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 -
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.
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).
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.
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?
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
More options
Context Copy link