agency, who choose to relocate; they are not widgets brought in by the container-load.

However, I am in favour of (1.) more efforts to educate immigrants from such countries that women in the West have the right to say no themselves, without the involvement of a husband or a male relative, and that a woman not being under the control of a man does not make her a public accommodation, and (2.) prosecuting brown rapists to the same degree as white rapists.

Do you also teach your children that the most important consideration while crossing the street is whether or not the light says they are owed the right-of-way, and not whether or not the fast-travelling vehicles actually stop?

No, but I would teach them that a driver who runs over a pedestrian does not become less liable because the pedestrian assumed that they would adhere to the traffic laws.

Given the fallout of the #MeToo movement in the past few years, is it not questionable whether the most vocal proponents of a maximalist approach to consent are not also themselves prone to consent infractions?

They are certainly not immune to such, but someone who publicly avers that, if a woman does XYZ, he is entitled to coitus with her regardless of her preferences, and to take it forcibly if she does not agree, is probably (1.) more dangerous, and (2.) not someone I want raising children.

Isn't that the crux of the matter? If her being intoxicated invalidates her 'enthusiastic consent', his being intoxicated also invalidates his own 'enthusiastic consent' to the rape, he is being falsely accused of what he did not consciously engage in.

Perhaps there was a mis-communication on my part. I am not at this time addressing the cases in which Alice and Bob were both drunk, did the dance with no pants, and Alice or Carol accuses Bob the next morning of rape. I am referring to the simpler case in which Alice does not want to be intimate with Bob, makes this quite clear to him, and he forces himself on her anyway. In that case, Bob is guilty of rape, and his guilt is not lessened one iota because Alice was three sheets to the wind.

Until they get back to civilisation....

If

And if they don't, what stops Alice from channeling Lorena Bobbitt?

Well, for one thing, if her date tries to force himself on her using one of the aforementioned excuses, he is less likely to gain her acquiescence and more likely to end up with a face full of pepper spray, a kick to the nadgers, and/or a court summons.

And how does that work out for your daughter? The context being one of these:

Alice stays overnight at Bob's house

Alice got drunk and pursued sex with every other man in their circle

Alice eagerly consented to sex with Bob last week, and it does not change

Alice and Bob declared at a large public ceremony and in official records that they intended to have an ongoing sexual relationship

I'm not advocating rape or anything but one must remember that men's facial bones are a lot sturdier than women's bones, and the same punch in the face has very different effects between the two. There are men out there who will tank several bullets before being incapable of further violence, and since all that matters to you is the practicality of consent and not the context in which it takes place, prioritizing violent resistance could spell big trouble for your daughter. Sometimes rape turns into murder.

After all, if Alice was previously having enthusiastic sex with Bob and Bob is a rapist, perhaps Alice has a thing for rapists.

Of course if you never told Alice that perhaps she should not be inebriated in the company of hulking gang members with face tattoos and multiple convictions for violent crimes, and you hold dear that whatever choices Alice make are reasonable ones that should never be looked at if she ever gets victimized, perhaps Bob is, shocker, prone to raping.

If Alice somehow survives one 'consent incident' with Bob, would you enthusiastically support her going drinking with Bob the following week?

This is apparently the accusation leveled against Eric Swalwell, that the same woman was taken advantage of in 2 separate instances of intoxication around him.

I am referring to the simpler case in which Alice does not want to be intimate with Bob, makes this quite clear to him, and he forces himself on her anyway.

How could she make it clear to him if Bob is too drunk to consent and presumably understand that she is not consenting?

And if they don't, what stops Alice from channeling Lorena Bobbitt?

Indeed why aren't women just killing rapists left and right? This is just another version of choosing the man or the bear, and women pick the man.

They are certainly not immune to such, but someone who publicly avers that, if a woman does XYZ, he is entitled to coitus with her regardless of her preferences, and to take it forcibly if she does not agree, is probably (1.) more dangerous, and (2.) not someone I want raising children.

Sounds like a character straight out of the latest top-selling romantasy.

If he makes access to the shelter contingent on sexual favours, or implies that it is, yes. If he lets her in unconditionally, and their liaison is solely motivated by mutual desire, no.

That sounds like prostitution. This is a different sexual behavior than rape.

If Alice and Bob divide up the maintenance schedule for the shelter, and Alice subsequently offers sexual favours to Bob in exchange for his carrying out her share as well as his own, that would be prostitution.

Is he obligated to provide her with shelter?

Now requiring her to trade sex for it is a scummy thing to do. But it is not rape, that's the use of coercion or force to obtain sex from an unwilling partner.

