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 -
"Demisexual" is a nearly perfect term for a "normal" woman to use, though; you just buried the lede as to why.
If it is in the interests of Most Women to assert a need for an emotional bond[1] before sex, but market conditions (where the marginal value of "seeing a woman naked" has dropped to zero, so it is simply an expectation that women offer sex to men up front rather than exchanging it for commitment as their biology and instincts are screaming at them to do) contradict that, then it is only natural that they'd seek to hide behind the framework of sexual identity as a bargaining tactic ("you should pay more because I'm Special, also other people will think you're lesser/bully you if you don't buy into my brand"[2]). Asexuality is used in the same way, by the same sorts of people, for much the same reason.
Furthermore, it is in Most Women's interest to deny that
liberatedwomen who aren't quite as encumbered exist, because from this socioeconomic standpoint, they function as strike-breakers in comparison to the emergent collective bargaining of Most Women (and it is beneficial at the margins since 'man's willingness to risk -> break pointless rules' is generally attractive to women in itself).It occurs to me that in a recently-established environment of equality we should expect mothers to [not necessarily intentionally] sabotage their sons romantically by failing to explicitly point out how and why female sexuality works. Uniquely, men are evolved to do this with their daughters with respect to male sexuality because up until about 150 years ago the inequality tilted that way- since this is a new requirement for women, an outsized proportion of mothers will fail to do this (and will then hide behind "social justice" as a means to escape blame for that failure).
[1] More cynically, this is "before the man has offered the desired price [in commitment] for the sex; the emotional bond is instinctual after that".
[2] Pair-bonding/dating is inherently a market negotiation; "all marriage is just prostitution" is the correct framing so long as you give prostitution a neutral moral valence (furthermore I assert that when people don't, it's also just basic instinct- a company seeks to protect its trade secrets, and both Men, Inc. and Women, Inc. don't like it when you reveal relationships follow market dynamics and/or resent being a slave to them).
I'd point out that a belief that "all women want sex, they just act coy about it" is going to get you straight into the old path of "no doesn't mean no, it just means she wants you to push harder to make her say yes" which will get you, and any young men you teach about 'what women really want', into trouble.
There are women who act coy about it. There are also women who genuinely don't want sex, or not casual sex, or who don't experience "oh my god I'm so horny right now I need to jump on the first guy I see" at all. Asexuality is a genuine thing for both men and woman. Agreed, not everybody who claims the label, but we can say that about autism and ADHD and the rest of such self-diagnoses, which does not mean that autism is not a real condition.
Well, when you figure that one out, tell me because I've been a woman all my life and I'm damned if I can work out why some women do what they do when it comes to men. If you mean the simplistic model of "women want meat, men want sex, swap one for the other" good luck there honey. "Your meat is not good enough" - harsh truth or women just being bitches?
I suppose so, in the sense that both men and women can be paraplegic or born blind or whatever.
The ADHD comparison falls apart in that when someone claims to have ADHD they're trying to get the treatment for ADHD (meds, extra exam time) to get an advantage. People who claim to be asexual claim don't want to be treated for it at all.
There's a difference between people with low libido, who find this distressing and alienating to partners, and who want to have more sex and be more interested in sex, and so they seek treatment, and people who are asexual, happy about that, and don't want to change.
The self-diagnosed online types who have a laundry list of illnesses from the physical to mental, to prove what sensitive little flowers they are and how you cannot be mean to them at all, are the ones who may latch on to asexuality/demisexuality as another way to burnish their resumés, as it were: now I'm queer as well (if I can't manage to be trans or gay or lesbian or bi) so if you say anything at all that I disagree with, I can now accuse you of homophobia as well as the rest of the list of your crimes against the differently abled.
I disagree that the second group of people exist, or should exist. Lacking a libido isn't a natural and full category of human, it's a moral, emotional, and physical cripple incapable of basic human functioning. Extremely low libido should be distressing and will always be alienating to partners, it isn't an "identity" that society should be acknowledging as a point of negotiation.
"Wifely" or "Husbandly" duties are a basic part of marriage, sexuality is a basic part of humanity.
We need to reject these kinds of ideas root and branch, they are essentially anti-human.
Would you consider priests, monks, nuns, and other people who have never engaged in romantic relationships throughout their lives because they had a different calling to be a group of people who shouldn't exist? I think it is clearly wrong. Just because it isn't how most humans function, doesn't mean that these people are any less human.
People who choose to live in a certain way in accordance with their beliefs != People who lack fundamental human feelings
People who have urges to sin and resist them != People who lack urges
Gluttony is a sin. Someone who has no hunger, no urge to eat and no pleasure in food, is crippled and missing a fundamental human experience. A monk who chooses to live on a scanty diet of bread and water is making a choice for piety, a choice that is meaningless if he was born with a generic dysfunction that prevents him from feeling hunger or enjoying food.
Wrath is a sin. But someone who feels no anger, no urge to revenge when wronged, is missing a fundamental part of human experience. The nobility of choosing to turn the other cheek is meaningless if one simply lacks the neurons that fire that way for revenge.
So on and so forth to Lust.
I wouldn't say they are crippled since that implies they have a disability to live their life successfully. They might be missing a fundamentally human experience, but they are missing it in a good manner which will help them live a better life. Avoiding gluttony, wrath and excessive lust is good.
Notice your slip here, you've subconsiously moved the goalposts on yourself: excessive lust is bad. I agree! Excessive lust is bad, but some lust is necessary to human life, even if it exists only to be resisted! Someone who lacks any sexual desire is missing a gear.
Maybe, sometimes, having a genetic defect to lack any libido causes them to lead a better life along certain metrics, if not others. And there are very few armed robbers or murderers in wheelchairs, but being unable to walk is pretty much your textbook definition of a cripple. It would seem ridiculous to say that wheelchair bound folks are more moral because they don't commit violent crimes. And it would be obvious to say they are cripples, despite the fact that they're less likely to end their lives in prison.
So either you're proposing a new definition of cripple by which any possible moral benefit obviates the many clear limitations imposed.
Or given that you already copped to only excessive lust being bad, your concept of Asexuality is something more like, extant but weak sexual desire?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link