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 -
It is less than optimal, certainly; however, it can be made reasonable with a slight change: namely, reduce the scope from 'all men' to 'men who claim that certain actions by a woman constitute irrevocable consent to sex'¹.
If Alice does not want to have sex with Bob at this time, and has made this clear to him, and Bob forces himself upon Alice, Bob is always in the wrong. This does not change if Alice stays overnight at Bob's house rather than risk dying of hypothermia, it does not change if Bob paid for Alice's dinner, it does not change if Alice got drunk and pursued sex with every other man in their circle, it does not change if Alice eagerly consented to sex with Bob last week, and it does not change if Alice and Bob declared at a large public ceremony and in official records that they intended to have an ongoing sexual relationship; the same applies if the gender of either or both is reversed.
I would advise my daughter to avoid dating anyone who disputes this.
¹cf. claims that consenting to sex constitutes an absolute acceptance of the obligation to pregnancy.
This again seems like putting words in my mouth. I already stated I would be fine with specifying the advice into avoiding men who exhibit certain traits. Pressuring you into sex against your will could reasonably be one such. But that is not what this man did. He implicated every man as equally dangerous. This is useless and makes every man his outgroup. Retreating to your motte when criticized does not erase the bailey argument.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really understand this consent-maximizing worldview.
What is the point of these statements? The best way to avoid rape is to avoid being in the physical proximity of any given person that would rape you.
What does telling your daughter this accomplish exactly?
Are you making a formal promise that she can freely get intoxicated around any given man and if anything she does not like happen, some kind of system will provide satisfying retribution on her behalf? Are you also teaching your sons that it is their duty to go and start fights with drunk men who are 'preying' on women who are enthusiastically following your teachings?
Is it rape if she is drunk? Is it rape if he is drunk? Is it murder if the killer of your son is drunk?
If your daughter is stranded on an island with Bob and Bob controls the one safe shelter, is it rape if they have sex? Sometimes the choice is between rape and murder, I suppose, or manslaughter by exposure.
But either way, nobody is likely to adjudicate any kind of justice or protection on her behalf any time soon. Making your daughter more fearful of consequences of being alone with a man might actually prevent her from taking that far-away vacation in a plane with a man that led her to being stranded on the island, however.
Which is a lot more practical if we establish a standard that "No person is ever justified in forcing himself on another person, regardless of what choices that other person made.", thus reducing the number of potential perpetrators.
Giving her advice that (1.) she can follow while still dating people of the gender to which she is attracted, and (2.) will steer her towards people who are not pre-positioned to decide that they are entitled to take advantage of her.
If by 'anything she does not like' means 'some arsehole decides that he is entitled to access to her body notwithstanding her clearly expressed unwillingness', and 'satisfying retribution on her behalf' means 'assailant not given leniency relative to the counter-factual case in which he grabbed a woman who was following the "Saved, Sanctified, Separated, and Suit-Wearing Baptist Church Manual for Godly Courtship" to the letter', then yes, society owes her such a promise.
No, but I would teach him that it is his duty to Notify The Proper Authorities; he would have a duty to personally intervene if (a.) he were one of the Proper Authorities, being issued with armaments and drawing a salary from all of our tax money, or (b.) he fell through a portal into an anarchist world in which the Proper Authorities did not exist.
Her being drunk doesn't make him less culpable for ignoring her unambiguous refusal. Whether enthusiastic consent can be invalidated by intoxication is a matter which will have to be left for a later time.
Yes.
If he makes access to the shelter contingent on sexual favours, or implies that it is, yes. If he lets her in unconditionally, and their liaison is solely motivated by mutual desire, no.
Until they get back to civilisation....
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What are you talking about?
I'm not certain what part of my comment is unclear; can you be more specific?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link