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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Huh. I never knew I was a hard socon, because that seems obvious on the level of water being wet.
The path of development that socons prefer being the latter. I don't think it's difficult to unpack why- you just have to invert one of the things you said.
Axiom 0: Socon texts (come to think of it, are there any non-Christian socons?) tend to be pretty clear that most deviant sexual behavior is both "natural" and more attractive than non-deviant behavior on its face, to the point where it's more strict on restricting what everyone else considers non-deviant behavior (i.e. Catholics and contraception). If it wasn't, not only would there not be warnings about it, but nobody would do anything else.
Axiom 1: Men and women are different and play different social roles; men are designed and suited to be at the head of a household and women are not.
All of their viewpoints are downstream from this and emerge as you combine other starting conditions.
If adults [pick your favorite definition, though socons naturally prefer the legal one] can barely handle sex, obviously it's going to fuck up and confuse someone who isn't an adult even harder- "traumatized" is useful language to describe this. As a steelman, see the 5th and 6th paragraph of this; a socon would say that clearly, seeing the porn derailed his expression of his natural social role and his sexual interests, and I'm not even sure I disagree with that
Suppression of expressions of deviant sexual behavior will encourage more non-deviant outcomes and push the marginal case over the edge (all experimentation is tempting you slide back towards that local maximum, and "normalization" is doing the equivalent of putting a slide on a slippery slope- just like it is for everyone else, kissing is less bad than sex, but it's still bad if it occurs homo-sexually because [see axiom 0])
Age-gating is the compromise position if they can't ban it outright- "train up a child the way he should go", and all that- and there are ultimately practical limits to what you can and cannot prevent your adult-aged child from doing (but that's what social pressure, and making that age-gate as high as is practical, are for; those trying to bring the age-gate down- the groomers- are a problem because, among other things, they're chipping away at that compromise)
Neither can the socons, who will say it's "just the way it is". The socons that can explain it are by definition not socons.
I think so, although it probably requires a broader definition of socon than Christians would often use. There's a lot of Indian conservative culture that, while not perfectly overlapping for what it things the Golden Path is, still shares a large agreement on what the common 'degenerate' forms are. Sikh religious doctrine actually have more overlap than most people expect, modulo the underpants, to the point where a lot of Westerners flinch pretty hard when finding out. And Islam and Mormon (though Mormons consider themselves Christian) groups have their own versions.
This varies a bit depending on who you're talking with and what 'deviant' behavior. Monogamy (and avoiding sex before marriage) is one thing that clearly follows the path you line out. On the other hand, condoms are, rather infamously, something very few people develop kinks for (and when they do, it's often in contexts Catholics wouldn't want anyway) or enjoy. No matter how the longer-term personal benefits, there's a lot of reason that there's so much 'wrap it up' encouragement. Religious takes on male homosexuality are closer to your position, but Borderer views often devolve into it being at best easy (uh, for the top), but not particularly attractive or desirable except in the no-other-port-in-a-storm-but-a-goat sorta way, and there's a small faction of often-agnostic or atheist socons that give very sad tales about how porn caused them to downslide from vanilla straight sex into a series of perversion they'd never had even glimpsed at years before. And very few people get accidentally slide into a dress, makeup, and set of high heels without some external examples beforehand, or into a fursuit.
But I do admit these are just difference in framing: the line between superstimulus and temptation is a matter of view. Nobody likes condoms, but they like being pregnant or paying child support even less; as a bi furry I'll absolutely say that there's a lot of surprisingly benefits to both.
It's not so much "having a kink for condoms" and more "condoms enable you to have consequence-free sex which is bad because
something something natural lawyou might discover that consequence-free sex means the relationship with your spouse is dominated by sex for the sake of sex than for other more productive reasons".This isn't really a position I hold natively; my views on sex/uality are a lot simpler than average (since they kind of avoid the question entirely), especially because...
...being one of those people gives some [from what I can tell] unique advantages for introspection about those sorts of things. (Communicating that introspection effectively is an entirely different story, though.)
Fair, and sorry for wrongly attaching the position to you.
To be fair, I did successfully hold that position for many years until I fully realized (or rather, had it pointed out to me) that I was, in fact, faking it.
(Which is kind of the problem when I simulate the standard traditionalist or progressive viewpoints, because to re-derive them I have to start with "first, assume self-interest, then" in places it's not "supposed" to belong.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link