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 -
It's interesting to me how women get so upset (seemingly instinctively) about inexpensive male sexual gratification. I think all this talk about "objectification," "exploitation," etc. is for the most part a rationalization. The real issue (I strongly suspect) is that (1) throughout our evolutionary history and continuing to this day, women have depended on male services for their literal survival; (2) men gladly provide those services in exchange for female validation and sexual services; and (3) anything which threatens to undercut this relationship is therefore perceived as a mortal threat to women and provokes anger, outrage, etc.
Women pride themselves on their kids behaving well. That's what it is. Grandma lives longer and is happier when her kids are well behaved(filial piety very much included). Being a mom also tends to make women more socially conservative, especially about sex.
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose instead of catching her son watching the Man Show, mom catches her daughter watching some piece of media which features men. (Pro wrestling maybe?) Will she be similarly upset? Will she say "How would you feel if it were your brother who was being featured?" I tend to doubt it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because it's not inexpensive. See the term "thots" being tossed about in the comments. Gratify male sexuality, be classed as degraded female only good for One Thing (and that's not marriage and children).
Don't forget rake in lots of cash.
More options
Context Copy link
Surely his mother can't be concerned that those women gratifying his sexuality affects how he classifies his mother.
Why not? Mom doesn't have sex, we all know our parents never had sex and have no idea what that is all about but we are so modern and liberated and know what sex is all about. If he had to think of his mother in the context of a sexual being, that would be uncomfortable. The point about "but it's not my sister" is the same as "but I did have my breakfast this morning". He can't see the girls on the television as people, they're just there as the framework to which the things he is interested in - bouncing boobs, ass, maybe a hint of more private parts - is attached, they're not persons in their own right.
The idea that guys really were watching a show just for the segment of hoping to see a young woman flash her pudenda for a fraction of a moment is depressing in one way. I mean, it's nature, this is what drives us all, so of course it was marketed and monetised as much as the censors would let them get away with, but if the guy in question never matures out of that attitude, then yeah: gosh why aren't women getting married to men who think of them as a disparate collection of parts to jerk off to, what a puzzle.
Because boys don't see their mothers as only good for One Thing, even if they do realize that their parents have, or at least had, sex. It would be difficult I'm confused why this isn't obvious.
Well, yes.
More options
Context Copy link
I never cease to be amazed at how sure you are of your kneejerk imaginings, while also refusing to listen to anyone who tries to help correct you. Once again I'll just say openly that I don't even know why you're here, except that you seem to get a lot of sick enjoyment out of hysterically, but inappropriately, reacting to people who aren't even saying what you'd love to hate them to be saying.
Here you've pattern-matched to a meme that is not applicable (I considered and answered the hypothetical before pointing out it wasn't pertinent) and completely ass-pulled the part about not seeing attractive women as 'persons in their own right'. In fact I do see attractive women as people, and also enjoy looking at them sexually. You're consistently straightforward in admitting that you don't understand this experience at all, so it's just wild to me that you're willing to baselessly impute the worst possible motive to others without any leg to stand on whatsoever.
I award you a downvote and may God have mercy on your soul.
Your mother left the room because she realised that to you, "girls not my sister = collection of parts for my sexual gratification" and not persons. You didn't think of them as someone's daughter or sister or a classmate or work colleague, you thought of the girls on the trampoline as things to get your bits aroused.
And a mind-reader too! Will the wonders never cease?
You're wrong and sad and bitter and I'm sick of seeing you around.
I prefer to think of myself as acerbic rather than bitter 😁
More options
Context Copy link
Have you noticed how she never stays Gone2?
I'm not thrilled by the exchange between @HereAndGone2 and @TitaniumButterfly. Y'all are both being petty ***** who make me want to say "Get a room."
But you, in the short time since you created this alt, have made it clear you created it just to harass people you don't like, no doubt from lingering grudges established with previous alts.
We don't generally slap down new accounts when they appear, but when it's trivially obvious that it's someone spinning up an alt to unleash their id, we are not actually obliged to put up with you.
Go away.
