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 -
Make that a 23-25 year old man, and what does that imply about his decision-making? You can't have it both ways: you can't have "the guys get to sow their wild oats but then there is a crop of fresh virgin brides when they decide to settle down", or else you get "the fresh virgin brides are snagged by the 40-50 year old successful men leaving the 23-25 year old guys to be incels".
Unless we had a sex ratio where there's one man for every two, three or four women, we are not going to get "Joe gets to sleep with a ton of hot chicks while he's young and randy before he settles down to be a family man husband and father aged thirty, but Josie only has one boyfriend since high school who she marries, or if he breaks up with her, she then finds a guy at college and marries him aged twenty-three". The numbers will not work out. Joe, Bob, Bill, Sam, Phil, Ben and Tom can't sleep with ten girls each unless those ten girls all sleep with ten guys each to keep the access equitable. Certainly Joe can sleep with ten girls if he's hot and rich etc. but that means Bob, Sam, etc. don't get to sleep with those girls or only get to sleep with one or two girls instead of the ten they envy Joe for getting.
That's the point I want to get across: both sexes do not get to eat their cake and have it. Joe can't have a stream of girls to have fun with and then settle down with a maiden bride because there aren't enough spare women for each man to have a string of sexual adventures but each girl he sleeps with only sleeps with two or three men over her dating life. Josie can't sleep around like a guy and not face consequences because the good old double standard and when she wants to settle down to be a family woman wife and mother aged thirty, the men in her age range will still be looking for the twenty-three year old maiden bride instead.
I understand you're a woman and you feel this is unfair, but further up faceh posts an article claiming that 80% of women are sleeping with 20% of men.
How much more sex-suppression can there be done among men? Female selection is already enforcing the sex suppression. 80% of men are receiving lower than average amounts of sex!
How much room is left on the female side? Well, 20% of men are running through 80% of the women. It's a small share of men creating the "bodies" problem, while 80% of women are cooperating! Why is it that this smacks of double standards to you?
I don't know if I believe the 80/20 thing, but part of the problem is the divide between what men want from sex (sex), what women want from sex (intimacy) and that there are men who want love and romance and women who want sex and no strings attached.
The plaint is that it's easy for women to have sex, that a single woman can just go out and hook up with a guy whereas a single guy has to jump through all kinds of hoops. Yes. Think about that. Men have such low/no standards that "a standing prick hath no conscience" so if the woman isn't actively repellent, they'll sleep with her. That's where we get the "a woman can have sex just for the asking" part.
Meanwhile, women want (I'm not going to deny it) casual sex too, but a lot of women want "sex AND", where it may be as simple as "sex with the hot/desirable guy" or more complicated with "sex with the guy I'm hoping will commit" or "sex turned into feelings and now I can't leave even though I know this is just a fling for him".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link