site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   32016 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 23, 2025

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That was part of the religious rules, yes. Before the modern concept of martial "rape", a man was entitled to take his marital rights from his wife. Consent didn't enter into it; she gave consent when she agreed to marry him, and such was irrevocable.

Every time you DreadJimmers bring this up, I wonder what your model of a marital relationship is like. It's obviously not one where you and your wife actually love one another. So if your wife is not in the mood, or she's injured or sick, or you've just had a raging fight, or you're drunk and stinking and gross her out, you believe in the Good Old Days she'd just have to spread 'em anyway, no recourse, and if she resists, you could beat her until she stops resisting, and that is the past you want to return to?

You can look up traditional Catholic teachings on ‘the marital debt’ if you’d like, quite a bit more nuance than Jim portrays. Pre-Vatican II seminary textbooks are mostly in the library of congress.

That’s probably the closest to how this was supposed to work in practice.

I think the Orthodox churches also had/have similar rules, because they tend to be even less relaxed than pre- and post-Vatican II Catholicism (e.g. rules around fasting, where the Western church leaves a lot more wiggle room and is much less stringent on what counts as fasting).

For a fun historical look on the history of marriage, according to the American 1903 Catholic Encyclopedia, see here:

[Marriage] is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex. Whether promiscuity, the condition in which all the men of a group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the women, can be properly called marriage, may well be doubted. In such a relation cohabitation and domestic life are devoid of that exclusiveness which is commonly associated with the idea of conjugal union.

Divorce This is a modification of monogamy that seems to be no less opposed to its spirit than polyandry, polygamy, or adultery. It requires, indeed, that the parties should await a certain time or a certain contingency before severing the unity of marriage, but it is essentially a violation of monogamy, of the enduring union of husband and wife. Yet it has obtained among practically all peoples, savage and civilized. About the only people that seem never to have practised or recognized it are the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, some of the Papuans of New Guinea, some tribes of the Indean Archipelago, and the Veddahs of Ceylon. Among the majority of uncivilized peoples the marital unions that endured until the death of one of the parties seem to have been in the minority. It is substantially true to say that the majority of savage races authorized the husband to divorce his wife wherever he felt so inclined. A majority of even the more advanced peoples who remained outside the pale of Christianity restrict the right of divorce to the husband, although the reason for which he could put away his wife are, as a rule, not so numerous as among the uncivilized races. ...The Oriental Churches separated from Rome, including the Greek Orthodox Church, and all the Protestant sects, permit divorce in varying degrees, and the practice prevails in every country in which any of these Churches exercise a considerable influence. In some of the non-Catholic countries divorce is extremely easy and scandalously frequent. Between 1890 and 1900 the divorces granted in the United States averaged 73 per 100,000 of the population annually. This was more than twice the rate in any other Western nation. ...So far as we are informed by statistics, only one country in the world, namely, Japan, had a worse record than the United States, the rate per 100,000 of the population the Flowery Kingdom being 215. In most of the civilized countries the divorce rate is increasing, slowly in some, very rapidly in others. Relatively to the population, about two and one half times as many divorces are granted now in the United States as were issued forty year ago.

The USA does seem to have been unusual in both the rate and in the sex of the parties seeking divorce; up until the end of the 19th century, it was generally men who divorced their wives as it was very difficult both to get a divorce and for women to prove grounds for divorce if the husband was unwilling (hence in cases of mutual agreement about divorce, the husband would arrange a fake 'adultery' that could be 'proven' in court so as to provide grounds for divorce).

The fact that in the United States more women than men apply for divorces proves nothing as yet against the statements just set down; for we do not know whether these women have generally found it easy to get other husbands, or whether their new condition was better than the old. The frequent appeal to the divorce courts by American women is a comparatively recent phenomenon, and is undoubtedly due more to emotion, imaginary hopes, and a hasty use of newly acquired freedom, than to calm and adequate study of the experiences of other divorced women. If the present facility of divorce should continue fifty years longer, the disproportionate hardship to women from the practice will probably have become so evident the number of them taking advantage of it, or approving it, will be much smaller than today.

