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 -
My memory is that Neil Gaiman's name occasionally pops up around here (edit: here). New York Magazine pulled no punches today. Headline?
The headline is false, though maybe not for the reasons you would immediately guess. As far as I can tell the story itself is not a scoop so much as a rigorous summary of things already known. It's difficult to know where to begin, commentary-wise; probably this belongs in the long tail of 2017's "#metoo" movement? But maybe we should begin with Sandman.
If you don't know who Neil Gaiman is, he's... a writer! A talented writer--not so talented a comic writer as Alan Moore, not so talented a novelist as Neal Stephenson, not so talented a screenwriter as Joss Whedon, but what makes him remarkable is that he is almost as good as every one of those writers within their respective mediums of mastery. He became Alan Moore's protégé; he collaborated with Terry Pratchett (Discworld) on Good Omens (1990). But it was his new take on an old DC character, Sandman, that became his own personal magnum opus. Running from 1989 to 1996, the book briefly outsold even Superman and Batman as DC's top title.
If you read it today, you'll see a lot of English punk, a gothic flair, deep cut literary references, edgy takes on stuff that 21st century Westerners now take culturally for granted... and a whole, whole lot of not-even-repressed sexual deviance, both of varieties that have since become more culturally acceptable, and varieties that have not. Hence my suggestion that the headline is false; as near as I can tell, Neil Gaiman never hid the darkest parts of himself from anyone, ever.
In fact, owing to decades of involvement in fringe geek fandoms, I have had a handful of glancing personal encounters with Neil Gaiman. The first thing to know is that he basically sweats charisma. Where Alan Moore is a spectacle, where Joss Whedon is a douche, Neil Gaiman is patently avuncular. He is warm and articulate, a storyteller every second, and when you meet him you know immediately within you, down to the marrow of your very bones: this man fucks.
And as far as I could tell, he made absolutely no secret of it. By no later than 2010 I had heard multiple totally separate stories from women claiming to have accompanied Gaiman to his home for playtime, hippie-style (or rationalist style, if some of the things I hear about San Francisco group homes are true). It is entirely possible that some or all of them were lying! Certainly they were all boasting. One was very clearly imagining that this would be her big break into the literary world, which seems like a strange hope to express if you are lying about the sex.
This is not the sort of behavior I want to encourage from anyone, for a variety of reasons, but it's probably worth noting, very clearly, that this did not seem at all surprising to me. I remember Bill Clinton, I remember Bill Gates, I know what a groupie is. Famous, powerful, wealthy, men have for all of history been inclined toward promiscuity, and women have been inclined to indulge them that.
The article seems to confirm my own, limited historical experiences:
Inevitably, it seems, in such contexts there is never any shortage of... misunderstanding. The article gets into pretty explicit detail concerning accusations of outright rape--often, however, with women who had been involved with Gaiman for some time, and continued to be involved with him for some time afterward. His second marriage (to a C-list celebrity in her own right) was "open"--
Indeed!
That sort of thing only lasted a few years. Eventually, Palmer was pregnant and decided to try to close the marriage. This seems to have been the beginning of the end of that, and the New York Magazine story could be viewed through the lens of "hit piece intended to influence the drawn-out divorce proceedings." I do not (and cannot) know the truth of these events for myself, but it probably doesn't matter; his career has been drying up for a while now, and once studios milk the requisite profits from their current investments in his IP, those contracts seem likely to be among his last. Well, he's in his 60s and he has plenty of money (even if Palmer absconds with half of it), I don't feel too badly for him.
But the whole charade does remind me once more of the peculiar way in which Western culture has come to insist that there is nothing problematic about sexual promiscuity. Marriage is just one choice among many! Homosexuality, polyamory, open marriages, monogamish couples, as long as it is consensual then it's fine, right? Except that, unlike the terribly old-fashioned practice of "celibacy when single, monogamy when married," the clarity of consent seems to break down in the absence of clearly-delineated relationship boundaries. Gaiman's putative victims do not say that they unequivocally rejected his advances; some, indeed, texted him after the fact with reassurances that their encounters were in fact consensual.
That's the kind of evidence that keeps Gaiman out of jail, regardless of what social media mob justice decides on the matter. Even assuming she was being completely honest when she later said, in effect, "I texted him lies because I was scared," there's no evidence of what she was thinking at the time, except what she actually wrote. A world with clear relationship-grounded boundaries around sexual activity alleviates such ambiguities!
I am sort of peripherally aware of some of the "sex pest" stories that occasionally circulate in rationalist circles, and certainly I am aware of the polyamory (and e.g. Scott's occasional defense of it). Apparently it can work, for some people, at least for a time. But more often it seems to end up like this: if you want an open marriage, probably you don't really want a marriage in any robust sense of the term. And wealthy, powerful men who do not commit themselves to monogamy wholly and from the outset, Pence style, will be promiscuous, and it will eventually create headaches for them, of one kind or another.
