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 -
Is this not evidence for the opposite of what you're positing?
Bezos could've gotten a brain-meltingly hot twenty-something model/influencer/plausibly deniable escort. But he chose a high achieving, age appropriate woman (Who, yes, looks pretty bimbo-ish).
I do 100% believe he's on TRT, and that this affected his preferences.
High achieving is debatable. But without the bimboness, it would be less tacky. Huma Abedin married a guy ten years younger than her, but there were no affairs, nude selfies in the National Enquirer, and after putting up with Anthony "I sext fifteen year olds on our shared laptop where my wife keeps confidential work emails" Weiner as her first husband, it was a lot more graceful. By comparison with the Bezos bash, it was an intimate little gathering (for a scion of a billionaire dynasty).
And the bride's bosoms were never in any danger of slipping their moorings and floating over a sporting event.
Huma Abedin is a very different case. It's pretty obvious that she was raised to be a sort of foreign agent -- her parents are Muslim Brotherhood activists and they moved to Saudi Arabia to raise her right after she was born in the US.
Most women chasing after Alexander Soros are in it for the money. She was in a better position because she wanted access to power and thus could easily pass all tests about being in it for the money.
Her dad died when she was 17 and I'm not aware of her mother having any ties to the MB. For that matter I'm not even sure what her dad's ties are supposed to have been, but I admit I haven't looked deeply into it.
More options
Context Copy link
This is an interesting take. I've no idea how accurate, but certainly interesting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems like he got the worst of both worlds. To everyone with any taste or class he looks like a low-class idiot with a bimbo whore wife, but compared to basically any non-obese 18 year old she looks awful. He should've either gone the Jerry Seinfeld/Leo Dicaprio route, laughed at the haters and had his fun or sucked it up and married someone tasteful. He's dealing with all of the cost and none of the benefit.
She's not bad for her age, but it's clear there's been a lot of work done and a lot of effort into looking like that, rather than going with her age and whatever natural assets she had. I'm not saying MacKenzie Bezos is a stunning beauty, but by comparison Sanchez really does look like "mid-life crisis girlfriend" (red carpet glamour shot MacKenzie here, Lauren here - that's the most restrained version I could find, there are more hotcha ones here and here at the White House).
That's the point of Tina Brown's barb: is Lauren Sanchez Bezos smart, funny, talented and great company? Well we don't know, but we do know she decided the road to a man's heart is load up on the lip filler, silicone, and a stint or two under the knife to freshen up the face, and that this works. Who needs brains when you have zeppelin boobs?
This may be very unfair to Sanchez herself, but she has also made the decision to go this road (very likely because she started out in the entertainment industry and that doesn't care if you're smart, it cares if you look pretty and don't show your age), so commentary based purely on her looks is the natural result of that.
And yes: men don't care if you're smart and fun (though that's nice), they care if you have the requisite sexy figure. Sorry guys if that treats you all as very shallow, but I do think male sexual and female sexual attraction work somewhat differently.
One minor corrective here: sexy figure is one thing, but sexy attitude may not correlate. As someone who is recently divorced from an ex-wife with a very nice body but who was borderline frigid, dating a woman who is a little chubby but loves to fuck is a mind-blowing change in fortunes. Sex appeal has many facets.
More options
Context Copy link
Mackenzie looks odd. She's got a very long neck, her hips are narrow. If she had a nice figure like Sanchez, even a less bouncy natural one and a proportional neck she'd be pretty attractive, but she's really a scarecrow.
She looks ordinary, which fits because they got married back before he was "Jeff Bezos, insanely rich guy" and was just "Jeff Bezos, another guy with a plan to make it big". She's also that little bit taller than he is, at least in photos of them together, while I notice Sanchez is that little bit shorter than him. That might have something to do with the attractiveness of the new missus, as well 😁
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Pushing back on this slightly. Yes you're probably very correct if we're just talking about sex and sexual attraction. A pretty face also helps. Smart doesn't come into it too terribly much except perhaps at that level of kink. But past just sex and at the relationship level, smart and fun are absolute requirements, at least for most every man I know who would stick around. (And of those two, "fun" is considerably harder to gauge and maintain).
A woman whose sole offering is a sexy figure will find herself ignored, or at least not really attended to, post-coitally. But sure, she'll get laid as much as she cares to, no doubt about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link