The social evils of easy divorce are so obvious that the majority of Americans undoubtedly are in favour of a stricter policy. One of the most far-reaching of these evils is the encouragement of lower conceptions of conjugal fidelity; for when a person regards the taking of a new spouse as entirely lawful for a multitude of more or less slight reasons, his sense of obligation toward his present partner can not be very strong or very deep. Simultaneous cannot seem much worse than successive plurality of sexual relations. The average husband and wife who become divorced for a trivial cause are less faithful to each other during their temporary union than the average couple who do not believe in divorce. Similarly, easy divorce gives an impetus to illicit relations between the unmarried, inasmuch as it tends to destroy the association in the popular consciousness between sexual intercourse and the enduring union of one man with one woman. Another evil is the increase in the number of hasty and unfortunate marriages among persons who look forward to divorce as an easy remedy for present mistakes. Inasmuch as the children of a divorced couple are deprived of their normal heritage, which is education and care by both father and mother in the same household, they almost always suffer grave and varied disadvantages. Finally there is the injury done to the moral character generally. Indissoluble marriage is one of the most effective means of developing self-control and mutual self-sacrifice. Many salutary inconveniences are endured because they cannot be avoided, and many imperfections of temper and character are corrected because the husband and wife realize that thus only is conjugal happiness possible. On the other hand, when divorce is easily obtain there is no sufficient motive for undergoing those inconvenience which are so essential to self-discipline, self-development, and the practice of altruism.

This explains to me the jokes about the frequency and ease of divorces in America in British late 19th/early to mid 20th century detective fiction, and the attitude in American crime fiction of the same period (e.g. one story had a dissolute wastrel husband openly engaging in an affair with a stage starlet, who was impatiently awaiting his divorce so she could marry him, and the attitudes expressed were that the wife was being unreasonable in refusing to get with the plan, there was little or no hint of social sanction about this). Of course, the excuse there was 'she's Catholic so she won't divorce him' and it's surprising how often this becomes a plot point: murder happens because X wants a divorce but Y is Catholic so won't grant it.

Anyway, on to low marriage rates in 1903!

Abstention from marriage With a very few unimportant exceptions all peoples, savage and civilized, that have not accepted the Catholic religion, have looked with some disdain upon celibacy, Savage races marry much earlier, and have a smaller proportion of celibates than civilized nations. During the last century the proportion of unmarried persons has increased in the United States and in Europe. The causes of this change are partly economic, inasmuch as it has become more difficult to support a family in accordance with contemporary standards of living; partly social, inasmuch as the increased social pleasure and opportunities have displaced to some degree domestic desires and interests; and partly moral, inasmuch as laxer notions of chastity have increased the number of those who satisfy their sexual desires out side of marriage.

And if we're getting into sex within marriage, see the thorny questions in the Summa:

Article 5. Whether the marriage act can be excused without the marriage goods?

...Objection 2. Further, he who has intercourse with his wife in order to avoid fornication, does not seemingly intend any of the marriage goods. Yet he does not sin apparently, because marriage was granted to human weakness for the very purpose of avoiding fornication (1 Corinthians 7:2-6). Therefore the marriage act can be excused even without the marriage goods.

Objection 3. Further, he who uses as he will that which is his own does not act against justice, and thus seemingly does not sin. Now marriage makes the wife the husband's own, and "vice versa." Therefore, if they use one another at will through the instigation of lust, it would seem that it is no sin; and thus the same conclusion follows.

... Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt, otherwise it is always at least a venial sin.

...Reply to Objection 2. If a man intends by the marriage act to prevent fornication in his wife, it is no sin, because this is a kind of payment of the debt that comes under the good of "faith." But if he intends to avoid fornication in himself, then there is a certain superfluity, and accordingly there is a venial sin, nor was the sacrament instituted for that purpose, except by indulgence, which regards venial sins.

Reply to Objection 3. One due circumstance does not suffice to make a good act, and consequently it does not follow that, no matter how one use one's own property, the use is good, but when one uses it as one ought according to all the circumstances.