More comments

What are you talking about?

I'm not certain what part of my comment is unclear; can you be more specific?

Right, but using "men" as your outgroup is ridiculous, no? Like, we are talking about literally half the population here, including the speaker himself.

From what perspective? On an individual basis this police chief gets net positive brownie points for bashing men as a group. Feminists and their Leftist allies eat it up, most men don't care, and then men who do care aren't organized enough to do anything about it.

From a broader perspective, it's probably not the best idea politically. To illustrate, in the last election cycle, the Democrats desperately needed to court male voters, but from an institutional perspective it was difficult if not impossible. All they could come up with was tone-deaf, insulting ads. Being perceived as the political party that hates men (and hates white people) is a huge albatross around the neck of the Democrats, one which causes them a lot of problems notwithstanding the gerrymandering, the importation of millions of third-worlders, the election shenanigans, etc.

Isn't it just as wild to blame white people in a country where they have a majority or plurality? Yet the enemy does it all the time.

You have been warned, repeatedly, for jerking off about “the enemy”. I was gonna give examples, but Cjet was nice enough to collect them last time. Everything he said still applies.

One month ban.

Is this not just the success recipe of Christianity? The modal pastor constantly thunders against fornicators (presumably a good majority of their audience, per the strict definition) and sinners (everyone in their audience).

It turns out "you and I, we are both bad, but I am superior to you because I at least acknowledge it" is actually an appealing meme. Perhaps it allows those who have lingering feelings that they are bad recover a sense of self-worth without having to repress those feelings, or perhaps being able to tell someone else "you are bad" feels so good that it's worth acknowledging the "I am bad" for.

Camus' "The Fall" is basically about this. He calls it the "Judge Penitent", the man who confesses his degeneracy and uses that as moral cachet to criticize the failings of others.

The modal pastor constantly thunders against fornicators...

This is not my experience. Most preach directly on the issue less than people assume (for good or ill), and when they do I usually wouldn't describe it as thundering – precisely because they know that's not what folks in their congregations usually need.

The closest I have seen to this are some youth pastors. When you are teaching a consistent age group, there is always a new cohort of kids that needs to be firmly reminded to keep its pants on. And that message is usually pretty empathetic, because they know how hard it is.

...and sinners (everyone in their audience)

I guess this could be described as thundering sometimes, as the law side of law and gospel. And "whiteness" is often described as something that can be repented of. So the analogy sort of works here. But without Jesus to bear anyone's sins, it's more of a racial Pelagianism.

Christianity provides a path to redemption. "men bad" rhetoric does not. Putting down other men does not make me a better person in the eyes of the feminist,as it is me being a man that is the problem.

Sure it does, be a good male ally, don’t take up space, defer to women, acknowledge your privilege, pay for your sins, accept any abuse hurtled at you as remuneration for your sin.

Its all very Christian in nature.

None of that will cause the feminists to view me as any less tainted. In Christianity, I can be forgiven for doing evil deeds, and after a long period of redemption, people will see me as good and I can eventually be accepted by the group. For feminists, the fact that I am a male makes me part of the oppressor group, and no matter what I do to distance myself, I will always be an outsider. No matter how good I am, I will never be forgiven for the sins of men.

None of that actually gives you an honorable place in the feminist or progressive movement, just more derision. What you actually need to do is score wins for the tribe in the public arena, then they'll let you do the creepiest sexist shit you can think of, and will even sweep it under the rug for you.

It's actually as anti-Christian as anything can be.

It’s a path to redemption not a path to place of honor. Unless you would claim that Christianity honors equality all sinners who have joined in following Christ. But considering the hierarchical nature of most churches I think thats a lot to swallow

Also, creepy megachurch pastors? Pedo Priests? Allowing people in power to abuse that power is classic human dynamics. Cast not the first stone unless ye are free from sin.

More comments

I'll observe that the history of Christendom has no shortage of examples of both types of this behavior here: it's not like rank hypocrisy is a modern invention.

More comments

Well yes. I think the western countries in generally lack a national identity that the citizens can get behind. This only works due to a lack of identification with the group that these people are criticizing. Still, I would have expected some general immune response when a decent person is being lumped in with criminals and racist. "How dare you group me with those people!" seems much more reasonable than "You are correct, let me apologize for the actions of people I never even met."

There isn't a veto on beliefs for being ridiculous or self defeating. The people who venerated Mangos during the cultural revolution are just like you and me. And Germans aren't exactly unfamiliar with silly radicalism turned mad.

The fact that these beliefs are insane is scary precisely because that doesn't mean people won't act on the insanity.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats