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 -
There'd be some funny bits if this was just the dark mirror to those wacky christian film and book publishers, but Saga's a Simon and Schuster imprint, and not even one of the really wacky imprints. But it's still the same thing, just with a slight glazing of prestige. And given the extent that mainstream publishing is dying, it's not that much prestige.
It's... hard to figure out what deeper to say.
I haven't read the book, so I can't review it. It's possible that there's something interesting or deep under the obvious political allegiance, though I'm pretty skeptical. And while I've bought some books with really bad covers and interiors -- Morning Glory Milking Farm is going to be on my Kindle account forever -- I'd like to at least pretend I've got some dignity. At least the normal slop is cheap. And I don't think it would sate many frustrations, rather than highlight what a more serious engagement with the author's favored policies could have done instead.
If we want to focus on how it's a shallow version of its own politics, that's something with more meat and doesn't require a few hundred pages of less-than-AO3 grade urban fantasy. And it is shallow, both from that summary, from its own synopsis, and from the various reviews.
It's trying to rip from the headlines, except the headlines kinda suck. Chicago had a 2024 big deal over coordinated protests, except they looked like this. The city's had buffer zone laws since 2009! There were a couple heavily-reported cases in the US involving 10-12-year-old rape victims, but the controversy in each case involved questions like is the rape exception well-known enough written by reporters or whether the case had happened from people wanting the rapist prosecuted. I'd wager that the climax of the book involves a physical attack, probably a firebombing, except the real world versions of that are a lot less exciting, too.
Yes, it's a fantasy story, there aren't (presumably) Indian demons stored in a random museum you can touch, either. And the Indian demons (presumably!) aren't the real-world metaphor the author's trying to discuss, here.
Except they're not trying to discuss it. Anti-abortion activists are monsters or the outgroup in a deeper way than vampires or demons or dragons would be. The protesters being entirely unsympathetic and uncomplicated is the point, not a failure. It's the same reason that you make Dracula a dick in addition to a bloodsucker if you it to be really cathartic when he gets ground into concrete. There's an irony when that comes from someone talking up the complexity of real solutions, but there's nothing deeper to that complexity than people disagreeing with her.
That seems more critical than the weird discourse norm where whatever progressives want today is The Biggest Most Important Right Ever that can't have any limits at all, and then those actually-written-down-rights have all those penumbras and exceptions and balancing acts. But it's also less fun to point at.
I can't even accuse them of hypocrisy with the "it's not abortion, it's reproductive health care!" bait-and-switch, since it may have started as pabulum to persuade the centrist ordinary people to their side ('abortion legal yes but with some restrictions' people), and while I'd love to think there's some shred of conscience deep down that makes them wince away from the reality of the term I think it's more that they're a generation that has grown up on this and have imbibed that "it's reproductive health justice natural human right".
But imagine if the term "oncologist" was used for someone who gives you cancer. That's where we're at here.
"Oh, you work in reproductive health care? So you promote fertility, you help people who want to become parents, you help women through pregnancy to the delivery of a healthy child?"
"No, we promote sterility and defeat fertility, be that temporarily via contraception access or permanently via vasectomies and tubal ligations. We help people not become parents. We help women terminate pregnancies so
no living child resultswe safely dispose of the products of conception, using emergency contraception, medical abortion medication, and surgical abortion"."How is that reproductive health care?"
"We care for your health by preventing reproduction! After all, studies show abortion is safer than pregnancy!"
By your reasoning if the clinic says "plastic surgery" they would have to take away plastic surgery from you.
More options
Context Copy link
IIRC thé vast majority of what planned parenthood does is STD treatments, which is uncomplicatedly reproductive healthcare.
Source
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How is this? I've been looking for a contemporary "spicy" book to read to get a better sense of the genre, and I've seen it mentioned a couple times.
It's not great as 'spicy' romance goes. That may not be what you're asking.
Pros: it is extremely accessible.
It's straight, and not asterisk-straight or orgy-straight or furry straight or werewolf pinata straight or MMF straight. There's a blink-and-you-miss it mention that might be a gay (or gay4pay) guy existing for a background sentence, but the story is pure girl-on-guy.