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
The endless kvetching about men perceiving women as sex objects when they choose to present themselves as sex objects is always quite amusing. The idea that one should be taking umbrage on behalf of the women even when objectification was their goal is downright incomprehensible to me. People appear to believe that when a woman dresses skimpily and gives everyone involuntary panty shots it should somehow have no effect on how anyone thinks of her, no matter how shamelessly she is advertising her services, and woe betide the man who dares to notice since it's clearly just a failure on his part to Appreciate Her Personhood enough.
And it is only male attraction that is to be judged in this way, of course. That doesn't apply to a woman rubbing one out to a picture of David Beckham.
If you have created lewd content of yourself and disseminated it into the commons for money or other gain, you are advertising yourself as being willing and able to fulfil a certain need, and people who stumble upon that will view you in that context. Seriously the quoted statement above is about as intellectually sound as saying that I don't view bus drivers as Fully Realised People because I'm not interested in the minutiae of my bus driver's internal life and see him as a tool whose purpose is primarily to take me from point A to point B. People interact with others differently in different contexts. Yes, in a context where someone is advertising or providing services to me I am seeing them primarily instrumentally through the lens of what they are offering me, that doesn't mean I would not be capable of viewing and approaching them in any other manner with a different goal in mind if I were to encounter them in other contexts (say, in a social setting). That’s normal human psychology, not a pathology, but if women want to opt out of relationships for that reason then that is their choice.
Oh, I'm not saying the girls weren't foolish to do that. But the people benefiting from that were the men running the show and the TV network, not the girls themselves. And they got themselves the reputation among the men watching them as nothing more than wank fodder. Now maybe "My angel is a centerfold" is a true representation of a man's view of such women, that he would be delighted to date her and not think less of her and would still treat her with respect as wife material instead of "woo-hoo, I get to bang the thot".
And maybe not.
So like. Suppose, hypothetically, that it has come to pass sometime in history that a teen girl saw on a screen an attractive male professional entertainer who is a stranger to her and who in some part earns his living by being good at titillating the opposite sex. (Leaving aside the central cases of Johnny Depp making dreamy eyes or Elvis doing a really good hip gyration, suppose it’s just some softcore fanservice bit with a buff dude in shower in a TV show) Suppose watching the bit, she experienced some not unpleasant mammalian reaction not entirely unadjacent to the act of mating, that contributed to the viewing experience, and she shudder liked that.
Now would you equally be of the opinion that she ought be scolded for cheapening the well rounded human personhood of the actor in particular and the male sex in general (what if he was your brother!), and if she’s such a gross creature that she gets this morally bankrupt little thrill as a reaction without really choosing to, it’d be at least basic manners to carefully pretend she doesn’t? Maybe an exception can be made for when somebody personally familiar to her like Timmy from Accounting is courting her?
Or is it more of a quod licet Jovi non licet bovi thing?
Yes. If we got a show where hunky young men in as little clothing as the censor will allow bounced up and down so we could gawk at their crotches and see their junk jiggling, then yeah I'd scold her for treating men as pieces of meat.
But female sexuality is more along the lines of the Asian dramas created to appeal to the female fans so they cast pretty young guys and have them act the damsel in distress role. No jiggling junk, but it's a must that you look pretty while coughing up blood 😁
Even assuming it is "different", the idea that you can only objectify people if you can see their junk is an idea I reject. Traditional "sexy poses" for men include things like action poses, strength and power poses, work poses, rebellious or defiant poses, etc. And if those men are all the way naked, then you can't see that they can afford that Hugo Boss suit, or what kind of work they do, or whether they're in some kind of uniform, or what kind of social status they have, or whether their sleeves are rolled up as a signal that they are about to get their hands dirty. Men are often sexy because of what they can bring in the way of protection, social status or resources. The way men are objectified reflect that, and just because they are based on what men can do or have or can get or earn doesn't mean they aren't objectifying. Being objectified as a tool as opposed to an ornament is still objectification.