So sorry, gentlemen, the fact alone that you're horny and so want to fuck your wife is not good enough, and no, she's not property or at least you are property, too 😁

On the other hand, St Thomas Aquinas is less strict than St Jerome (not a high bar to cross, admittedly):

Article 6. Whether it is a mortal sin for a man to have knowledge of his wife, with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of pleasure?

Objection 1. It would seem that whenever a man has knowledge of his wife, with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of pleasure, he commits a mortal sin. For according to Jerome (Comment. in Ephesians 5:25), as quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 31), "the pleasure taken in the embraces of a wanton is damnable in a husband." Now nothing but mortal sin is said to be damnable. Therefore it is always a mortal sin to have knowledge of one's wife for mere pleasure.

Objection 2. Further, consent to pleasure is a mortal sin, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 24). Now whoever knows his wife for the sake of pleasure consents to the pleasure. Therefore he sins mortally.

Objection 3. Further, whoever fails to refer the use of a creature to God enjoys a creature, and this is a mortal sin. But whoever uses his wife for mere pleasure does not refer that use to God. Therefore he sins mortally.

Objection 4. Further, no one should be excommunicated except for a mortal sin. Now according to the text (Sent. ii, D, 24) a man who knows his wife for mere pleasure is debarred from entering the Church, as though he were excommunicate. Therefore every such man sins mortally.

On the contrary, As stated in the text (Sent. ii, D, 24), according to Augustine (Contra Jul. ii, 10; De Decem Chord. xi; Serm. xli, de Sanct.), carnal intercourse of this kind is one of the daily sins, for which we say the "Our Father." Now these are not mortal sins. Therefore, etc.

Further, it is no mortal sin to take food for mere pleasure. Therefore in like manner it is not a mortal sin for a man to use his wife merely to satisfy his desire.

I answer that, Some say that whenever pleasure is the chief motive for the marriage act it is a mortal sin; that when it is an indirect motive it is a venial sin; and that when it spurns the pleasure altogether and is displeasing, it is wholly void of venial sin; so that it would be a mortal sin to seek pleasure in this act, a venial sin to take the pleasure when offered, but that perfection requires one to detest it. But this is impossible, since according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 3,4) the same judgment applies to pleasure as to action, because pleasure in a good action is good, and in an evil action, evil; wherefore, as the marriage act is not evil in itself, neither will it be always a mortal sin to seek pleasure therein. Consequently the right answer to this question is that if pleasure be sought in such a way as to exclude the honesty of marriage, so that, to wit, it is not as a wife but as a woman that a man treats his wife, and that he is ready to use her in the same way if she were not his wife, it is a mortal sin; wherefore such a man is said to be too ardent a lover of his wife, because his ardor carries him away from the goods of marriage. If, however, he seek pleasure within the bounds of marriage, so that it would not be sought in another than his wife, it is a venial sin.

Reply to Objection 1. A man seeks wanton pleasure in his wife when he sees no more in her that he would in a wanton.

Reply to Objection 2. Consent to the pleasure of the intercourse that is a mortal sin is itself a mortal sin; but such is not the consent to the marriage act.

Reply to Objection 3. Although he does not actually refer the pleasure to God, he does not place his will's last end therein; otherwise he would seek it anywhere indifferently. Hence it does not follow that he enjoys a creature; but he uses a creature actually for his own sake, and himself habitually, though not actually, for God's sake.

Reply to Objection 4. The reason for this statement is not that man deserves to be excommunicated for this sin, but because he renders himself unfit for spiritual things, since in that act, he becomes flesh and nothing more.

So, see the reply to objection 1. You must respect your wife, so "lie back bitch and open your legs, it's my right as your husband and you have no right whatsoever to refuse" is - surprise, surprise! - a sinful attitude.

It's obviously not one where you and your wife actually love one another.

