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 -
Fairly high status men marry whores all the time. Nancy Reagan, Miranda Kerr, Meghan Markle. Even Melania was an Eastern European model in NYC in the late ‘90s lol, and that was a pretty sordid business. Men say they care, and in a vacuum they do, but in real life I think less than they’re willing to admit.
How many of them were central examples of whores? How many of them have acknowledged that they regularly had had sex with people that weren't their romantic partners for money?
There were enough rumors about all of them in society circles that the men in question (and their friends) presumably knew exactly what the record was.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Status and deniability matter. It theoretically makes no difference but "supermodel" reads differently than "Onlyfans model".
Did Miranda Kerr get into something tawdry with a fat Malaysian scammer for what could only be the financial benefits? Maybe. But it's not on tape, she denies it and the guy was apparently a weird introvert who apparently really did do things like pay for women to flaunt and then wouldn't even talk to them. Harry...I think is legitimately dumb enough to not believe anything but video until it was too late.
I think a man like Kerr's is not in this woman's future but she probably will get married to a fairly normal guy (assuming she has some creepsense and filters out people who like this stuff). She made it as hard as possible for that guy though.
More options
Context Copy link
Female promiscuity is completely harmless, as this stunt again proves. If you assume a linear no-threshold model of harm and she does fine after hundreds of men, likely ending up married to some banker or politician, then obviously sleeping with only a football team can’t possibly be harmful at all, the equivalent of one banana of radioactivity.
Promiscuity is probably harmful psychologically, but just as there are plenty of alcoholic men who can nevertheless find an attractive wife, there are plenty of very promiscuous women who - despite having engaged in activity that is probably harmful to their mental health - marry well, as those examples show.
A man would rather a virgin than a harlot, but the beautiful promiscuous woman rarely has issue finding suitable men, if she wants.
But can those alcoholics down a hundred bottles in a night? Any harm from promiscuity, if it exists, is comparatively tiny, harder to find and subject to more ifs.
A hundred bottles in a night, and a hundred men in a day, are extremes for both. But apparently André the Giant could drink that much yes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think men care a bit less about whether a woman is a whore when he marries her, but more if she will end up whoring out after the marriage, and maybe more importantly if she carries the reputation of a whore or has been able to keep things discreet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link