I also very much disagree with the idea that female sexuality is anywhere near as PG as your portrayal. There's many examples of women cheering over and consuming scenes with men in various stages of undress, e.g. those in Twilight, which featured widely popular fanservice scenes of a shirtless underage Taylor Lautner who had to undergo short-term dehydration and consume 5,000 calories per day to maintain his muscle tone; he eventually had to negotiate for fewer shirtless scenes. Or, you know, the very many times Ellen featured shirtless male dancers to titillate her female audience, for example here and here and here - video 1 is a full-scale performance featuring male "entertainers", video 2 was a challenge for male Bachelorette contestants who had to dance sexy for the women in the audience for tips (said tips were stuffed into the pants of the men), video 3 is a strip dance Ellen set up for a specific woman in front of a live audience. Let's also not forget the constant male nudity on display in majority female-viewed dramas like Bridgerton, which features a very nice array of exposed asses, here and here are some examples. Also I'm not unfamiliar with gay porn (as a member of the target audience), a genre that apparently has 50% female viewership, and I can tell you there is a lot of cock.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have no idea how this meme cartoon of "Sally will take flirting from Chad but not from Weirdo Wes" arose, but okay. I'll concede. All the young white guys are being held down and oppressed by The (Wo)Man! You can't get jobs! You can't get dates or sex! You are not getting what society owes you! And it's all the fault of women who won't go on a date with you when you walk up to her in the street and tell her to take her knickers off, won't put out on the first date, won't do the particular sex acts or kinks you picked up from porn, won't simultaneously be 'good in bed' (read: perform all the sex acts and kinks from porn) and be a virgin for you who never even looked at another man before you, won't marry you, won't have four kids and run the house and have her own independent income so you don't have to be the main breadwinner, won't meekly and tamely accede to a divorce when you get tired of her because now she's thirty-five, the hag, and you want that hot new twenty-three year old intern at work, and won't tell you that you are marvellous every hour on the hour. And their (and your) mothers. And feminists. And single women. And lesbians. And DEI. And Boomers, because you'll never be old yourself one day and want/need a pension and health care. And the government, both left and right.
Anything I'm missing out?
EDIT: I should do my own meme! 😁
What men think women want
What women really (1) want (2) want
Where did you get any of that from what he said? You've basically imputed all of your own imaginings onto him based on one comment posing you a hypothetical.
For what it's worth, I agree with @TitaniumButterfly. Your commentary is routinely so incredibly low quality I barely respond to it, but I would honestly prefer not to see it here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Earning income from bouncing up and down on a trampoline is an obvious and measurable benefit. It's also notable from a cursory search how many of these trampoline girls already had jobs like those before their time on The Man Show; the job histories of many of these girls include Playboy and fetish modelling as well as burlesque dancing. What you’re objecting to is called employment, and they made their free and informed choice on that front. On the topic of the costs of such a job, many other jobs (mostly male dominated ones, I might add) qualify as worse than this one and boast high occupational injury and death rates; unless you argue that all employment is exploitative a la Karl Marx there is no basis for special pleading.
Even if one doesn't necessarily want to date her (and yes, being in such professions indicates personality traits that don't always correlate well with what most people are looking for in an LTR), that doesn't imply you have to see her as Not A Human or whatever extreme point of view you were imputing onto OP. And nonetheless not thinking of a lingerie model as wife material certainly does not mean you view women in general as "a disparate collection of parts to jerk off to", if anything that contraindicates such a viewpoint since it suggests there is a difference between who you want to jerk off to and who you want to spend your life with.
In any case looking at their lives it appears that many notable “Juggies” (the trampoline girls in question) were capable of bagging a husband and having children, so I'm unconvinced the cost of taking on such a job is anywhere close to how you portray it.
'Careers' with very short times, nearly as bad as professional sports stars, and not likely to return the same high incomes. You hit forty, are you still going to be trying to bounce your saggy boobs around on a trampoline, when there is fresh new meat in the shape of new, eager, 20 year olds competing for that?
It's not a good choice, despite what the fast-talking guy who wants to be your 'manager', tells you.