I am reminded of the classics. The key word is learn to love, and there's no doubt in my mind that this is a learned skill for lots of people, maybe all of them, to some degree. Some more than others, some never do. There's growth potential- I think someone else mentioned "people who think in terms of pathological bargaining in marriage are all insane, those who see it as an investment opportunity prosper", which gets at this- if there was nothing to be learned it wouldn't be growth, would it?

you believe in the Good Old Days she'd just have to spread 'em anyway, no recourse, and if she resists, you could beat her until she stops resisting, and that is the past you want to return to?

As opposed to today, where he'd just have to spread 'em anyway (the folds of the wallet, in this case), no recourse, and if he resists, she can beat him (with another man's fists/State power) until he stops resisting?

Surely there must be some sort of compromise (we did have one in the past, but the problem is that men and women do not, in fact, have equal biological constraints)- a new paradigm is needed to account for a seismic technological shift where women have near-total control over conception and marriage is worth less and less in the face of better alternatives (at least, from a hedonistic perspective).

DreadJimming is just as destructive when women do it.

DreadJimming is just as destructive when women do it.

Yes, but I disagree with his framing (and yours) that women are just tee-hee frivorce-raping hapless men with the power of the state.

It's harder than MRAs would have you believe for a wife to just casually strip-mine an ex, even with no-fault divorce.

If you want to restore a stable equilibrium between the sexes, it's not by listening to people who, frankly, hate the other sex.

I disagree with his framing (and yours) that women are just tee-hee frivorce-raping hapless men with the power of the state.

Starting from egalitarianism, I would expect there's likely the same amount of abuse of both processes by their respective bad actors when each was/is the dominant mode of abuse.

And then there's the illegibility of what that being a possible outcome actually does to the average citizen's behavior under that law; men talk about it all the time, so do women. (So do responsible parents when the topic of CPS comes up- same kind of chilling effect.)

I don't think one or other gender holds a monopoly on that evil (and am not really willing to consider it, because DreadJimming/DreadJilling is inevitably where that ends up). If both are permitted, each can check the other, but more total abuse then occurs at the margins.

it's not by listening to people who, frankly, hate the other sex.

Yeah, but arbitration and spending hours trying to pass the Turing Test for the interested parties is boring, I'd much rather complain about how cokes that have had 40 penises inside them are spiritually degraded or whatever instead.

It does seem to me like there is a whole lot of room between "not when she is injured, or right after a fight, or when you need a bath" and /r/deadbeadrooms. Your examples all seem to assume a pretty high, or at least medium, baseline of sex and then declare that there should be a non-zero number of limits on when a man can assume his marital rights, but what is being discussed is a level which is low to non-existent so your comment seems non-responsive tbh. Real "all debates are bravery debates" energy IMO, where you are saying there must be SOME limits on how often the husband can expect a yes and erwgv3g34 saying there must be SOME limits on how often she can refuse.

There may be room between those positions but there's no stable position between them. The center cannot hold, and has not, and we have reached the stable equilibrium of "she may withhold sex for any reason at any time and his only permissible recourse is a divorce in which he loses most of his assets and future income".

Do you actually know anything about the circumstances under which a man can "lose most of his assets and future income" in a divorce? It is not common. In fact alimony is pretty rare nowadays (and almost never close to "most" of his assets and future income), child support is to support the children, and the number of men paying "unreasonable" child support (however you define that) is exceeded by the number of men not actually paying their child support. The worse case scenario you will usually see is an equal distribution state where a spouse can claim 50% of marital assets, even those he or she didn't bring into the marriage. (This can and sometimes is the man who benefits, though usually it's the woman.) And not all states do a 50/50 split like that.

You guys seriously need to update your notions of how divorce works from the 1960s, or the 19th century.

child support is to support the children

I've had this argument about a hundred times, so I'm going to experiment with a new track:

What about "child support", as currently practiced in the liberal west and particularly the United States, evidences that it is about supporting children—without referencing its name in any way, shape, or form? If I gave you a sheet describing the terms, functions, and conditions of C.S. with the name at the top blacked out, what elements would lead you to suspect ah ha, the primary function of this policy is to support children! What elements would you point to in order to refute the competing hypothesis that the primary function of the policy is actually mother support?

