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 -
A couple of months ago @Goodguy left the following comment here:
I tried to initiate a discussion about this without success, with my argument being that single men „policing/controlling” the sexual decisions of single women (I'm including „slut-shaming” in this category) has actually only been a social reality in the minds of feminist culture warriors. It was never implemented as a tool of women's „oppression” anywhere. To the extent that such „policing” existed (if we want to call it that), it was mainly done by other women, mainly due to the simple and understood fact that it's such policing that serves the long-term sexual interests of women as a whole. And the men that did engage in this were mostly fathers with daughters, not single men in the current sense of the word. (One can argue that in traditional patriarchal communities it was normal for single men to band together and remove outsider single men through threats or force; I guess this may count as indirect policing, which isn't saying much.)
I'm open to reading any counterarguments but anyway, this is not the subject I want to address here. I think Goodguy touched on something rather important which didn't occur to me at first, namely that society used to have a different attitude regarding this issue before it became modern. There actually used to be a group of men who were basically deputized by society to morally shame women in certain contexts despite being technically single (as I alluded to this above): priests and monks. (And this doesn't just apply to Christendom.) They were also voluntarily celibate, which is another category that disappeared with the rise of modernity. (The cultural memory of this lingers on though, otherwise the people who came up with the „incel” label would simply have called themselves celibate.)
As I was pondering this issue, it also occurred to me that secularization meant that Western societies did lose something significant not just in this respect but others as well. It appears to me that secular society and the churches/denominations used to exist in a symbiosis with the terms never being openly stated. It's well-known that Christianity used to be in a culturally hegemonic/privileged position. But it's also true that the churches basically volunteered to take care of those social groups that nobody else wanted to look after because they're socially a pain in the neck:
singles who can't or won't get married (see: priests, monks, nuns)
generally adults lacking social skills to such an extent that they become shut-ins without outside assistance
sick/diseased people unable to pay for treatment
children sired by men who can't or won't become husbands and providers
poor people that are so helpless and lacking in agency that they die from poverty without the charity of others
children of married couples too poor to pay for any schooling
I think atheists and people hostile to religion in general emotionally get hung up on the former and lose sight of the latter. Some of them who did not lose sight of it came up with the doctrine of eugenics as a solution, but we know what reputation that has today. Instead we expect the state to pick up the slack and look after all these unfortunate groups, which only results in a multitude of horror stories about police departments, child protective services etc. being a useless bunch of uncaring buffoons.
I wonder what the rationalist point of view on all of this is.
I’ll just say on a related topic it’s funny that there’s a group of men who do indeed try to control women’s sexuality and it’s their mission to increase it and enhance promiscuity as a way to gain more partners. This group is certainly larger than any “policing” faction, and they’ve also been wildly more successful at exerting such control over women, creating norms and expectations around when women need to put out and how fast. They’ve curated our culture that female sexuality is good and empowering and casual sex is fun and commonplace, that STDs don’t exist, etc. Yet this group largely escapes any criticism. Curious!
I don’t see why the default for promiscuity should be to forbid it rather than allow it. It is a strange kind of ‘control’ that leaves the decision to the ‘controlled’.
Because it destabilizes any society in which it takes root.
Male violence is centered on three things; money (or money producing commodities; drugs), social esteem (or "respect"), and intimate partner exclusivity. This is as close to an iron law of humanity as possible. Men kill other men for the first two reasons and men kill other men and women because of the last reason.
We've advanced enough that killing for "respect" is penalized with swift and uncompromising punishment. You shot some guy because he called you out? That's a life sentence, pal. We don't, however, criminalize the proximate cause - you can talk shit about anyone pretty much to an unlimited extent (libel and slander notwithstanding) and there are zero legal repercussions (although perhaps there are social ones. More on this later).
The money/drugs questions is an interesting goldilocks situation. We criminalize murdering someone over money/drugs/assets/commodities. We criminalize the unlawful attainment of those things (theft) and in many cases (though less and less) we criminalize the mere possession of drugs. This is because drugs are still recognized as inherently high risk (if not outright dangerous) - especially when put in the context of male on male violence. Nobody should kill you over money and drugs, but if you did some crook shit to get them, you're still doing crook shit and can face consequences.