There are many careers with limited shelf-lives, and I would also note that the vast majority (read: virtually all) of athletes do not earn high incomes and are nowhere near likely to do so in the future, outside of statistical outliers that represent less than a fraction of a percent of the total. For example in my country, Australia, half of elite adult athletes live below the poverty line, considering incomes from all sources including other jobs, and that sample reflects the top percentage of athletes in terms of skill level. Your chances of earning high incomes in sports is close to nothing; hell many Olympians are in dire financial straits and leave the games riddled with debt since they are responsible for their own training, travel and coaching expenses. That is, of course, assuming they even make it there. The vast majority of people in sports must work side hustles to live, and it carries a far higher possibility of bodily injury than any modelling job. To point to "professional sports stars" is like pointing to supermodels as representative of your average modelling career. They are the tip of a very large iceberg.
While I certainly do not think they're the best longterm career choices, given that I do not morally object to people being athletes, I do not see modelling as something so incredibly and uniquely distinct that I think it warrants any sort of special treatment. If you're canny it is certainly also possible to build connections while modelling and then pivot into adjacent roles such as styling or talent management, and it's certainly not unheard of for people to pursue modelling or modelling-adjacent work while obtaining education, especially given its nonstandard and flexible nature. Most people who find work in modelling or sports won't do so as their primary source of income, and this is fine - the idea that the only jobs that should exist is stuff that you can do full-time for your whole life isn't true. There is a valid place in the economy for jobs that allow people to earn some income on the side or for a temporary period, and I am certainly not about to start policing people's choices and preferences like some kind of moral busybody.
EDIT: added more
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Historically, not just women. Men were on board for the Victorian-era campaign against Onanism, for example. Feminism is now the only socially acceptable reason for people to be prudes, but I don't think it is the only (or even the main) reason why people were prudes historically.
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that a Victorian-era father discovered that his son and some buddies had gone to a tableaux vivant show or sexy burlesque show. Would he be instinctively upset about the situation? I tend to doubt it.
I mean, one need only look at the highly religious today to see how fathers react to these sorts of things. I know that if I went to a burlesque (or the modern equivalent) and my dad found out, his reaction would be some mix of disappointment, disgust, and anger. And my reaction would be the same if I had a son do the same.
To be fair I've never seen any 'burlesque' that didn't consist entirely of glaringly-unattractive women, and that per se would be enough to have me disappointed and disgusted in my hypothetical son. Overlooking the lack of talent among the 'dancers' due to some kind of sick fascination with the aesthetic scans to me as similar to an extreme foot fetish or unhealthy obsession with The Rocky Horror Picture Show or something. Not something you want to see surface in your child.
More options
Context Copy link
I tend to disagree with this. People who are highly religious have, generally speaking, been trained to adhere to certain values. Therefore, the reaction of a highly religious father is not necessarily representative of the reaction of fathers in general.
My hypothesis is that women instinctively get upset when men receive inexpensive sexual gratification. Therefore, it (arguably) doesn't matter if the woman is a progressive, religious, or whatever. Only if she has been trained to be sex positive will she stay calm. Even then, it won't take much to convince her that inexpensive sexual gratification for men is exploitative or otherwise destructive.
Admittedly, I don't have rigorous evidence to support this hypothesis, but it does seem to fit observable reality pretty well.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, the reaction is equivalent to how the highly progressive mothers react to these sorts of things, because they're both in complete agreement that man bad, woman good. (One might even say that the highly religious father is the exact spear counterpart.)
It's really not any more complicated than that. You just get butthurt you can't control sex because that's what your primate brain tells you is important, so out come the rationalizations. Oh no, a female leg, so scandalous.
I would say it depends on which sect and which religion. But I do agree that a lot of Christian churches in the West have gone in for gynocentrism. For gynocentrists, inexpensive male sexual gratification is a problem. Because everything is supposed to be about women. The purpose of men is to serve women and it's a problem if a man has independent desires and needs which get met without serving women.
Which itself is an understandable liability if you're coming from 'everything is supposed to be about marriage' and have no mechanism beyond the inherent constraints of pre-mechanized civilization to grant value to men (who are the gender made to combat them). And that degraded over a few generations rather than all at once (and hidden because the generation in power was granted a reprieve from this due to WW2), so no decisive reckoning happened, like a divorce that occurs over 20 years for the sake of the kids.
