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 -
Why do a lot of women not like acknowledging the practical aspects of dating? By this I mean that women appear to be put off by me simply discussing:
Of course I'm not discussing these topic with women I'm trying to actually date, I'm not that autistic. But if you're trying to actually find a partner to settle down and have kids with, how do you not take all of these into account? Not only does it reek of impracticality, but on an even deeper level, it appears that any attempt to practically model the dating world at all produces a negative female reaction.
(Maybe it's because some of these women don't ever intend on having kids and therefore don't ever have to be realistic about dating.)
#1 and #2 are directly about modeling dating as a short-term transaction. #3 is indirectly the same: ime, professing deep interest in women's biological clocks covers a strictly penile preference for youthful bodies.
But family formation and successful childrearing is a very long-term project requiring daily emotional, not just financial, investment on the scale of ~30-70 years, if you take grandchildren's success into account. Women are aware on some level that the costs will be borne by them on this time-scale. But the only remotely reliable way to ensure similar long-term male commitment is through intimacy, strong emotional ties and deep social affiliation.
It's pointless to talk through dating-market fantasies as though rational self-interest could somehow be massaged into intimate pair-bonding. Better just to filter out people with that frame, because they're not looking for the same thing.
Let's be realistic, a husband who's initially obsessed with looks, SMV and biological clock is somebody who gets bored after a couple of years of sex, is mad about inevitable body changes with pregnancy, won't coparent kids or co-maintain the home, then runs off with the now-higher-SMV secretary 15 years in, leaving his wife permanently companionless with decimated career prospects and the burden of coaching the kids through the trust issues he created. Nothing a man could offer within a few dates is worth the prospect of single-grandmothering the early children of your damaged daughter between shifts at a shitty midlife job, or caring for your disabled child alone while your husband fights your child-support claims in court. Who needs that?
Ummm... no? That's like, seriously a lot of assumptions. A neckbeard who doesn't think at all about how to make himself look more attractive to girls by getting in shape and dressing better, and finally gets with a woman in her 40's who runs into fertility issues is simply not going to be a father or even a husband at all.
Or maybe you're purposefully hyperbolizing "obsessed." Okay, but I'm not talking about being obsessed with superficial things. I'm talking about merely talking about these things.
I don't see how optimizing for the long-term does not involve solving for the short-term. If you cannot even get dates, how are any of your long-term goals ever going to come to fruition?
And it would seem there's an obvious reason men evolved to have such a penile preference.
The problem is that the short-term transactional frame and the long-term bonding frame speak to mutually exclusive sets of personalities and worldviews. You can have qualifying thresholds and dealbreakers in relationships, but I don't think it's even possible for one human being to relate to another human being from a sincerely transactional and a sincerely emotional/ affiliation framework at the same time. Imagine a dog owner telling you he's considering replacing his dog with one that shed 5% less and was 10% better at playing Catch.
Obviously there are women happy to trade sexual access for resources or protection in a strictly transactional way, and I'd imagine they would be very interested in discussing SMV with you. But again, that's not most women who want to form families, because families inherently work around affiliation rather than transaction.
Nothing wrong with it at all, but man, even snails have penile preferences. You can enjoy yours without women being obligated to listen to some elaborate Adam Smith rationalization of why they're objectively true and correct.
You're again saying that "even discussing the impact these things has on society" means "you are incapable of thinking in terms of affiliation and emotion in your personal relationships." This simply isn't true; would you say that a feminist, who believes that male abuse has a serious impact on dating outcomes for women, is incapable of forming a happy bond with a man?
There are, of course, many, many men who believe that this kind of concern, especially if it's 'elevated' or 'obsessive', makes a woman likely to perceive even normal and non-abusive (even if crappy) relationship troubles as abuse. I think things are more mixed, and it depends on whether an individual woman has examples of men in her life (father, brother, uncles, teachers, friends, etc) who demonstrate good character.
The best partners are those who acknowledge the bad parts of human nature, even their own capacity for it, and then choose, knowingly and according to their character, to pursue the good. Not talking about or acknowledging truths about reality is not a demonstration of good character. "Having the wool over your eyes" does not an empowered partner make, for men or for women.
