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 -
I know you'll be annoyed to read this.
Back, say, as little as three years ago, I might have read this short, evocative metaphor placed among longer sentences and thought it was an interesting image. Now--and I am not entirely sure why--it reminds me of LLM output. Which is not to say I'm pointing a finger at you. Rather, this is what flags (to me) writing as LLM these days. Something about it. Like the calibration "write with style and a touch of wry humor." I think that perhaps for some of us, if we are to write in the age of LLMs but distinguish our own writing from output, we are going to have to purposely start not writing like they do. I'd feel happier if you said this actually was an LLM tweak to your own original passage.
To your point: For about a decade due to circumstances somewhat outside my control I hung out socially almost completely with either gay men or lesbians or what we used to call fag hags (as far as I know this is a term coined by gay men.) I saw all types, I was youngish and a pretty boy, and I was often plied with booze and told, as you say you've been told, that I was really a bit gay myself, wasn't I?
I wasn't. Nor was I ever curious enough to test the waters, as it were. But it was a gay gay gay gay world, and mostly not pretty. I'm not even going to go into it. You know what I'm talking about. I would take issue with your comment in another reply actually, that straight men don't engage constantly in illicit sex because they can't. Yes, some would, and I know them. I wouldn't, could have (perhaps even still could) and haven't, and even for those who might say "yes you have" I'd counter not nearly to the same degree as the gay dudes I've known who have had triple or more digit partners. There's something else going on. I could be wrong of course.
I am, in fact, annoyed to read this. But only slightly, and neither of us need to lose sleep over it. That sentence is, unfortunately or fortunately, entirely human written. With the thumbs I've been twiddling. There are only so many ways to rephrase or repurpose "A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.”—Mark Twain. That em-dash being part of the Google search snippet I've snipped and pasted.
I suppose you must have been prettier or more twink-passing than me, because I can't say I've been plied with booze on a regular basis. Not that I would accept the booze, really. I can buy my own drinks, and to quote myself:
I do think you're wrong. And most gay men don't have triple digit body counts. Google informs me that depending on who you ask, the median is 19-23. The mean is higher, because some of them really get around.
That is why I chose "[straight] male supermodel" as the reference class. I've done pretty well with the ladies, and I am quite keen on shacking up and settling down. But if I could get away with, I would very much have racked up or stacked up similar numbers by that point. Unfortunately, I'm only decent looking, funny and in possession of a modest amount of social status, not a supermodel. I have to work for it.
In other words, straight male sexuality is bottlenecked by the lack of women willing to really exercise it. That is not true for the gay men. The straight men who are hot enough to have as many women as they desire tend to sleep around a lot. Good for them. I don't deem it pathological in either instance, as long as it doesn't make them bitter and unhappy (which it sometimes can). And I can't pity them, because I would trade places in a heartbeat with the straight ones.
For ze record, I never accepted bought drinks at a bar, usually I was at someone's apartment, either before, during, or after some home party. I'm surprised mildly that you trust self-reported statistics of this sort; it seems to me that there would be a bunch of reasons to over- or under- report one's sexual stickers on the fuselage. But the alternative is believing my opinion based on what others have also self-reported to me, so you're probably fine.
You sort of lost me when you said straight male supermodel. I know of one, I think. But he's old now. Sorry about the LLM thing, but if you give the reply you wrote a while to get cold and go back and read it, you might see what I mean. Maybe you will. Possibly you won't.
The gay male promiscuity thing may indeed have to do with just being male, but being male following an ethos that has to some degree thrown off social mores regarding sex. Very few men who are straight (exclusively straight) have done that, at least in my experience. Once all is permitted, if the whole of the law were Do what thou wilt sexually, and if the gates were open to us to almost any woman, well it's hard (cough) to say. But that's a hypothetical. It does seem to me that gay men get around a lot more than straight men, though it's true in the finger-pointing there is probably some hypocrisy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link