This is an open challenge. Anyone reading should feel free to answer.

A child support order is going to say, throughout, "for the support of the child" and among other things will typically specify that support will end when the child turns 18, etc. If we have to black out every mention of "child" then I suppose it might be hard to figure out what the purpose of the order is.

What elements would you point to in order to refute the competing hypothesis that the primary function of the policy is actually mother support?

The fact that the support ends when the child reaches age of majority, and that the calculation of support is based on the child's needs, not the mother's. ("Mother support" is called alimony, and as I mentioned already, it's awarded rarely nowadays, usually only in a marriage of long standing where one spouse has substantially depended on the other and has no ready means of earning income once separated.)

I am guessing your grievance is that the mother (or, more rarely, father) is given $X per month in child support and nothing really prevents her or him from spending it on heroin or lotto tickets. True except inasmuch as failure to care for the child would be subject to court oversight and in extreme cases loss of custody, but if Mom puts all the child support in the same pot of money as her other sources of income (let's assume she has a job, which most often she does) - how would you prefer to make sure she does not personally benefit from the child support? Suppose you think she's spending too much money on clothes for herself. But she can always say "The child support money is what paid for the food Child ate and the Child's clothes, I bought my clothes with the other money." You could argue that without the child support she wouldn't have been able to afford to buy clothes for herself. While true, the point of child support is that children add expenses. If she weren't taking care of the child she could afford to buy clothes for herself.

I have also had this argument about a hundred times. It always boils down to a desire to be punitive and/or bail on financial obligations, almost always rooted in a sense of bitterness and injustice, not actual concern for the welfare of any children in question.

A child support order is going to say, throughout, "for the support of the child"

I said that referring to it by name is against the rules.

If we have to black out every mention of "child" then I suppose it might be hard to figure out what the purpose of the order is.

I didn't say that, I just said you can't say "the purpose of the law is support the child because the law says so, it's in the name, stupid". You do this multiple times so I'm only addressing it once.

The fact that the support ends when the child reaches age of majority

This is also compatible with the mother support theory.

the calculation of support is based on the child's needs

Do the needs of children scale with the father's income? They eat more food? Wear more clothes?

how would you prefer to make sure she does not personally benefit from the child support

I'm less concerned about this part than other elements, but to the extent that it matters, it is a solved problem. You make it an EBT card with similar controls. Courts can pull the records on a moment's notice. There's way less deniability because the funds aren't co-mingled. This isn't rocket science. Wouldn't be surprised if some places already do this.

You could argue that without the child support she wouldn't have been able to afford to buy clothes for herself. While true, the point of child support is that children add expenses. If she weren't taking care of the child she could afford to buy clothes for herself.

If this were the modal impact of the policy, that would be a great point in favor of calling it mother support.

almost always rooted in a sense of bitterness and injustice

I will cop to feeling that there's a great amount of injustice across nearly all policy that touches men and women as such, and that I harbor a considerable measure of bitterness about it. No point in denying it. I guess that means my beliefs about the world are wrong because they come from a bad place, huh. Where do your beliefs about child support come from? Only love and honey, I'll bet. That means they're better than mine.

It always boils down to a desire to be punitive and/or bail on financial obligations

How do we know that child support policy as it exists today isn't "punitive"? Sounds like a motivation that could be attached to the fact it scales with income.

I have financial obligations to women all across the country and their children. No bailing on that one, unfortunately. I'd probably feel less bad about child support if it meant I never had to pay strange woman to raise another man's kid. Hell, raise it 10x if that's what it takes. Throw men who can't pay into lithium mines.

not actual concern for the welfare of any children in question.

Who cares? Nobody has any concern for the welfare of children when it collides with the needs/wants/whims of women. If a woman's right to drink smoke and snort as much as she wants while pregnant is inviolable, I don't see how a man's right to stay home and play video games shouldn't also be etched in sapphire. There's a thousand different policies we could pursue that would have manifest benefits to children to the inconvenience of women, and we implement exactly zero of them.