Hm. Maybe someone should write a comic book about that.
There can be no "clarity of consent" because "consent" doesn't actually exist- it suggests that women are just as dominant as men are just as submissive as women (1), but then as we see a bit later...
...that's pretty obviously false. That's the inherent tension with having a gender whose average participant gets off on the submission- and if they start to resent that for whatever reason, and have the political power to get their top/dom jailed, then arises the incentive to abuse that power. But the fact that this woman isn't availing herself of that power that she knows (or can be reasonably expected to know, especially since she demonstrates an understanding of what the word "consent" is implying) is at her beck and call is actually quite significant, so I'd take the claim of "yeah, it sure was a time, I have made my peace that this is just how [my] sexuality works, this isn't a big enough deal so fuck off" at face value in this instance. (Actually, it kind of reminds me of this.)
Fundamentally, it comes down to whether you think sex (and by extension, whether or not you've made peace with the fact consent doesn't exist) is a big deal or not. The people who think sex is a big deal are unwilling or unable to deal with the fact sex no longer leads to pregnancy or disease (2); and the people who think sex has no consequences are unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that implies it's child-safe (3). And the world turns.
(1) Which makes sense, considering "consent" was manufactured by non-gender-conforming men and women in the late '80s as a reaction to the free '70s, so it's only natural those [in a purely descriptive sense] trans-gender individuals would come up with a system that doesn't match how normal human beings actually function, then get all defensive when it doesn't work.
(2) If you don't allow needle-shaped objects to penetrate your ass, you're relatively safe from the only STD of actual consequence (and even then, it's "take these pills for the rest of your life or you'll die 2 weeks after someone coughs on you", but diabetics and epileptics manage that just fine, so...). You're still going to get herpes but the cold sores are just the cost of doing
your mombusiness.(3) "But what if the 5 year old girl consents" is specifically meant to call out the fact that "consent" doesn't actually mean "accedes to"; the concept is, quite literally, used as a condom. It's so thin at times ("my 5 year old is trans") it feels like it's not even there, which is exactly how Trojan claims it should be.
Your message here is quite unhinged, and I mean that as a compliment, and that I enjoyed reading it. I might have misunderstood you though, as verbal intelligence is not my strong suit. I want to make sure I understand "Consent doesn't exist" correctly, are you saying that she did in fact consent because she didn't resist enough, because she enjoys submission (and therefore of having her consent overruled), or because of how human nature works fundamentally? Again, I'm genuinely interested.
I have to disagree with your assessment of the harm of sex. You're being materialistic, seemingly ignoring the psychological parts the equation. Pregnancy and disease are the physical risks. Even if sex is child-safe physically (which is theoritically possible, but rarely the case in real life scenarios), there's still psychological consequences. You can avoid some of these consequences by turning materialistic and deciding that sex isn't special, but I think that would be a shame, and that you'd fail partly (for the same reason that fighting ones own biases is impossible in a sense). It's like getting over the situation that nobody wished you happy birthday by realizing the fact that birthdays are only special if we consider them to be. In other words, birthdays aren't real. A lot of things which "exist" are just agreements, so they're a sort of collective roleplay. But if you destroy these games to get rid of their consequences, then you also lose the advantages, and your life will take another step towards emptiness/nihilism. So I just want to warn you in case this is what you're doing to your own perception of sex.
I choose to think that sex is special for aesthetic reasons, and this is not a delusion since it becomes true by believing in it, which I mean literally, and which implies that people can be hurt if they consider sex to be special and their partner does not.
Doing? (Turning? Deciding?) This isn't an outlook I had to modify my behavior for; I've thought about sex this way since the day I discovered what it was. I get that it's natural for people whose outlook on sex is not naturally this to assume one has to have intent to erase this, and agree that it would be wrong for them to do that.
Yes.
I think that to enjoy anything as someone who submits, you inherently accept the fact that sometimes you're going to have to do something you don't want to do in the moment, and your long-term enjoyment of having done that thing, or being in a relationship where that thing is asked of you, may be contextualized or modulated by the fact that you did the thing you did not want to do [either chronically, like you're a child being asked to clean a room that by your judgment is not dirty, or acutely, where you're asked to try a food that smells revolting but after you've taken a bite it's fine].
This is what "consent" entails for submissives. Women are, in aggregate, submissive; dominant women are by definition exhibiting transsexual/transgender behavior. (This is the "getting drunk at the bar so that, when someone asks me if I'd like to come home with them, it is psychologically easier for me to say yes".)
Dominants, by contrast, do not have a concept of "consent" in the same way. And that is good; it would be actively harmful to their position in the relationship if they believed they had to get the sub's consent before they asked something of them, or accepted a "no" without consequence- for instance, the child eats the food on their plate because there will be nothing else served, or the child will deserve an injury if they fail to clean up their mess to an acceptable standard.