The problem with being yoked to first century sexual mores is that it's not the first century any more, and part of the reason reconciliation can't be sold to women (or their simps) is that the traditionalist response tends to be some variation of "well, just make it the first century again, then all your problems will be solved" (and the liberal and progressive reaction to that is flat rejection, which is correct).
The degree to which solutions lack theory of mind remains interesting to me. For instance, if you're fighting "rates of female education attainment lead to later fewer marriages", the correct answer is "credentialism sucks the life out of everyone" and not "well, stop educating women exclusively then lol".
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Would you be able to briefly describe your view of how things worked in the first century?
I don't understand this either. What exactly do you mean by lacking "theory of mind"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My dad (and myself) don't agree with this though? We both would disapprove of both attending a burlesque show and performing in one. "Man and woman both bad, unless they turn to God and repent" would be our view.
Oh wow, tell me more about what I actually believe and why using your mystical evo-psych bullshit powers, please!
I'm not sure what sect you follow, but I definitely get the sense that a lot of religious sects have gone in for gynocentrism. For example, Matt Walsh observed that it's extremely common in churches for (1) the mother's day sermon to tell everyone how Wonderful mothers are; while (2) the father's day sermon tells everyone how fathers need to Do Better.
Let me ask you this. It sounds like you are Christian. Do you believe that traditional Christianity endorses male leadership? If so, how often is that point made by the authority figures in your church?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Burlesque is a social activity at least, while locking yourself in your room alone with sexy paintings is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also, if you're a mother, then in evolution terms you want your son to have baby-making sex, not watch porn.
Given how unaccessible porn was until less than a century ago, it seems rather doubtful that there was much evolutionary pressure for such an impulse during most of human existence (evolutionary psychology is always really hard, but I'd guess that, during most of human existence, a man observing nubile young women enthusiastically in states of undress was more correlated with them reproducing rather than less), and so I'd doubt that whatever evolutionary source for TitaniumButterfly's mother's behavior has anything to do with that explanation. I'd guess that the proximal cause of the mother's behavior had to do with cultural norms, which are downstream from evolutionary pressures of the type that omw_68 mentioned.
I reckon during most of human existence, nubile young women were in a state of undress as a regular thing and so did not particularly correlate with anything.
The majority of human beings that have ever lived have been peasant farmers, and this has heavily selected human cognition, dietary needs, appearance, etc. And we kinda know how peasant farmers lived- seeing naked members of the opposite sex, except perhaps immediate family, was not normal(the same sex on the other hand...). I would kinda expect moms getting upset at their son's porn use or whatever to be more about 'oh shit is he a threat to his sister' than anything about female solidarity.
They're the same picture, and I can assure you that this reaction happens even in porn-free households.
??? It's entirely possible to be concerned about your daughter and not the neighbor girl. This is extremely common, even.
Yes because this is such a massive risk. As we all know, it is extremely commonplace for a brother after heavy porn use to attempt to mount his sister.
I've seen video evidence- this is absolutely an epidemic, especially among step-siblings.
Though realistically, and as always, this is only really a problem if the two have a bad relationship or one (or the other) has poor impulse control, and that's going to create other issues beyond the fucking. (If they have a better relationship with each other they might try it, if they have a better relationship with the parent they'll tend to accept being talked out of it, both problems fully solvable by public health education efforts. Naturally opposed by people with [an assumption of]/[excuse that it'll exacerbate] poor impulse control.)
Some people (trads/progs) believe is a risk magically created by porn, but it's mostly just exacerbated by it if you already have it. Kind of like alcoholism, actually. But when your power (or rather, your justification for excessive risk aversion- kids grow out of this when they become adults, popularly referred to as the "teenage years") comes from not understanding that, well...
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
Quite possibly! Again, evolutionary psychology is just inherently hard to get right. Though there's states of undress and states of undress, and the types of videos we're talking about is the latter, I'd say.
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