I didn't say that, I just said you can't say "the purpose of the law is support the child because the law says so, it's in the name, stupid". You do this multiple times so I'm only addressing it once.

Your rules are absurd and demonstration nothing because they could apply to a lot of laws. "You can't refer to the purpose of the law in describing what it does" would make many laws illegible.

The fact that the support ends when the child reaches age of majority This is also compatible with the mother support theory.

No, because it expires when the child no longer needs support.

How would you propose disentangling "mother support" from "child support." Any money given to a mother to support her child necessarily benefits her.

Do the needs of children scale with the father's income? They eat more food? Wear more clothes?

I am fine with a rich man having to pay more than a poor man to support his children. If you're rich you shouldn't get to leave your children in poverty because you don't think you owe them anything. If you want to propose a cap, I'd be amenable, but not if it's the bare minimum because fuck those kids (and their mother).

I'm less concerned about this part than other elements, but to the extent that it matters, it is a solved problem. You make it an EBT card with similar controls. Courts can pull the records on a moment's notice. There's way less deniability because the funds aren't co-mingled. This isn't rocket science. Wouldn't be surprised if some places already do this.

Wouldn't you still protest that she might be eating some of the food bought with the EBT card (which she almost certainly is)? Or, again, that being given money to buy food for her child means she can use some of her other money for not-child things? It does not solve the problem from your perspective (which is that we should somehow prevent the mother from benefiting in any way).

Do you actually know what typical child support is? Because you seem to think the median child support payer is being drained of half his income or more and it equals or exceeds the amount actually needed for basic living expenses for a child. This is not the median situation.

I have financial obligations to women all across the country and their children. No bailing on that one, unfortunately. I'd probably feel less bad about child support if it meant I never had to pay strange woman to raise another man's kid.

That's a slightly different issue, because enforcement is hard and society picks up the tab on deadbeats. But I'd be on board with much harsher measures for men who can't/won't pay- "lithium mines," sure. I don't think you actually would be, though.

Who cares? Nobody has any concern for the welfare of children when it collides with the needs/wants/whims of women. If a woman's right to drink smoke and snort as much as she wants while pregnant is inviolable, I don't see how a man's right to stay home and play video games shouldn't also be etched in sapphire.

I am pretty sure there are laws under which women who abuse drugs and cause their children to be born addicted, or with birth defects, can be charged, though that's another hard to enforce law. If you want to make it illegal for a woman to drink, smoke or do any drugs at all while pregnant, I think it's impractical, but let's say I agree in theory. The point of child support laws is not to make sure men and women are being "punished" equally, it's to provide for children. "Well, if we cared about children, we should do this also!" Okay, if I agree in theory but also acknowledge we can't/won't do that, what now? Fuck them kids because it's unfair to men? Some things are unfair for biological reasons (where a lot of these conversations wind up, usually about the time the proposal that a man should be able to disavow any responsibility or obligation for children he fathers emerges).

Your rules are absurd and demonstration nothing because they could apply to a lot of laws.

I would agree that there are many laws whose motivation for being bear very little to relation to their stated purpose.

No, because it expires when the child no longer needs support.

Sure, but she has less going on in her life now that needs any support. Hard to say from this one alone. Which brings me to:

How would you propose disentangling "mother support" from "child support."

Well, I would say we take a look at whose benefit the terms of the policy correlates the most with, which leads me to Exhibit A, the smoking gun:

I am fine with a rich man having to pay more than a poor man to support his children.

I am once again left to wonder if children of rich fathers need more food and clothes than the children of poor ones. What's the thing that children need more of when their father is richer? I really can't overstate how damning it is that the amount of funds demanded for child support bears almost no correlation whatsoever with the needs of any actual or theoretical children being supported.

You used the word "punitive" to describe my likely motivation for having skepticism toward modern child support policy, but to me it seems like a great descriptor for how child support policy itself actually works. Its terms make very little sense if you want to believe that it's actually about supporting children, and much more sense if you impute that its actual motivation has much more to do with look dude, ya had sex, now pay up.

