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 -
Female sexuality is NOT suppose to make logical sense. So it’s the female ID but blown up at macro societal movement scale. The early Game pioneers like that odd Magic guy but also the NYT writer guy who wrote the book The Game had a word for it: Shit Test. So I googled that word and found a definition for it that I think works:
“What Are “Shit Tests,” Really? The term “shit test” isn’t about malicious manipulation. It’s a shorthand for the subtle challenges, disagreements, or uncomfortable situations a woman might introduce into a conversation or interaction. These aren’t always obvious, and they’re rarely intended as deliberate attacks. Instead, they’re often subconscious filters, designed to quickly assess your emotional stability, confidence, integrity, and self-respect , qualities that suggest you’d be a reliable and supportive long-term partner.“
I guess I should cite but no reason to click thru: https://medium.com/@therealdating/decoding-shit-tests-in-dating-a-guide-to-confidence-and-connection-bf3a41ee45c5
So the whole you can’t objectify thing/me is sort of just a giant shit test at a societal level. My gut says any female spouting don’t objective women or me is actually just shit testing. And providing you are the right guy really wants you to have uncontrollable sexual desire for her.
One girl who I sort of loved I remember one day I was walking her home I think after dinner. I think some form of can I come I asked a few times and she said No. 15 minutes after I left I get a text why didn’t you come up. Guess I played it wrong and misread the situation.
Female sexuality should not be looked at thru a rationalist brain. It has its own games it plays.
For her. As a total package, personality and mind as well as body. Not "that's an amazing giant set of honkers right there, but if an even better, bigger, set of honkers came along I'd go for them (too bad the honkers, which are the only things I'm interested in, have to come attached to some stupid broad but oh well)".
More options
Context Copy link
"Objectification" is a broad term. Certain acts that we could label as "objectification" are benign or even desired, others less so. For example, a woman's body being appreciated by a desirable man, most commonly a partner, is an example of the former - note that this is almost always in a context of the two people knowing each other; so the objectification isn't really absolute. In the moment, the focus could be on the woman's body and sexual desirability; but overall this situation is only desired by the woman because it is in the context of being seen as an individual, not just a body. On the contrary, a set of female boobs plastered on a product, a gratuitous scene in a movie, or porn, are different in that they lack the underlying layer of intimacy of knowing a woman as a person, and appreciating her for more than just her body.
I think this would still be selling short female desire for objectification though it’s clearly on a spectrum. Some of female desire for objectification being in a relationship may even be limited by social and religion conventions and perhaps more universal. Aella is an example and since she’s basically in the canon of rationalists communities can be used as an example. She clearly expresses rape fantasies. I think rape fantasies are an example of female sexuality of a desire to be exposed to uncontrollable male lusts and objectification. In pop culture 50 Shades of Grey would be the leading brand.
On political don’t objectify movements I think the conventional view is it’s a bunch of fat tatted up liberals that men don’t desire. Who desperately desire to be objectified but created this form of feminisms that it’s bad since they can’t get it. The giant societal wide shit test by females I am proposing is probably a secondary mechanism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why not? It's just the mirror image of stuff men do that women haven't correctly communicated when to and not to do, like that whole "take them seriously but not literally, also ignore half the things she says because that's how the emotional spam filter works [and the 'attractive self-respect' thing comes from the 'doesn't respond to every emotional outburst about X']" thing.
It's not a direct counterpart, but men and women are different and start from initial conditions (inherent scarcity, etc.), so it's going to be expressed differently. Men (especially straight ones- it gets complicated when they're not) don't really have the circuitry to appreciate why you'd want a Cluster B werewolf billionaire, so it's difficult to know when to act like one (re: PUA, which as I understand it sums up to 'treat them like they're in a porno'; women will do the same thing to men sometimes, but less often because it's [socially] costlier for women to do that).
I don't know what pornography you're watching, but as I understand it, it's closer to "women sense desperation, here's how you can signal your interest in sexual congress while simultaneously implying she's not a big deal to you".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link