Despite the name (and front cover), it's surprisingly vanilla. The guy's basically just a rich dude with a big dick and horns, the woman's just service sector employee even if her 'it's not sex work' deflection is pretty transparent, the actually erotic scenes aren't actually focused around glory hole or prostitution kink. Most of the book focuses on handjobs and a large volume of semen, but without the rod-and-tackle 'worship' that's likely to be off-putting to straight guys (though it's definitely not written for men in terms of pacing and tone). Some very mild size difference and enhibitionism (don't get caught kink), but less than someone familiar with the genre would expect. That's more common than you'd expect from the 'female gooner' genre, but if you're looking for remotely deep monsterfuckery (artist: pantheggon. cw: f/f, mind control) you're going to be unimpressed.
It's also relatively short, as this sort of smut goes, while still being a full book rather than a short story. There's a joke about even really bad or dubcon smut being a better love story than Twilight, and damning with faint praise, but it's also half the length of the first Twilight book. If you want a sample without spending days on it, that's a bonus.
It's heavily tied into woman's psychology, and there's a lot of early scenes that are very sexual but not very erotic to support that framework. That makes it less interesting for most male readers, myself included, but if you want a good glimpse into monsterfuckery as permission structure to experience the desirable taboo, it's here, if not in a particularly grand form.
Cons: there's not much more to it than smut. Charitably, it's a romance... and so little will-they-or-won't-they (or even who-will-they) that I'd be hesitant to put it in that category; at most you get some who's-this-other-girl that resolves in minutes. That isn't unusual in the genre, but it makes it worse as a representative compared to some of the often-ludicrous plots or dramas that can come up. Still, the tension's low enough that it's a bit of a slog if you're not looking for the next sex scene, and all your suspension of disbelief has to go into the setup.
The windup to the sex isn't very erotic, and I'd expect it's even less erotic for straight guys. Part of that's a genre convention matter where the not!sex worker runs into a bunch of loser johns so The One really stands out, but it means you get a lot of premature ejaculation jokes in your porn, and not even sexy premature ejaculation, and it's not the only form (or worst) on that. The protagonist and her husbando-to-be do better, and there's some decent pacing so that when they finally get with each other outside of work it feels more reciprocal, but for the first half of the book you're getting a woman jerking a guy off, and the later jilling herself.
The prose is okay at best. There's the descriptions are sometimes a little off and you get some tense mismatches, but you're not facing a ton of simple typos or physical impossibilities. If you read a lot of fanfic, there's some tics that are really annoying (my god people, don't write sequences of a person's body parts acting individually during conversation scenes!); casual readers will probably just find them weird. Likewise, it's very fanficcy when it comes to sex scenes. If you want an idea of what conventions AO3 smut takes to a sex scene, a bunch of them are present here and distilled. Nothing to the point of dubious lube (cw:ouch), but don't think too hard about the anatomy.
The guy is boring, even by the standards of the genre. He's well-off, and tall, and has a deep voice, and is an ethical businessman, and he's divorced but it's not acrimonious, and he listens, and it's like they started with the character and then forgot to give him anything else to do. That's... probably better for a straight male reader, but it's a little unusual given the centrality of Guys Showing Vulnerability.
That said, most of the better stuff I can name is either furry, older, gay or bisexual, or some combination of all three. That's probably more an artifact of what I read than the state of the field, but limits my ability to speak on the matter.
More options
Context Copy link
FYI it's worth remembering that "smut written for women" and "smut written for men" are completely separate genres, even within nonvisual literature.
"Is Morning Glory Milking Farm closer to Henry Miller or Murakami?"
All I'm saying is, if you have any interest, even peripherally, in being genuinely entertained, you should seek out smut deliberately targeted toward your own gender. (Which, based on my preconcieved notions of the motte's demographics, I'm guessing is probably male.)
If you're interested pruriently, smut for your own gender is a better idea. If you're looking to point and laugh instead, I'm guessing "Morning Glory Milking Farm" will work quite nicely for male Mottizens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you're curious about it, ShoeOnHead did a review of it.
More options
Context Copy link
Alexander Wales wasn't impressed by the quality of the worldbuilding.
Wales is either disturbingly autistic, writes for an autistic audience or is really good at writing like one for the lulz.
It’s the latter. Both of the latter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's the best book review I've read since Field & Stream reviewed Lady Chatterly's Lover:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link