If you want to propose a cap, I'd be amenable, but not if it's the bare minimum because fuck those kids (and their mother).

I'd feel a lot better if the number were derived from what children actually need, rather than how much we think we could and should extract from a given man.

Do you actually know what typical child support is?

I know how it works. It's absurd. In most places, if you go and fuck some loser who works at the grocery store deli, you get like eighty bucks a month which isn't nearly enough—and then me and other taxpayers have to pitch in to make the difference. But if you manage to sack a Guy In Finance, you get a gorillion dollars.

It gets really bad if you think of all the myriad, trivial ways that the funds could be made to better seek the actual needs of actual children that could be implemented but aren't. I'd be way less offended about how the numbers are calculated if the funds that were clearly in excess of what the child's needs went into some general pool that was drawn off to support tougher cases. But that's not how it works, all of that excess needs to go to the mother who bagged a high value guy. I suppose that's the bounty she earns for a sexual conquest that puts a high earner to work for society's reproductive needs. Sorry, little Timmy: apex maneater Stacy needs her meal ticket.

Wouldn't you still protest that she might be eating some of the food bought with the EBT card

There's a practical, happy medium of oversight that exists between none at all and hellhole 1984 panopticon. I find it suspect that we choose one of these extremes. I've given you an example of a trivial to implement solution that would substantially increase the auditability of funds ostensibly earmarked for the support of children for very little added friction and inconvenience to the people involved. I could probably think of a dozen more, but I'm not going to waste too much effort on this one as I doubt that anything I could offer would change your opinion about me. I mean, you've already read my mind over TCP/IP and know my true sentiments:

But I'd be on board with much harsher measures for men who can't/won't pay- "lithium mines," sure. I don't think you actually would be, though.

My most preferred model is that accountability for reproductive outcomes be assigned based on possession of the power to shape those outcomes. Things have gotten more complicated since Dobbs, but before that, here in the States, the entire process of human reproduction from start to finish was considered a woman's private affair by the most supreme court in the land. Responsibility should have been assigned accordingly.

I understand that this isn't how it works, and probably not how it will ever work for reasons that may never cease to frustrate me. My second-preferred solution is that we keep the spillover as contained to the most nearby man as possible, and in a way that empowers individual men to avoid this situation as far as practical.

I understand that this probably won't happen either, and that I'll probably just be made to pay women to fuck other men and bear their children for the rest of my natural life.

But I am allowed to complain about it.

I am pretty sure there are laws under which women who abuse drugs and cause their children to be born addicted, or with birth defects, can be charged, though that's another hard to enforce law.

There aren't. Not here in the States. I've looked. I did, however, find cases of children afflicted by these diseases suing their mothers for what she did to them and losing due to being considered as having no standing. Can you at least understand why I might be quite unimpressed with what our civilization demands from women when it comes to reproduction, and why I might not see where exactly it gets off demanding anything from men?

If you want to make it illegal for a woman to drink, smoke or do any drugs at all while pregnant, I think it's impractical

Why? Would it be too inconvenient to her to not have to fucking poison her own child?

Okay, if I agree in theory but also acknowledge we can't/won't do that, what now? Fuck them kids because it's unfair to men?

"Fuck the children" is indeed the position of our civilization whenever the interests of women and children collide—and yes, if we are going to continue to do that, I would like the trifling, self-centered interests of grown-ass men to prevail over the welfare of children, too. Fuck 'em.

Some things are unfair for biological reasons

Biology doesn't write our laws or determine how they're adjudicated. Simple as. Men are biologically stronger than women but that doesn't stop rape from being illegal.

usually about the time the proposal that a man should be able to disavow any responsibility or obligation for children he fathers emerges

This would, in fact, be what peak justice in reproductive affairs looks like. Although as a matter of implementation detail, I'd much prefer an opt-in model. What women do with their bodies is nobody else's business, or it is. Pick one.

Do you actually know anything about the circumstances under which a man can "lose most of his assets and future income" in a divorce?

Yes, he gets divorced.

