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 -
“My safety at risks” is just an institutionalized version of what the early seduction artists called a shit tests. Girls and feminists now claim this to scare unworthy men from pursuing them. Since the worthy ones will just ignore their claimed victim hood and realize they like male attention.
I’ll make it simple every women wants sexual attention to boost their ego even from unworthy men. It’s just our legalistic culture has now enabled a second game to play that they can sue you for it and then have a course case stating that men can’t help but show interest in them while getting paid.
I am perfectly fine with not having relationship with stupid people with tragically idiotic mind games.
This subset of woman (I really doubt that feminists are over-represented there, BTW) can deal with consequences, people pursuing this strategy will end either with rapes/attempted rapes or in relationship with stupid manipulative people. Does not seem like a good strategy to me.
And anyway: vast majority is actually not interested and "rape them until they like it" is existing only in really bad porn - and not a viable dating strategy.
More options
Context Copy link
Take your brainworms back to Reddit. If you'd arrived at these opinions through personal experience, you'd have your own way of talking about it, rather than the exact same PUA Redpill lingo that gets compulsively parroted.
You really don't have any original dating advice to pass on?
I have similar opinions due to personal experience. I don't know if sliders is correct about why western women behave this way, but they do.
My totally original dating advice is this: move out of hellhole countries where everyone hates you.
More options
Context Copy link
This thread is full of terrible comments, but this kind of personal antagonism is still not acceptable. Focus on the argument and not on the person.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, that's some horrible post-PUA logic bordering on delusion. I don't want to get «shit-tested» by a very specific and thinly veiled threat of character assassination, better take it at face value and try my luck elsewhere. In general, the idea that rejection is always insincere and/or that the girl actually wants you to be more assertive (and high assertiveness suffices to make you attractive) when she's saying you aren't wanted is as close to the default feminist accusation of rape culture as can be.
In the original meaning, «shit test» referred to trivial coyness or obstinacy when you already have some basic rapport (admittedly, men get deluded on this account too, but less), or to stirring trouble in a relationship, not to «you're making me scared, please go away or I'll call for help» kind of posture. Is such a posture shitty behavior, and cruel response to a normal friendly expression of interest? Totally. Shit test? Assume at your own peril.
Exactly how assertive do western women want us to be?
More options
Context Copy link
This is an argument that left likes to make. Someone makes an argument based on science in this case psychology and the normal response by those groups is accuse the others opinion of being racists if they are unable to directly rebut the idea. In this case you are using rape culture. It’s fine if you don’t want to debate an idea but you are basically just making a witch accusation instead of contributing anything.
Uncharitable, weakmanning, and personally antagonistic, in response to a response to another terrible comment full of uncharitable claims without evidence. You have a ton of reports in the mod queue with this kind of comment, and a pretty poor record already, so I'm giving you a 2-day ban. (It would be longer but you're hardly the only culprit and this thread is full of awful hot takes.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ah, the good old "women mean 'yes' when they say 'no' so just keep on going" which never ever ended in assault or rape. I thought this one had gone the way of the dodo, but apparently there are still men out there who don't believe "no" does in fact mean "no" and not "overpower me you big manly caveman".
Most men who are sexually successful in short-term encounters ignore soft "no's". If you want success with women you need to keep persuing after soft resistance (shit tests) and give plausible deniability instead of being honest about intentions. Sometimes even ignoring the hard "no's" causes the women to submit and often she doesn't tell society / her mate and that starts an affair. There is a reason rape by a more powerful male is a common female fantasy and found in many romance novels, women are complicit in rewarding this dynamic.
"Shit test" is a male conception and invention. I've never heard another woman use such a term. That's not saying there aren't women out there who enjoy making guys jump through hoops because they like the attention and the sense of power, but it is not a female dating strategy or whatever the hell it's supposed to be.
This is men making up explanations for why women say "no" and why they will then give in if you keep nagging, pressuring, and subtly coercing them in order to make you shut up, go away, and leave them alone. It's not "women want to test you to see if you are alpha enough to bother with", it's "women want you to stop making them nervous so they appease you in hopes you'll stop doing that".
More options
Context Copy link
Women fantasizing about rape/= women wanting to be raped.
This is pure PC nonsense. Would you apply the same logic to pedos and child porn?
The reality is that women respond to the same things in real life that they fantasize about, and why wouldn't they? Why else would they fantasize about it instead of the nice guy who asks them politely.
Wow, thanks for this insight into psychology, fjwief! So if I ask a guy "do you want me to cut your toes off with a pliers?" and he says "no", I should just go right ahead and do that - because "ignoring the hard "no's" causes the person to submit and often they won't tell society and that starts an affair". You can't get much harder a "no" than "no, stop, I don't want this, why are you doing this, you're hurting me, aaaaaahhhh!" and that just means I'm succeeding in winning his heart!
I'll head right on down to the hardware store in order to pick up suitable implements and get started on my future romance!
More options
Context Copy link
Even if we posited that the circumstance women fantasize about rape scenarios does in fact imply that they would enjoy those scenarios if they happened for real, it's not like the scenarios they fantasize about involve average men, the typical PUA, or you in particular. Quite a few men also fantasize about being raped by a(n attractive) woman. Does that mean that "just drug and bed him, that's what he actually wants" as advice to an ugly 300lbs woman is (a) useful (as in the man will actually come around that he was just denying his true preference as part of an evolutionary strategy) and/or (b) moral (as in the man's fantasies amounted to forfeiting the right to protest or retribution)?
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, broadly defined. Lolicon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon - includes NSFW images) vs raping children seems to mirror rape fantasies vs actually being raped.