What "consent" means to a dominant is that initial agreement (or state of reality)- in the "you will do the thing you don't like because you will be better off" case, consent is violated when "be better off" cannot be delivered. It's a negotiation between equals, or at least as buyer and seller, at that point. Men are, in aggregate, dominant; submissive men are by definition exhibiting transsexual/transgender behavior. (This is the "buying drinks at a bar for a woman in hopes she will say 'yes' if I ask her to come home with me".)
Some men pass as submissive [twink]; some women pass as dominant [tomboy]. Less twinks than tomboys though; excess femininity is selected against in nature. Tomboys get real mad when you suggest they're not really women/are trans because they don't have the same innate understanding of gender that their sex in aggregate does, and bad people do it constantly to get social power by arbitraging that lack? of shared understanding. (Vice versa for men.)
But some don't pass- they might have the will, but they can't back it up.
And they're very self-conscious about that fact, and they're going to take it out on everyone else if they aren't dealt with.
And the way they have done that is by equating the power of submissive consent [only exists in context of a relationship] with dominant consent [the definition of the relationship] with all the baggage that entails (the only 'dominant' form of consent a submissive can exercise in a relationship is by ending it)- after all, because they won't "be better off" with a man because they're just as good as any man, and because everyone works [or secretly wants to work] like them, then that is the way it should be. The legal system was a great cudgel to impose this, so they wrote it in there.
Naturally this had the negative consequences of
that you describe, especially among people [younger generations] who didn't know these people, and this existential anxiety made manifest, is why the way things are the way they are. It's a tautology that the driving force behind this is always going to be dominant women, not submissive men.
(Popularly, the reason for that is "penis envy"- a term that probably did more damage when trying to combat these people than it ever shed light on in the first place. It's not clearly stupid to call it that in a first pass, though.)
(Side note, so I can cross-reference this later: now you know why humans instinctively group behaviors derivative of 'submissive man' [non-passing/uncanny valley effeminacy, gay faggotry, "I want to be the little girl/boy"-type pedophilia] and 'dominant woman' [non-passing/uncanny valley masculinity, butch lesbianism, "I want to make you into my little girl/boy"-type pedophilia].)
I see! I very much agree with that link. I thought that your view on sex might have been a consequence of many years of detached and objective thinking, which is common in intellectual types. Another example is thinking that "love is just chemicals". It is, but there ought to be a personal, subjective perspective which enjoys it and sees it as something more.
I can agree with that. Thought I'd expect most submissive types to aim for relationships with people who still treat them with respect. Some enjoy BDSM and degration/humiliation, but there's also plenty of people who want to lose control/let down their guard, knowing that they're still safe and in good hands. The domination stays in the domain of "play", just like banter between friends never becomes serious (which paradoxically makes it reassuring). One crosses into danger zones only for the element of excitement, and with the belief that only minor harm is likely to occur (like when kids go to play around outside). Since your insights align with regular human nature, you probably don't have things like BDSM in mind.
I agree with your take on dominant and submissive natures, but I think it's influenced by moods, confidence and energy levels. I expect all stimulants and high-dopamine states to make people more dominant in general (theory from personal observations, I don't know the neuroscience behind this). I think it makes sense that confidence correlates with independence, and that pro-social instincts are stronger in those who rely on cooperation for survival.
Your model of consent makes sense. I've had to make similar observations myself already, as I've been forced to realize that I sometimes need to overwrite the wills of others for their sake and take responsibility for the outcome. Plus, women tend to like it when men take the initiative. It can't be helped that it feels uncomfortable to be in a sitaution where you can take advantage of a power imbalance and get away with it (Just me? I find it painful to perceive exploitable weakness in others).
May I offer a slight correction to your model? I have this very controversial belief that "sexualities" don't exist in a sense. That anything beyond attraction to the other gender is a kind of fetishism (for instance, how could asexuality be a sexuality when there's no attraction? These words are clearly misleading)
The conclusion you wrote is really interesting! I'm going to read it again when I'm less tired. By the way, I've long though there's two kinds of gay people (if homosexuality can be said to exist). Some enjoy Muscles, chubby bodies, body-hair, scars, and all that, and some enjoy twinks, girly boys, traps, thin bodies, and so on. It's even easier to notice in furry communities. I once guessed that somebody was gay because I could tell by the art style of their profile picture. I told this to a friend of mine, and they seemed rather offended by me insisting that I had this ability, even though I ended up being correct.
Technically accurate but not helpful, and used as an excuse to pretend sex has/had no emotional dimension after the fact in that trademark Annoying Atheist way.