Now, promiscuity or intimate partner exclusivity. You can't kill your wife or girlfriend because she cheated on you. And, mostly, we don't think adultery should be criminalized. Up until the mid 20th century, however, adultery was harshly socially punished (I'm thinking of something beginning with a big Red Letter - "A"). As an interesting side note, adultery was and is still an offense in the United States Military. They don't give you 10 lashes or throw you in the brig, but it fucks up your career. That's interesting to me.
Only in this last case, promiscuity, have we seen a full scale social revolt on the social penalties brought on by the action. Are you selling drugs? Probably shouldn't do that. Did you steal a car and sell it to a chop shop? Bad. Did you start talking shit about Big Jim down at the pool hall? Better watch your mouth, son.
Oh, you slept with the nanny, or you slept with the pool boy? No one should deny or criticize your sexual self-expression and autonomy! Of course one can rationalize that argument into an isolated issue; a person's private sexual conduct with a consenting partner is no one else's business. But in a social context, it gets murky fast. Adultery ought not be criminalized (and, on the other side of the coin, both divorce and marriage ought not have any financial incentive tied to them), but rampant promiscuity and adultery still ought to face social consequences because that simply means the society in which they occur is aware of the high stakes of promiscuity / adultery's likely outcomes.
The 30,000 foot question this rolls back up into is; do members of a society have duties and responsibilities outside of themselves to that society that are not codified in law? Or, do we race to the bottom and leave it at "as long as you don't break any laws, you're fine."
[Standard traditionalist (men have more social license to cheat/get the better deal by default)-progressive (women have more social license to cheat/get the better deal by default)-liberal (space aliens who don't associate morality and sexuality as much) framing applies beyond this point.]
Which ones, and what are the symptoms of that destabilization? Be specific as to how people fucking is the first step in the causal chain. The 1960s US seemed pretty stable to me besides the tons of bombs being dropped in mailboxes and on Vietnam and the occasional race riot, and I don't think those things were due to a lack of specifically-virgin pussy.
And while "I can't believe there's so much non-virgin pussy, what the fuck, these women are just giving it away seemingly at random" is a typical radicalization story stated by at least one Islamic terrorist, it seems absurd to blame that reaction on the liberals.
of a bunch of reasons; what's it to you if I shoot up in the privacy of my own home? No, you criminalize the possession of drugs because it's a combination of being low-class with very little (or negative) perceived socioeconomic value compared to their perceived sociopolitical risks (a trait the other possession crimes- guns and explosives, certain types of pornography, etc. also tend to share).
Where does your brain go, that you would assume my outgroup isn't also selfish bastards?You're forgetting that this is a destructive thing to do even in a sexually liberal culture, not because sex is uniquely bad on its face (and sexual liberals do indeed reject that notion) but because, most of the time, it's violating an explicit agreement not to do that. The problem is not with the sex, though it is made worse by it- the "but it's not a big deal, sex = free, why is my husband leaving me" is a rationalization/excuse after the fact. This is also why it makes sense for a career where people live and die on the fact they can trust you not to be doing stupid bullshit like this to sanction it, especially one where you find a lot of traditionalists.
The ultimate problem for traditionalist-progressives is that what their instincts tell them about sex (and the impact and seriousness thereof) and what the actual truth is (that if you're not a fucking retard you're not going to get pregnant or an STD beyond herpes- and while herpes is a big deal, it's nothing compared to the million dollars a bastard child costs) no longer match.
This is why the feeling that there should be more social stakes (and indeed, why they're created artificially by progressives filling a power vacuum left by a liberal withdrawl/die-off) is a unique vulnerability. But the reverse of female-privileging selfishness is not male-privileging selfishness (and vice versa).
Trivially, but good luck making society reward those duties and responsibilities with the corresponding rights and privileges.
I had a very difficult time following your writing and was unable to understand your arguments (or agreements?) with my post.
Could you perhaps try an abridged version with a simpler structure?
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