(disclaimer: I am not an expert on this topics nor done research in either topic nor have a personal experience)
More options
Context Copy link
No, but I would apply it to men and "lone hero vs a gang of baddies" situation. It's a fantasy so common we have made movies about it, but I don't think anyone would want to get stuck in Nakatomi Plaza without shoes on Christmas Eve for real.
The fantasy is that the man is so badass that if he were stuck in Nakatomi Plaza without shoes on Christmas Eve, he could still singlehandledly whip the asses of Hans Gruber and his gang.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Probably. Most people want harsher punishments for the former over the latter.
Do you only fantasize about stuff that you would want to happen to you in real life? How about non-pornographic media? Do you only enjoy films and books where you want to be the characters? Do you only play games where you would want to live in that world?
I generally fantasize about things I want, yes.
Not the question.
I have done (100% consentual and by-the-rules) CNC play. If a girl fantasizes about rape, there is presumably some BDSM-type scenario that she would consent to, or would consent to in some alternate universe where there weren't e.g. social taboos, dangers to her health, etc.
This is completely unrelated to the question of how pushy a man should be when flirting. Making a woman briefly uncomfortable is not rape, and it's not immoral in my view. (I'm not endorsing the view that women secretly wanting rape => unlimited right to sexually harass them.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I fantasize about taking people I don't like outside and beating the shit out of them; and yet somehow it has never happened!
Almost as if there is a difference between
imaginationand reality.It hasn’t happened because you would go to jail if you did it. That had nothing to do with whether you want to do that. If you lived in a different world where you wouldn’t go to jail then you likely do it. Like if you were a conquistador you probably would have beaten up some natives and enjoyed it.
You can "want" something on one level without actually wanting it. I "want" to eat 2 pounds of ice cream right now, but don't really want to because I don't want the consequences. Jail is one consequence, yes, but there are plenty of others, from social ramifications to the possibility that you lose the fight.
Fantasizing about something, and even wanting it on one level, doesn't mean that you actually want it.
So what is the “want X despite the real life consequence Y” for the fantasy of rape?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fantasy and reality often have a sheer chasm between them. There definitely is some truth to the fact that some girls enjoy some level of non-consensual encounters, but there is also a wide range from "I said no, but if he ignores that it gives me cover to not feel bad about cheating" to "Some random stranger held a gun to my head and forced me to blow him."
I don't think many, even those who have non-consensual fantasies, would enjoy the latter.
The non consensual fantasies are not about some low-life dragging them into the ally raping them. It’s being raped by 35 year old Donald Trump or Tom Brady or perhaps even for an ugly version something like Harvey Weinstein. So I guess the fantasy still has consent since it’s only with someone desirable. But that person not being able to control himself and taking her without caring about her opinion of the matter.
Of course it’s obvious why females evolved to have rape fantasies. It was a survival tactic. Females survived by being able to emotionally deal with being raped by the more powerful. The rape of the Sabine was a founding story of Rome. 5-10% of the population in some regions have dna directly tied to Ghengis Khan. The Aztecs took the females of their conquored as additional wives (who could become high status)
In a thread full of pretty terrible hot takes, it may be unfair to single this one out, but since you've been particularly plentiful in providing them, I'm going to use this post as an example to point out the rule to proactively provide evidence for inflammatory claims. Is it "obvious" that women evolved to have rape fantasies, or is this your personal theory, or an evpsych just-so story? You provide zero evidence that it is an "obvious" fact. We are pretty lenient with interesting, even inflammatory, hot takes, but when you're talking about a large group of people you still need to justify your claims about how they all evolved in a way that happens to conform exactly to your assumptions about them with something more than possibly-apocryphal stories about Ghengis Khan and the Aztecs.
More options
Context Copy link
Or, more probably, a possible patrilineal ancestor of Genghis Khan who was also the ancestor of a bunch of other Mongols that did a lot of raping. We don't have Genghis Khan's remains, so we don't even know if he was part of this patrilineal line.
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
That’s very uncharitable to equate a man showing interest and flirting as the same thing as supporting grab her and drag her into your cave and take her.
That seems fitting, since it was very uncharitable in the first place to assert that women generally both want attention from men and will cry victim to get status when they get said attention. Two wrongs don't make a right, sure, but your original post was super uncharitable.
Bro - I actually believe that. So there’s nothing wrong with saying what you believe. There is something wrong with accusing someone of advocating for rape when I clearly did not say rape was ok.
By your own rationale - if he believes you said rape was OK, then there's nothing wrong with saying that. I don't agree with that logic, but if you're gonna defend your own uncharitable post with that logic then it applies to his too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is far more attractive to women than saying "please say yes to sex with me" or any variant of that. It's quite bizarre because feminist women I've met often say they want explicit consent, but get off to the forced dynamic.
[citation needed]
I am not disputing that some get off on it, I am disputing that all or even majority would consider "grab her and drag her into your cave and take her" as actually attractive.
I would expect that more than 99.999% of woman would prefer to not be raped.
This does not mean that they want doormat as partner or someone powerless! But if anyone considers that being rapist is more desirable by woman than equally powerful and attractive etc person that is not a rapist then they are heavily misinformed and dangerous.
I guess that rich, powerful charismatic powerful rapist may be more attractive than poor lame doormat - which is not changing that "rapist" part is not really helping here.
Situation is made worse by people who cannot imagine other expression of masculinity than through a rape, both on male (red pill "how to get prostitute for free" vision of relationship) and female spectrum (bad romance stories).
If women don't want a doormat, why does western society work so hard at bullying us into being doormats?
If the Soviets didn't want to starve, why did their society work so hard to collectivize agriculture? Societies often do things with consequences that the people in those societies don't actually want.
More options
Context Copy link
That's a test. If you are successfully bullied, you fail.
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