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 -
Fascinating how "consent" came to be a universal moral solvent, and by extension, a lack of consent can extend much further than any sane person might think.
That's because "consent" actually means "waives Female Privilege to profit from sex after the fact", not "accedes to".
Women cannot legally consent to sex (or any sex-adjacent activity, actually- 'revenge porn' is yet more salami-slicing away of that ability) today in any Western nation (the US is, perhaps ironically, the least far down that path- but it is still criminal). South Park made fun of this with the consent forms, but the fact that wouldn't hold up in court is actually the main issue here.
Sex with them is thus as potentially legally dangerous as it would be with a 7 year old- the group "consent" was made up to initially protect. We can see this by how laws tend to get changed so the man can't protect himself by demonstrating in court the women intended to discharge this and lied after the fact (i.e. the Jian Ghomeshi case). It's also why Western/feminist anti-prostitution laws only criminalize buying sex, not selling it.
In other words, invoking "consent" is the one-word fig leaf to cover up the fact women are blatantly abusing privileges meant for the people they claim are the most vulnerable, and to claim that if you're opposed to this abuse it's because you want 7 year olds to be raped. It's quite effective, as you can see.
Okay, let me put this question to everybody here.
Suppose women lose all sense of shame. They've sent intimate photos and videos to their boyfriend because that's how modern relationships work. Then they break up. Maybe it was a bad breakup. Former boyfriend is now pissed-off and is threatening them that unless they get back together, all their intimate photos and videos will be shared with everyone. Or maybe former boyfriend skips the threats and goes straight to uploading this on porn websites etc.
And the woman goes "Go right ahead, I don't care. Sure, send that full-frontal all-angles nothing concealed nude photo of me to my employer and my work colleagues. That video you wanted of me fucking myself with a vibrator? Yeah, send it to my granny. Hey, if you make any money off all that, remember to split it with me!"
That takes revenge porn off the table, because how can there be revenge if the blackmail element is removed? If women behave like men and are "I don't care if he's using my nudes to AI deepfake videos of me fucking dogs"? EDIT: I'm asking that in the context of the comments on here about "but what harm is really done if photos of women and children are used to create fake porn? why is this a concern? why are people worried about their images being used as masturbation material, if a guy wants to jerk off imagining a particular woman he knows, he can do that in his imagination so you can't stop it, and if you don't know why would you feel hurt about it?"
But would you like women to be like that? Or would it just be more "women are sluts who need their sexual autonomy removed and to be controlled by fathers and husbands" fuel for the fire?
EDIT: Oh, and gentlemen, if you find success with the ladies eludes you, could it be because you are neglecting your intimate hygiene? Luckily Lysol will solve that for you! Regular douching with something that makes you smell like coal tar down there will surely be irresistible!
And this is different than the general blackmail case... how, exactly (especially in the AI context)?
We already have laws to deal with this case (and in the cases where we've chosen not to have them/are prohibited from doing so, we've already made the tradeoff). You don't need another law like that, or at least, you wouldn't if this was actually about protecting people from harm and not just a case of
which is perhaps why you did exactly that in the first edit.
Given my assertion is "that's exactly what women themselves are agitating for here"? Of course, it's not really "controlled"- it's always legal for women to have sex for reasons that have a bunch to do with an echo of '70s sexual liberalism- it's just permanently illegal for men to participate in any way
First it was just sex itself, then it was sex-adjacent activities, now it's pictures (real or otherwise) of it. Salami-slicing.
Do you honestly not see why using pictures of real people to create sexual images might be offensive, even if the woman in question was sexually active? Would you not care if someone used a photo of you to create something like that and distributed it? You can call it a figleaf, but unhappily there are real guys out there who would indeed use a photo of the neighbour's four year old to create images of that child naked and sucking cock, and pass such images around.
Perhaps you don't object because if you got an AI-generated image of some hot chick you know, or a famous woman, or that bitch who refused to go out with you when you were seventeen, and she is used for porn material you can jerk off to, you'd be quite happy to use it that way. Perhaps you wouldn't care if such images were created and disseminated of you, because what harm is done? You never really got fucked by a stallion in real life, who cares if the kinksters are using your beach photo to show you taking horse cock? Maybe you think the guy who persuaded a 12 year old into sending him nudes, then tried to blackmail her with those and she eventually committed suicide, did nothing wrong (some people did comment along those lines before). After all, she freely gave him those images, so it served her right if he showed the world what a horny little bitch she really was, yes?
Some people do care, though. Personally, I think any woman who provides nudes or the like for a boyfriend is extremely stupid, but the betrayal there is that these were supposed to be intimate images for one specific person in the context of a relationship, not to be shared around or used to do reputational harm. That is what feels the most hurtful.
I'm cynical. Of course I think "don't trust men, they only think with their dicks and are vicious when not getting what they consider their right to get laid" but some women don't feel that way - until they get slapped in the face with it.
I absolutely think it is offensive. I don't think society should protect women from being so offended because society refuses to protect men from it. Nobody gave a rat's ass when girls were distributing pictures of 5-year-old me naked in high school, using them to openly sexually harass me. They wouldn't even confiscate the pictures. Women demand gender equality, which means they can either grow a fucking thick skin and ignore it like we expect men to or kill themselves in shame like men who can't do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
About that... Dave Chappelle would like a word.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, for some people anyway. Those of us born with the wrong parts are typically exempt from needing to provide consent, though for some reason we're still expected to obtain it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link