But if you're making a claim that "negative schemas about the opposite sex predict poor relationship outcomes" then I'll heartily agree. I'm simply not certain that an acknowledgement of the realities of dating constitute that, and I believe you're uncharitably imputing a mindset to people that's not necessarily there. There are men who do have the mindset you're talking about -- and some of them are indeed in the room with us right now -- but simply discussing the issues of dating does not constitute acceptance of the harshest offered framing in the space where they are discussed. As the adage goes, "consent is not the absence of a no but the presence of an enthusiastic yes," even if you seem to disagree.
For my part, I have said no, and I will continue to say no, and to attribute to the women around me the insights they generate on what could be done to better society for women and men, as I did in that post. I will even continue to quote you, when you post something valuable -- which you are very much capable of.
There's a difference between "women have a set of ages in which they're fertile and in which they can have a child and it's important we talk about this and it's justifiable that someone might want to marry a woman who is capable of having children" and "obviously people's sexual attractiveness has an impact on their dating life and outcomes," on the one hand, and "women are only valuable as T&A cum repositories and baby-making machines," on the other. If you don't see a distinction, well, your interpretation of reality is simply wrong, and I can't say anything else to help you.
Some things about reality are harsh. And those harsh things impact real people, and deserve being discussed. I don't talk about people I've dated in a "short-term transactional" way, because they're people and I've had real connections with them, but it's also very clear to me that, in every case, subconscious cues about my and their status, attractiveness, and compatibility were made by the both of us before either of us even spoke. Sexual attractiveness, a sense of ease, the way someone carries themselves, the way their eyes sparkle, how they dress... all of these form a huge amount of initial attraction, which isn't a replacement, much less a substitute, for the pair bonding and affiliation that can, and by all rights ought to, form once these drives motivate two people who are compatible with each other to form a loving relationship. You're describing sexual attraction and emotional affiliation as almost two incompatible views of the world -- that's simply bullshit, and it stinks to the highest heaven.
I don't know that people are saying that they're "objectively true or correct," although evolution did select for things by prioritizing fitness markers, even physical ones, and in most species, including humans, the female sex does most of this.
Yes, it is not fun. It's certainly not fun to hear people describe how competitive dating really is, especially in a way that can hit insecurities around attractiveness, age, personality, etc. It's not fun for me, of course, when you describe discussion topics I enjoy as predictive of poor relationship outcomes and therefore best to be avoided. But from your point of view, you're just being honest about your feelings. Turns out, so are men. Maybe we all ought to be more honest.
I'm not saying that it's good for people to comment on a specific person's 'sexual market value' when talking with other people. That's just rude -- although certainly quite a few women do it often, when the men aren't around. But a discussion, in theory, of the impact that these things has on society is a proper discussion, in the proper channels and among the proper crowd. Random female friends probably aren't the proper crowd.
But gestures broadly this here is literally designed to be the proper channel where the proper crowd gathers, and yet you seem just as annoyed that it's being discussed here. I would rather we have female voices present, and I certainly would rather than this community as whole speaks with more charity towards women, but the social system, which you seem to support, in which frank discussions of the realities of romance are verboten and icky simply means that social issues go unaddressed, and only the most disagreeable end up speaking out. If the empress has no clothes, I would rather the kindhearted and charitable addressed it rather than leaving the truth-telling to the harsh and cruel.
Yes, #allmen like T&A. Yes, #allmen think about how the dating is a marketplace. We don't have the luxury of turning our brains off and pretending that love falls from the sky as in cishet girl lore, even as a starting point. Our starting point is zero, and our baseline is one hell of nothing. We, too, are lied to by the cultural scripts that surround dating and intimacy, and we, too, turn to alternatives once they fail.
In many species, males have to compete in competitions or mate displays where things are, indeed, a numbers game in a matching marketplace. I believe anyone who looks clear-eyed at the world in which we live would acknowledge that human beings, far from being separate from the animal kingdom, too participate in competitions of mate selection and fitness-demonstration. Evolution did not stop at the neck.
If your view is that even acknowledging these things as elements of human nature, even as elements that should not and must not define our choices, counts as "obsession" or is a sign to you that someone is of poor relational character, then I don't know what to tell you -- except to say that if a concern about partner fitness and clear-eyed discussion of the harsh truths of human partnership are negative to you, you might want to start with the woman in the mirror.
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