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 -
I mean, sure, maybe? But at this point, in my own understanding, on the side of "the modal woman prefers emotional intimacy and romantic attention well before sexual intimacy" stands: my own introspection (n=1); the consistent testimony of any woman I personally know who's ever discussed relationships with me; the example of the various happily married women I know (myself included) whose husbands were their friends first, then committed boyfriends/suitors , then sex partners a good long way into the relationship, possibly even after marriage; and the revealed preference of women in our most popular female-authored hetero romance novels and films, all of which consistently center on a man who is passionately romantically interested, separately from his sexual interest in the woman as a piece of meat. So much so, indeed, that the plot of these movies usually spends a good bit of time introducing cheesy and implausible situations where the guy might prove his romantic interest and care-giving potential in definitively non-sexual ways.
On the side of "naw actually women are thots who adore, indeed insist upon, getting pumped ASAP by otherwise-indifferent guys" we have... a few vague assertions from gentlemen in heavy porn-watching circles who so far have confessed they never actually tried not seducing a woman ASAP, but they're pretty sure it wouldn't have worked out anyway, that ho.
Past a certain point, it starts sounding like "Who're you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Hold up. OP's claim was actually this: "Trying to take it slow as the man is interpreted by the majority of women as a lack of genuine interest."
More options
Context Copy link
What I hear is more "no one I know voted for Nixon!" As a guy who went around the block many times in his 20s and 30s, I can say that an awful lot of women voted for Nixon. But they move in different circles than you and your friends, and they certainly don't talk about voting for Nixon when they're around you.
More options
Context Copy link
Employees hate it when their managers do that too. You give them a reason to stick around- some sort of buy-in- and they're more likely to stick around even though the wage might be lower. They might even do those special intangible things that further your goals just because they like you.
Companies spend a great deal on patronage and branding because, among other reasons, it favors the goals of the employee that asked for it. I hesitate to say "potentialfag" because it's stupid, but why else do people stay in relationships other than the promise that it might get better or stay the same? Evaluating a company is hard, since it's incorporeal and its logo means nothing to what the potential of working there could get you, but you can be attracted to what it is and what it does- SpaceX employees obviously feel their organization is spectacularly muscular.
I don't see many movies for men based around how great it is to serve garbage managers/companies, but stories that involve characters eventually surpassing them (the "boyboss" trope, if you will) are perennial.
That said, job insecurity is still a real thing; in this case, "if you're not interested in my ability to do the job, whose minimum wage is very low yet competition is very high (thanks, PornHub), I'm going to find someone else who is so the relationship actually has some grounds/stability/stakes to exist in the first place" seems pretty natural to me.
[We assume men
womenwho actively want to provide free laborsexwithout this are a rounding error, as it's counter to biologically-imposed limitations and instinct doesn't fully account for UBIsIUDs. Sorry, asexuals.]More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link