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 -
Would male sex toys being widely used be a problem for that?
But why would that happen?
But are they on the same axis? I talk more about this in a post above. I don't think that men chase after women to have orgasms. I think that men mostly chase after women for several reasons:
(1) Desire for women's bodies and companionship.
(2) Using women's approval as a condition for their self-acceptance.
(3) As status symbols.
(4) As entertainment, because relationships are preoccupying and often interesting.
I don't think that better masturbation, technologically enhanced or not, is an inferior good for any of those things. An intelligent sex bot could be a substitute for (4), and there are AIs that already serve this purpose to some extent (Dating Sims are relatively popular examples).
My preference is that men stop doing (2) and at least de-emphasise (3) if they regard the approval of other men/women as crucial for not rejecting themselves. That would leave (1) and (4), since pursuing these is often both good for the individual man (making him happy and giving meaning in his life) and the human race (inspiring the man to good deeds, courage, creativity, compassion, fatherhood etc.).
Good point and compatible with my main thesis, which is that better and more socially acceptable sex toys would not reduce the influence of women over men.
(I also think that the same goes for women: I don't think that Hitachi wands have reduced men's influence over women, because what women chiefly want out of relationships is not orgasms on tap.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On the other hand, the kind of man who only is interested in women for sex dropping out of the dating market might be an improvement. That would hypothetically leave men who were interested in long-term and/or committed relationships, up to marriage and having children, be the ones engaging in dating and pursuing women.
The men who only want to bang chicks and have no other interest in them, not even friendship, would be sieved out and the problem of "I got a hundred replies to my dating profile on this app, how do I sort out the ones that are time-wasters?" for women would be simplified.
This is what the "cleaned up" incels say. Because they understand that alternate stories aren't favorable so they make sure to frame their needs in a way that's quite palatable to a feminist society: it's all about companionship and so on.
Instead of admitting that the stronger male sex drive is its own incentive. Not the only incentive. But to deny that it plays a role...I don't find credible for neurotypical men.
It's like how no liberal Muslim with a hijab who makes it on TV ever uses the explicit Islamic justification for it (women should be covered in order to avoid sexual harassment) because it's obviously disfavored by liberals. So they make sure to couch it in the language of freedom that liberals do like. Liberals return the favor by credulous repeating their apologetics and carefully not looking at the elements of Islam that may be..."problematic" - same thing happening with incels now.
As a member of that "loser" demographic, I am 100% skeptical and won't take them at their word. Men who suck at dealing with women are more likely to be socially inept and anxious and thus unwilling to take even the minor risk to sleep with prostitutes, let alone seriously pursue casual sex. That doesn't mean that they don't want sex for its own sake. They just know it won't happen. So slave morality mandates some virtuous-sounding justification
That's all I think is at play, besides pandering.
As Bill Burr put it: there's nothing special about Tiger Woods (if anything many celebrities are surprisingly restrained). A random guy (incel in this case) at Home Depot has the same desire for casual sex. But he has no opportunity cause he's low status.
I mean, I've seen Republicans playing to the tenets of progressive morality (e.g. attacking affirmative action by claiming that affirmative action harms Asians - supposedly a "racialized"' group and therefore a sign of liberal hypocrisy)
This stuff seeps in.
Especially in this case: I don't think the idea that wanting romance and companionship is better than just sex is really even reducible to a "progressive" faction. The media pushes it through things like the soulmate story and, honestly, it will probably be preferred by actual traditionalists and not nihilist tradcath larpers.
The other problem is that "incel" conveniently means whatever people want - is it an actual coherent ideology or a demographic? Depends on whether you want to beat on incels or not. Obviously there are hardcore reactionary types who've gone into deep, weird rabbit holes that have nothing to do with the center in their country . Plenty don't really change their minds on the feminist ideology and their base assumptions (I guess you could call it the "blue pill"), even if feminists insist on treating them as an irritant or danger.
And, as I said, the ready-for-TV incels are selected because they say the right things. But, just as liberal Muslims on TV will never talk to you about the wife-beating verse in the Qur'an, the calls to imperialism and subjugation of the infidels when they insist Islam is great, the Good Incel will stick to the talking points. Both groups really do believe what they're saying and there might even be truth in it. But it's not the whole story.
That's what happened in my case - just too much anxiety, too much hassle since it was illegal. I've also seen some shit from incels that basically seems like socially anxious rationalization, as someone who would know it from the inside (e.g. when someone who's looking at middle age is giving hundreds of excuses and conjuring catastrophic worst-case scenarios - like, dude, you don't think you're in a worst case scenario? You're already this anxious, with no experience to counteract it, what do you think is going to happen if you miraculously actually find a similar aged woman? )
So, as I said, I simply don't take them at their word.
It isn't just about sex. Like I said elsewhere: the loss of social standing and companionship correlated with inceldom (especially of the "small friend group" variety as opposed to the "otherwise great and highly sociable guy but couldn't make it for some reason' type*) is very bad.
I just think the Standard Incel Talking Point - like the Standard "Islam is a Religion of Peace" one** - was picked to make incels sympathetic, but it does so by essentially reframing male sexuality into something considered more appropriate, just as the Islam one insists on reframing Islam to look more like Christianity.
* Especially when young, this type is less likely to stay in the camp.
** It's complicated but it has different views on that than the Christian New Testament does, that's for sure.
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