In fact alimony is pretty rare nowadays (and almost never close to "most" of his assets and future income), child support is to support the children

Spousal support is rare but not non-existent (my father paid it, and he was divorced far later than the 1960s), but child support is very high and doesn't have to be spent on the children. If his income goes up he has to pay more; if it goes down he still has to pay the same.

and the number of men paying "unreasonable" child support (however you define that) is exceeded by the number of men not actually paying their child support.

Which is irrelevant, as they were still demanded to have been paying it. And if they get caught, they have their wages garnished down to subsistence or less, they lose their driver's licenses, professional licenses, go to jail for contempt for indefinite periods, etc.

Yes, he gets divorced.

This is not what actually happens to any man (or the vast majority of men- I question whether it's even a statistically significant number of men) who get divorced.

Spousal support is rare but not non-existent

You mean "pretty rare"? I.e., exactly what I said in the post you are replying to but framing it as a rebuttal?

but child support is very high and doesn't have to be spent on the children. If his income goes up he has to pay more; if it goes down he still has to pay the same.

"Pretty high" is subjective and depends entirely on how much obligation you think a parent has to provide for their offspring. No, there isn't an itemized accounting for every dollar of child support because household expenses are too fungible, but child support is calculated based on the expected expenses of a child and the income of the parents.

Unsurprisingly, the non custodial parent often thinks any amount is too high. Child support can be adjusted up or down. A judge has to approve increasing it, it doesn't happen automatically if income goes up. And it can be decreased too based on life circumstances , though judges tend to take a dim view of the tactic of taking a lower paying job to decrease child support.

Which is irrelevant, as they were still demanded to have been paying it. And if they get caught, they have their wages garnished down to subsistence or less, they lose their driver's licenses, professional licenses, go to jail for contempt for indefinite periods, etc.

It's relevant when you are claiming child support as an injustice, which it is not. In any case, even the most onerous child support does not reach the level of "taking most of his assets and future earnings."

judges tend to take a dim view of the tactic of taking a lower paying job to decrease child support.

It used to be that the child would go to the parent who can afford him, and the deadbeats of either sex would just not get guardianship. If you can’t manage to take care of yourself, you shouldn’t take care of children. Makes sense to me.

Then the justice system was bent precisely so that the economically useless parent, usually the woman, could extract resources from the productive one.

And now the conversation goes : “But I don’t want to get exploited by a deadbeat!” “Wow you’re such a deadbeat.”

I agree that a dead bedroom is a problem, and no one should be expected to live with that. But the "sex is an obligation and marital rape doesn't exist" guys don't seem to acknowledge a wife's right to say no ever.

If I were to put it from the point of view of someone who does not hate women, it would be: a woman who says no, rather than not right now, is a woman who has no right to her marriage.

It sounds like the rape enthusiasts have something else going on, but I think the above description is a pretty reasonable standard for marriage, leaving out the man’s parallel duties.

Agreed, but I'd also say, unless you are having some other severe marital dysfunction going on, if your wife is saying no all the time, wouldn't you want to... have a conversation about this? Figure out what's going on? As opposed to just "asserting your rights."

What's probably going on is that the wife doesn't find him attractive. And they don't want to admit it in your fictional conversation

Of course! That’s what’s screwy about the whole manosphere take. And not to be crude, but it hurts if she’s even just insufficiently oiled. Not interested in experiencing a total lack of it. It’s hard to view even as an I-win-you-lose deal. It starts to sound like nothing but malice.

The most I’ll say is: having shared expectations for the fact that the man is probably going to want sex more than the woman and that he does in fact deserve a little above and beyond what she’d have of her own accord, as part of a mutually loving relationship where he takes care of her disproportionate emotional needs too, makes it much easier to have the nuts and bolts conversations about what each partner wants. Treating sex as something that arises out of desire or not at all is going to miss out on the fact that there is an obligation. Marriage books often have advice in this vein in them, and it is useful advice for all the mere mortals who care in principle but for whom the logical correlates are not so vividly obvious.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats