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 -
You don't solve societal problems on your lonesome. You adapt to them. In the modern dating landscape, you either lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all, or you reach a mindset where you are okay with staying a virgin for a long time, potentially forever.
Neither is easy, obviously. If you are of a sufficiently analytical mind, you can't just turn that off on command and genuinely believe that everything is fine. But the other option is a degree of enlightenment that is likely only attainable by the few.
Much more likely then that you just kinda suffer from a lack of romance, sex, and community for the rest of your days.
That said, I think most of this pain will be directed inwards. It is very hard to do stuff in the real world when your need for community is unmet. You just don't have the energy. Much easier to rage on the internet. If anything this will probably just lead to more self harm amongst men, which I doubt society will care much about.
The third option is you lash out at the system itself. For a lone wolf this won't be particularly impactful.
I mean, Clavicular is maybe the ur-example of "lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all," he's only twenty years old and is clearly depressed at the life he's now 'stuck' in (by his own doing, naturally). This won't hold over the long term.
Where do we go from here?
MY personal belief is that once we start to lose the Boomers, the primary bulwark against political changes in this country, a LOT of political options that were previously stymied will come on the table.
We might be able to limit how extreme those options end up being.
I don't see why women would want the status quo to change though. They benefit in the short term, and the long term damage is hard to anticipate. Especially so when anyone trying to educate about the downsides is shouted down as "attempting to control women's bodies". In a democracy, we do need the consent of both genders for a norm change to work.
It is also not entirely clear to me that there is a better system to swap to. The old one led to what we have now after all, and it seems fairly undeniable that a lot of people used to end up in bad marriages with people who didn't care much about them regardless.
My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.
Females attending college en masse seems like the nexus of many issues.
That's where they get turned into lefties.
That's where they incur significant amounts of debt.
That's where they rack up a body count.
That's where they acquire inflated standards in mate choice.
It burns 4+ years of fertility.
In short, they become far less appealing as partners in most cases, on the back end.
So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.
I could write a manifesto on that topic, but I wouldn't want to shoot anybody to get it attention.
Then the answer is simple: men should now assume the responsibility that was traditionally put upon women, to curb the sensual appetites of the male (or rather, in this case, female). You should have self-respect and discipline, and gently but firmly decline to have anything to do with hanky-panky outside marriage!
After all, women can't "rack up a body count" without guys willing to be those bodies, now can they?
CORRECT.
My modest proposal there is death penalty for such men.
But people find that goes too far, so I would suggest we simply castrate them, as a compromise.
I've already munched on that bullet.
I think we're in broad agreement here. Complaints about racking up body counts tend to be "but she wouldn't sleep with me, the bitch!" more than "it is shocking that the gentle and modest damsel is corrupted into these worldly lusts, alas".
Its kind of both.
Its very frustrating to grow into a world where sex is treated simultaneously as some uninteresting normal thing that everyone has and its no big deal, and yet also this critically important feature of social life around which one's personal status in the hierarchy revolves.
You go to college, and women can be very open about sleeping around, with no shame. But if you propose a tryst to one, out of the blue, with the implication that this woman is easy to get into bed, this is considered a massive, 'creepy' faux pas.
So its less "she wouldn't sleep with me" and more "why am I punished for seeking out sexual access when everyone else treats sexual access as a casual, unremarkable feature of college life?"
But there is absolutely the portion of this ecosystem, the semi-predatory male who specializes in getting naive women to open their legs that doesn't get remarked upon.
We've tried to have it both ways and it doesn't work. We're still stuck between "hey, sex no biggie, it's a normal appetite like food" and "sex is this amazing, special thing and if you miss out on it you are doomed".
If someone was online complaining that they couldn't get some amazing specialised dish from a particular country because they lived in the wrong place, we'd probably not be very sympathetic that they were missing out on a vital life experience. There wouldn't be foodcels. We wouldn't be at the same time telling everyone that of course they shouldn't expect to eat at The French Laundry if they're living in Nowheresville, Noplace and that it's a natural human right that they should be able to access four star Michelin cuisine and if they're not getting it, they're worthless losers who should just sew their mouths shut/it's all the fault of chefs who should be forced to come and open up fine dining establishments in Nowheresville, who do those guys think they are, always chasing after the Chad food critics and friendzoning the Nice Guys? (That Ramsay, such a slut, do you know how many restaurants he worked at and under how many head chefs? Yeah, under is right!)
I think also there is the resentment of being marked "easy" when there really is no equivalent for guys. You may think a guy who sleeps around and has a string of girls on the go is Chad/a cad/enviable because he's livin' the life/a miserable rake with no morals, but there isn't "oh that guy is easy to get into bed" type of judgement. We're still stuck on that 'between two stools' double standard; you want your girlfriend to be sexually experienced enough to be good in bed (for you), but at the same time getting that experience is considered a yardstick as to her ultimate value (not very much).
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