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 -
Why stop at attractiveness? We know tall men do better - this is plainly unfair leveraging of a physical trait that compromises neutrality. Intelligence, also, does away with neutral playing field.
Bring in the world of Harrison Bergeron? Or is it only female sexuality that needs to be controlled? Ah, the poor, poor men who only want to sit around discussing Aristotle, were it not for the brazen hussies enticing them to indulge in base sensuality by flashing their ankles at them!
It's funny how talk about "reigning in female sexuality" seems to boil down to "make sure attractive women will sleep with me when I want, and that I get a hot young wife when I'm finished sowing my wild oats". Genuinely reigned-in female sexuality, e.g. virginity until marriage, no unchaperoned contact, no dating or time spent together unless courting, needing to win the approval of the family before courting could start, and the older forms of controlling interaction between men and women would not suit men who talk about "women trading on their sexuality". Are you ready to be married at twenty to the only woman you will ever have sex with (unless she dies and you remarry), and start having kids that you will support?
I have no objection to rolling back the Sexual Revolution, but it needs to apply to men as well - it takes two to tango, after all.
Male sexuality is generally expressed in a different way than female sexuality, which implies different methods of constraining it.
Guys generally try to actively get laid and will spend copious amounts of time in the gym, then find a location where eligible women are located, then flirt as best they can, engage physically, and try to close the deal with whichever woman they find most responsive. The end goal of all that effort is to find one woman who he can get into bed.
If they are left completely unrestrained, they may just engage in straight up sexual assault. Policing that is relatively straightforward if we're willing to allow for trusted chaperones. Tricky, if we're not.
For females, literally all they need to do to leverage their sexuality is set up an instagram and show enough skin to tantalize thousands of men at once, whilst giving minimal attention to any of them in exchange. No physical contact required, minimal effort invested, and HUGE outsize effects are possible.
So we're dealing with a situation where social media has created a severe imbalance/asymetry in each gender's ability to use their sexuality to gain what they want.
This is mostly a consequence of how men are wired for sexual attraction vs. women. Men tend to respond to the simple visual stimulation. Women generally need more than that.
And obviously, clearly, without a doubt we condemn men who step out of line and cause discomfort, fear, or harm to women in the process of trying to get sex. As well we should.
But if you try to suggest that maybe, just MAYBE having millions of women posting thirst traps for the attention of tons of horny men is creating an unhealthy situation for both men AND women, and that this behavior is increasing mental distress for no real reason...
Well, that's just beyond the pale! How dare you! Women should be able to post whatever they want at any time and receive no judgment or criticism for it, ever.
Because, as stated, female sexuality is different than male sexuality.
It's not the men's sexuality that is growing unrestrained and is being amplified by current social media technology. So you see why I might focus on female sexuality as a larger contributing factor, no?
Holy cow I DARE you to show me where I implied that.
What does 'rolling back' the sexual revolution require of men, in this instance? What behavior do they engage in now that they need to stop?
"Oh dear, you'll have to be willing to settle down with a partner and provide them with support and affection for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until death do you part."
Well, its not men initiating most divorces, so I SUGGEST that men, on average, will find this state of affairs quite acceptable.
So it implies that women are the ones who might have to be cajoled into getting with the program. And I use 'cajole' purposefully, to suggest it might have to be a social pressure/shame thing rather than a legal reform that achieves it.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not the GP, but yes, of course. As you point out, restraining the sexuality of one sex implies restraining the sexuality of the other. I want a world where both sexes value chastity, understood in the classic sense of sexual virtue.
It’s great that so many denizens of the manosphere (or whatever it has turned into) have come to see the effects of feminine promiscuity. It means that they have found an important piece of the puzzle. It behooves those of us who see the other pieces to help them fit it together. And some of them do get there! The former pickup artist Roosh is a famous example.
I’m not old enough to remember the years before the pill. But it’s easy to see that the relationship between marriage, sex, and children was obvious then in a way it isn’t now. The relationship was important for more reasons than pregnancy, but pregnancy was a reason that any horny doofus could see.
I keep seeing Christian kids who should know better sacrificing their principles to their libidos and calling it nuance. It’s refreshing to see secular people who notice the burns on others. It raises my hopes that they will come to see how marrying the only woman you will ever sleep with at twenty could be a joy and a blessing.
I didn't realize Roosh was still kicking around. Always hilarious to see people follow a basic-ass secular "have my fun then settle down" path then call it conversion.
I certainly don’t know the man, and I haven’t read enough of his writing to draw broad conclusions. But I read one or two of his pieces after his conversion, and they sure pattern matched to “New Christian” for me.
I'm only familiar in a decade old memory way with his PUA blog circa like 2009-10 when I was a teenager and easily fascinated by that sort of thing. Among other things he wrote travel guides to getting laid as a sex tourist in different European countries.
But he was an early example of a PUA blogger you saw go from lighthearted "let's all have fun and get laid" vibes to weird misogyny and self hatred in real time.
Which, in charity, pattern matches with him being unhappy as a hedonist whoremonger and finding God, the prodigal son. He has, according to your link, taken his old books out of circulation.
But for me it also pattern matches with a guy fucking through his 20s and 30s, noticing his hairline is receding and his erections lack rigidity and girls look at him like he's their dad; then settling down, and rather than look at life as a graceful series of changes he says everything he spent 20 years advocating is 100% wrong and changes direction completely to Holy Roller. Not just maybe I overdid it a little, but the full mullah.
From teenage me to now, I've kinda resented born agains who have their fun then switch teams and tell you not to have yours.
Yeah, I can sympathize with that.
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
Eh, I don't think the view needs to be misogynistic. Both sexes are to blame somewhat for the dynamic as much as people can be blamed for doing anything that comes naturally. The internet was better when no one knew you were a dog.
I'm not really sure where you got that impression, the sexual revolution shot was fired from blue tribe and this critique was not. I have mixed feelings, I was brought up in a catholic household and nearly every catholic I grew up with would "yeschad.jpg" in response to the whole paragraph, although maybe some of the courtship formalities modernized. The sow your wild oats thing has never really appealed to me that much, I have somewhat libertarian social stances and wouldn't advocate for this being enforced despite recognizing everyone would probably be better off if it were.
More options
Context Copy link
This feels right to me, but I wonder if it has ever been examined in a way that controls for correlates of height. Height is likely correlated with good nutrition during childhood development, which one would expect in turn to correlate with all manner of endpoints, including many that constitute merit in a Western capitalist society. Apparently it is weakly correlated with intelligence, and my hunch is that you'd also find positive correlations with conscientiousness, extraversion, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Spot on except for this. TradCaths, the most prominent voice for "reigning in female sexuality", repudiate such a lifestyle. Though let's me honest, they were very unlikely living such a life beforehand.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link