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 -
Not as strongly, but still to some degree. A significant part of the equation is not merely the physical act of the sex itself but the affection/devotion/loyalty it represents. Once you're in your sixties and have lower libido, willingness/desire to have sex with you is less indicative of how much they like you. But largely yes the value per time is lower, which why you see a lot of old men divorce their wives and then marry younger hotter women. A significant part of the point of marriage is to tie people together to prevent this sort of thing. If you get married in your 20s-30s and then woman spends her youth with a man, it is unfair and selfish of him to discard her as soon as she becomes old. It's supposed to be a lifelong pact where the woman promises herself to him, and him to her, so that once she's old and the cumulative value she's provided is large, he doesn't turn around and discard her. It's her investing in him and therefore he owes her when she's older and doesn't have a young body to appeal to him as much any more.
Eh. I'd say the party days slowly decay, but so does youth, so by the time one is gone the other is likely to as well. Because people can change. It's not like sex is literally magical and the seed of other men taints her soul. It's what it indicates about her personality and loyalty, and the psychological impact of having sex with lots of people. So yeah, someone who slept around five years ago and then learned better and stopped doing that is better than someone who slept around five days ago, because the latter is going to have a mindset of someone who sleeps around.
To her husband? Absolutely 100%. The denominator is about devotion/affection for other people. She has more value the more she sleeps with him, because she's demonstrated her loyalty and affection to him. To other people? No. She's demonstrated the ability to be loyal, so is better than someone truly promiscuous, but if she's spent a lot of time attached to him and then he dies or they divorce or something she's going to always have hangups about him which will taint future relationships.
I should note that some of this applies in the other direction. Men who sleep around are likely to have some of these negative features in their relationships with women. But I think it tends to be to a lesser extent, first and foremost because women care less. A man is only able to sleep around if he's relatively high status, so some women find that appealing. Men can sleep around without getting emotionally attached more easily, so men who sleep around are less likely to behave differently. And men cheating on women can't create false paternity scenarios (which evolutionary is equivalent to death) so women care about loyalty less. To some extent. There are a lot of women who do care and do see men sleeping around as a bad thing, so I think on average it turns out negative for a man's average value if he's slept around, but there's much more variance. Not the near-universal loss that women experience.
I would say those are all reasonable answers, but a lot of that is well you know that's just like your opinion man. Different people are going to have very different opinions on this. Some guys genuinely might not care if their wife is sleeping around, because it gives them more freedom. Some might even get off on it. Others might hate it more than anything, to the point where they would feel honor-bound to kill over it. And most people act very differently in old age than they did as teenagers. You're trying to turn complicatd, messy human emotions into some simple math formula.
As far as I'm aware it's the majority opinion. It's not universal, but it's the default assumption you should be optimizing for if you're trying to attract a man. Once you find a specific person and you're reasonably certain you're going to settle down with them long term you should optimize for their preferences. But if you're on the market it's generally a good idea to optimize for majority opinion. Or at least be aware when you're going against it. Especially for something like this which is unchangeable. If you wear stupid clothes that people hate and then realize it's turning everyone off, you can change your clothes. You can't change the past, so if you're going to permanently sabotage your desirability in the minds of 80%+ of men you should be aware of it and only do it if you think that's worth it.
Sure, that's fine. Just as long as you acknowledge the yawning gulf between "here is a mathematical formula that describers all human interaction" and "as far as I'm aware this is the majority opinion." The next step might be to gather evidence to see if that actually is the majority opinion, and if so how much of a majority it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link