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 was trying to find the citation for my anecdotal example I wanted to use, to, kinda sorta, back you on this, but alas it's one of these things I saw on one of the zillions of 3 hour podcasts I listen to daily, and cant locate easily anymore, so ultimately the source is: trust me, bro.
So there was this interview I was listening to with some sweet old lady recounting her life as some sort of activist. Unrelated to the main topic of the conversation, she mentioned how her husband started courting her when she was 16 or so, and he was 20-something*, exactly the sort of relationship that you seem to argue for here. My first reaction was "yikes", but through the interview she seemed to have nothing but love and respect for her husband, and she also mentioned they had something like 5 kids together, and each of them had a lot of kids in turn, so she's now surrounded by approximately 7 zillion grandchildren and great-grandchildren. At the end of it, I found it hard to say this was all somehow wrong.
*) Or he might have actually waited until she turned 18, but he was definitely orbiting her since she was in her mid-teens.
That said, for something like this to work, I think the conversation has to be a lot bigger than "age of consent", and basically you'd have to RETVRN to traditional sexual mores: no sex before marriage, no divorce, the parents have to co-sign the relationship. I think a lot of the "ick factor" comes from people assuming the 20-something is just looking for sex - which is a reasonable assumption - and the the 15 year old girl is naive, and easily taken advantage of - which is another reasonable assumption. If, on the other hand, we assume the guy is looking for love and for a way to start a family... well I'm sure lots of people would still complain, but I think it's more defensible than lowering the age of consent, and normalizing big age-gap relationships with the current sexual mores in effect.
Really? Half of the dating pool is aged fifteen and under? The only way 20 year old Deep can get a girlfriend is to hang around 13 year olds?
Do you hear what you are saying?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link