I think "sexualities" were created by the same detached/objective intellectual thinking that causes problems when normal people try to use them, primarily since they tend to be used as weapons (when a woman claims she's asexual, or when a man calls another man gay) rather than merely descriptive of {male or female, what characteristics are being pattern-matched on}.
Or perhaps they may have been intended as weapons/distractions from the get-go. I generally see it claimed as "well, it's because all the non-straights wanted to dissociate from the accusations of pedophilia that came with them at the time"... but I think that was a side-effect of the actual goal: censoring the instinctual understanding of 'men dominate, women submit' (children just being a more extreme version of women, which is also why it's stereotypically women using "protect kids [implied: from men]" as the metaphorical nose of the camel into the tent).
(Just to be clear: 'men dominate, women submit' just happens to be emergent from evolutionary biological circumstance, which is probably why it's generally applicable for [the physical dimension of] sex. The fix for 'woman good man bad' is not 'man good woman bad', though the lazy and selfish will jump to that conclusion anyway.)
I just look at the head. My working theory is that the longer/more pronounced the snout is, the more likely it is that a man who likes that image will [prefer men on average]. (By that same token, most bronies are straight [note the lack of male OCs and abundance of futa]; see also Brand New Animal vs. Beastars.)
This also works for straights, but in a different way. The more feminine the body looks compared to the face, the more likely a man who likes that image will [prefer women on average]. This is most of why "are traps gay?" is the meme that it is (and the related complaint of "draw a girl call it a boy"), since most men who like that [prefer women on average]; it wouldn't be controversial otherwise.
No, it very definitely started out that way (and not influenced by any external source). I've learned to describe and emulate the other one over time as required, but it's not native code; maybe this is what ChatGPT 'feels like' when it's asked to ERP.
Your comments are beautiful, so I will try to put a little more effort into my own and hopefully reduce the gap in conscientiousness a bit.
Indeed, but I don't think this is merely pretence. I think that some people actually overwrite their subjective experiences of the world with reductive cognitive models because they find them to be "true".
I'm not sure if they were intented as weapons, or if humans beings are just awful at differentiating between labels and reality. Labels are abused and corrupted all the time (labeling slight displays of nationalism "nazi" or labeling an 18-year-old dating a 17-year-old a "pedo"), there's also the euphemism treadmill (which I just found out is a term coined by the book "The Blank Slate" which covers many of the same criticisms that I have of modern views on human nature).
"Racism" has been weaponized in the same way since long ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but racism used not to have a name, since it was just natural behaviour, then it became an action (a discriminatory act), and then it became a trait (so that one could be 'a racist') and then finally, it became anything which suggests that any politically protected group doesn't consist of perfect, infallible beings, which made it so that "math classes are racist" wasn't considered a syntax error anymore, and so that the concept of "Systematic racism" could exist.
I'm friends with a lot of Asians who live in cities and smaller villages, and their views on human nature are better than those of most psychology professors because they're less educated. Their down-to-earth approach to socializing makes for healthy relationships, and the lack of signaling games, politics and moralizing is also refreshing (and a reminder that such behaviour is actually pathological). Speaking of which, do you know of the book "The Manipulated Man"? I have yet to read it myself, but it apparently calls out the sort of social manipulation that people like Hoe Math (Youtube whose videos are much higher quality than his name suggests) are rediscovering now, more than 50 years later.
In the same way that systematic/detached thinking can blind us to reality, clumsy uses of language are likewise muddying the waters, and I think people in the "woke" cluster tends to have good language abilities, which is how(or should I say why) they weaponize language (given how fast language is degrading, the process appears unnatural. Deceptive use of language is becoming more common as social norms against tastelessness are weakening. I blame increased competitive pressure, the 'rat race', and influential hustle-mentalities). Interestingly enough, Jordan Peterson suggests that the "woke" crowd are lacking in verbal intelligence, but I think this is a self-defense mechanism on his part, meant to protect against recognizing that jewish groups engage in this deception.
Meanwhile, the "anti-woke" crowd has a lot of autistic people, myself included, who are mostly resistant to malicious uses of social dynamics. Images like this one communicate a valid point, though it likely wasn't intended to be interpreted as seriously as I do here.
Haha, exactly! It was a chubby bear-like face with a round nose (a bit like the bear from beastars, judging by a quick Google search).
I agree with your heuristics on sexual orientation, but I can't help but feel frustrated by the "are traps gay?" meme, since the question is actually "Is it gay to find them attractive?", but is made to imply "You're gay by definition for finding a man attractive" when the actual answer is closer to "You're gay if you're attracted to masculine traits". The frustration I feel is probably the point of the meme though, and I don't dislike being teased for being too pedantic, as Nietzsche was right in his psychoanalysis of (the use of) dialectics.
I see! While I dislike the idea that sex isn't special (which isn't wrong, since it's a self-fulfilling belief) I've also got to admit that I've seen evidence (PDF warning) that this is the natural way to think.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link