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 -
Not sure about that, because the men those women want don't masturbate, watch porn, or think sexually about other women. Hence, if a guy would use a sex toy, he's not desirable anyway.
Would male sex toys being widely used be a problem for that?
But why would that happen?
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.
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