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 has been some new study recently showing that female promiscuity, just like male promiscuity, is limited to a small subset of the total population. Before I deleted X, I saw several posts asking why non-promiscuous men are still chasing the "hoes" (and are complaining about them) instead of concentrating on the majority of women that aren't. I want to propose a hypothesis.
But first, a digression. Imagine a happily married gay couple, Fred and Steve. It's Saturday afternoon, their adopted kids won't be back home for a couple more hours, all the chores are done, and Fred's looking bored and restless. Steve suggests a quickie to pass the time. Is Fred down for it? I would bet my money on yes.
Now replace Fred with Frida. Suddenly, the odds are completely different. I am not saying that all women are not into random acts of intercourse, but the proportion of them that are dtf is low enough that reversing the bet makes total financial sense.
What does this have to do with promiscuity? My hypothesis is that it's significantly correlated with overall sex drive in women. (Feel free to nominate me for the Ig Nobel prize.) There are some non-promiscuous, but libidinous women, except they don't stay on the dating market long, just like reasonably prices houses in good locations are almost never seen on Zillow. The visible parts of the dating market are promiscuous women and women with low sex drive. In the past the concepts of "putting out", "marital duty" obscured this dynamic, but modern women have been brought up knowing they don't owe anyone sex and don't have to hide their (dis)interest. And given that single lives are now easier than ever, why bother with trying to date such women at all? Better to concentrate on the visibly promiscuous women or on the age cohorts that are just entering the dating market, both of them have a higher share of women with a high enough sex drive.
Think of this in terms of encounter frequency. In both sexes there are those who are basically monogamous (perhaps sequentially) and those who are not. Call it r/k selection or whatever. Pareto says 80% of the variance comes from 20% of the population, so let's take that for some napkin math. 20% of the people, male and female, are accounting for let's say 80% of the dating sex that happens.
People in relationships aren't in this pool. They're having sex, or not, in the relationship. The dating pool though, is still 80% basically monogamous awkward chuds who are not good at dating because they only do it to get into a relationship. The difference is the female 80% can still bang one of those 20% of male sluts pretty easily, while the 80% of men in the dating pool are waiting to luck into a decent match. This is where both female and male resentments in dating originate.
Women because that 80% who are really just in it for a serious boyfriend/husband material get conned by the much more experienced 20% of guys who are good at dating, good at "game", and this in turn hurts their prospects for a number of reasons with their real target pool. Men because they just have a much harder time finding a sex partner if they're not willing/able to play the game and be a degenerate. Both men and women when dating are playing in a pool where a disproportionate number of the dates they'll go on are with the most predatory 20% of the opposite sex even though four out of five people in the pool don't want that. Most people don't spend all that long single and dating. The ones who do rack up crazy numbers, but it's in a pool of fish and sharks.
There is a real gap in sexual desire between men and women, though this shifts over time. It is worst below ~age 30, which is when most of this stuff is taking place. This, however, doesn't change, while the dating scene can be radically altered by social custom. What we need is some sort of badge for r-selectors......maybe a red "A"?
I've seen a chart recently that suggest it's not the case and the couguar myth is a myth. I think Cremieux posted it, but I forgot to bookmark the study itself. Men are the horniest at 40, women are the horniest at the left edge of the chart, which was 18, and their sex drive monotonically decreases with each year.
If that's what it says, you should discount everything else in that chart, the study it is based on and whoever thought it was legitimate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link