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 -
Many moons ago, in the before times, in the waywayback a much younger and angrier JTarrou left his tiny cult in a tiny town in the midwest and went off to college. There was a lot of culture shock to go around, but mostly it was my first exposure to a primarily leftist environment. I knew more about politics than I did culture, and clashed repeatedly with professors and other students over these differences. Those who have spent time here will no doubt be shocked by this.
But it was an interesting time. The hectoring years of high-tide PC had ebbed in the late '90s, and by 1999 the pendulum was swinging the other way. A brand new show, low budget, seemingly intentionally poorly produced attempted to ride the zeitgeist on Comedy Central. The opening scene of the very first episode began like this:
These words were spoken by an edgy young comedian in his first TV hosting gig. One Jimmy Kimmel. When you've lived long enough to see Jimmy go from an early-30s masculinist rebel against the politically correct orthodoxy to its most sold-out shill on late night, you have to take the culture war with a grain of salt. Take this little tale as a warning, if any of that sounds familiar.
Politics is a game for grifters. If you play long enough, you'll see the tides of lies rolling back and forth. Do not trust the people. Do not trust the parties. Do not trust the policies. It is all kabuki, and not even played for us.
As a side note, I've wondered more than once how Jimmy Kimmel was accepted by the Left given the Man Show. I remember that in most episodes, there was a segment called "Women on Trampolines" which showed women in skimpy outfits jumping on trampolines. The point was that their little skirts would flip up and give a nice view of what was underneath. Which I enjoyed watching as a young man but it's just hard to see how feminists (which are a significant part of the Left coalition) would forgive this.
I basically agree, I think it's a classic Moloch type situation where there is a big advantage (and therefore a selection effect) in favor of people willing and able to engage in sociopathic levels of lying, cheating, intellectual dishonesty, etc.
As another side note, though, I am pretty sure that Jimmy's former sidekick, Adam Carolla, is a conservative commentator now.
Girls Jumping On Trampolines.
My mom saw me watching that once (I'd have been 17 probably) and got angry and demanded to know how I'd feel if it were my sister jumping on the trampoline.
I told her I wouldn't be interested in watching my sister, but these women were not my sister. We looked at each other for a bit and then she left.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link