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 -
What kind of people do you hang out with, that "ackshully it's ephebophilia" doesn't immediately out someone as a pedo?
Aren't a lot of the places where this happens LGBT-themed as well? I mean, think, they breach the boundary of talking about sexuality with kids by design, it's pedo paradise.
Last I checked kids spent half their day at school, also what's taught there can contribute to kids having lower boundaries around sexuality in other contexts.
That's what I meant. That's the "crimestop". Wanting to groom a 14yo girl ie "ephebophilia", and wanting to groom an 8yo girl ie "pedophilia", are just not the same thing. And even if you're not endorsing either, just drawing the distinction, it does, yes, "immediately out one as a pedo". As most men are biologically attracted to anyone post-puberty*, most men have the ability to want to groom a 14yo girl, and if you're a social outcast / lonely / spend a lot of time on the internet, the lack of other options + lack of moral/shame-based reasons not to plus easy opportunity makes it very common. And those people aren't pedophiles, it's an entirely different thing from wanting to fuck 8yos.
90%+ of them are not. They're just places for discussing television shows, video games, memes, etc. LGBT places are overrepresented for various reasons, but it's a 2%->5% overrepresentation rather than a 2%->80% overrepresentation.
Yeah, but school is a regulated and regimented many-to-one environment. Teachers don't have one on one time with kids, teachers are teaching the material rather than having personal interactions with the kids, etc. Opportunities for having emotionally or sexually charged teacher/kid discussions are much rarer in 8 hours of school than 2 hours of after-school social media use.
*although because desires are 'on the same level' as social norms, most men suppress it (good, one would think), so they don't "notice" it. This is the same thing as "my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world to me" or "i'm not attracted to anyone under 25", but much stronger since it's a universally held taboo. Some people who say this are straight lying or telling white lies, but others genuinely believe and feel/experience it, because desires are commensurate with social norms or personal beliefs. But even among the most pious the 'natural' desire to fuck anything that's somewhat attractive is still there, and resurfaces quickly if e.g. they divorce.
also, it's pretty funny to be discussing this in the child comments of the self-proclaimed pedofascist, but witches or something idk
You know (and not that I'm disputing your words in general, since hebephilia and pedophilia are indeed different), since you seem to be of the opinion that most men are naturally attracted to pubescent but not prepubescent girls, you might be interested in this study in which only 9 out of 80 subjects showed no arousal (via penile plethysmography) to nude photographs of prepubescent female children (compared to 4 for no arousal to nude photographs of adult females). Further, 21 out of 80 (26.25%) exhibited arousal to the prepubescent females equaling or exceeding their arousal to the adult females. (Keep in mind this was apparently just basic slides of nude girls standing there too, not the erotic hyperstimuli little girls are putting of themselves on social media nowadays, so I bet it would be much higher with that.)
(Yes it's definitely an aging study and just one (though it cites multiple prior studies itself that found similar results using the same methods) but despite its shocking results and it being cited 105 times according to Google Scholar there are barely any newer studies that have replicated its methods that I can find, with the newest phallometric studies in this meta analysis (which is authorially biased and pro-pedo, but the studies it cites are legit) being from 2000. I guess that shows you how little society is interested in confirming it.)
Perhaps I'll make a post about it sometimes, but it seems to me like "Legal, moral, and social concerns aside, most men are attracted to (on some level even if suppressed) and would bang an attractive 14 year old if they could." is the semi-approved "everyone knows" limited hangout uncomfortable (for modern men) truth meant to obscure the additional but equally valid truth that if you replace "14 year old" with "8 year old" the numbers don't go down much at all and still constitute probably a majority and at least a significant portion of men (which is not to say most of them would necessarily pick the 8 year old over the 14 year old (though a significant minority, possibly up to 25% of men though likely smaller, apparently would), but they'd probably still pick her seems like).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link