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 -
Right, and that is "the corrupting power of cock": men's faith that any woman (not dudes, though) has irretrievably lost status, even social existence, once a bro has stuck his dick inside her.
Scoot into the parallel universe of gay interactions, and penetration somehow doesn't seem to work that way. Eight dudes hooking up in various configurations, younger one plied with drugs by the others, and nobody would be surprised to hear that two of them ended up dating afterwards. I believe that's the way Sam Altman met his husband!
So women read yaoi to fantasize about being the kind of a person whom a man could have sex with, and not hate afterwards.
What must it be like to interact with a female peer, knowing that you and your friends desperately want to do something to her that you fully intend will diminish her as a person in your eyes? "This will destroy and disinvite you, please please pretty please can we do it?"
That scammer's mindset, all fake friendly warmth to the mark beforehand and cold contempt after?
I'll caveat that there's probably more selection effect than just orientation in this hypothetical. Gay orgy guys are not the only preference point, and there's some strong if not perfect barriers between the two. There's also some people where the orgy would be a fun weekend, and mixing alcohol and pot wouldn't be noteworthy, or 'vhs head cleaner', but ketamine would be a nope right out situation.
((And, conversely, there's a pretty nontrivial excluded middle the other direction: there's folk who are tied into the gay drug orgy hookup situation that wouldn't turn down a woman for a long-term relationship because she was, too. I'm not going to say every bi guy thinks the spuydjeks solution is desirable, but if it's a literal fantasy for me even as a monogamous bi guy, and no small number of less monogamous bi guys are more openly willing to chase it. That might be a 1% of male population thing, but we're not exactly talking a supermajority of yaoi fangirls out there, either.))
This is fascinating stuff, I always love getting little windows into other groups' relationship politics.
Curious if the non-orgy gay guys have that sentiment of postcoital sexual disgust and contempt for a partner who's been penetrated, or what @rayon calls "the corrupting power of cock"?
Like, maybe some guys wouldn't marry another dude who was actively sleeping around, sure. But in the gay community do you see men suggesting that friends are impure or vile or undateable because of contact with a single-digit number of other men's cocks? In a parallel situation to this frat party, does the drugged ketamine novice get ostracized, deemed forever gross and undateable, disinvited from parties for not having put up more resistance to the other guys?
There's a small fraction of gay men that treat anyone less masculine or that willingly bottoms like they're 'less right', and a larger extent where 'submissive and breedable' or 'bottom energy' is a not-the-most-friendly compliment, but neither aligns well to the orgy/no-orgy line, and neither are overwhelmingly popular.
That one's a definite no. A manslut might not be a specific person's idea of a good partner, but there's so many well-known and well-liked self-described mansluts that it's clear a lot of other people would want them.
I'm not very familiar with the heavy drug user side (or, to be honest, even the 'light' drug users, like poppers, marijuana, and alcohol), so I can't speak with too much confidence, there. My personal take would be kinda squicked out whether they were topping, bottoming, or sitting in a hotel chair high off their gourd, but I don't know what the average intuition for the hard drug orgy side would come out to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You'll have to forgive me for not knowing the background: what exactly is this?
Sorry. It's a MMF romantic relationship.
To be fair to the yaoi fangirl hypothesis, the artist is a woman. To be slightly more descriptive, the comment section has an absolute ton of guys wishing for one of the two slots.
Ah, ok, I think I see it now. I thought that was MMM at first and simply missed the context clues from the post.
I do notice that the pairing appears to be highly masc/androgynous masc/actual girl, though, which is interesting. Seems like it's really convenient to have both a physical rock of the relationship, and then one who's more 'aligned' with the girl's other interests, yet also have them not be the same person.
It makes me suspect that there are a couple of possible attraction modes for the modal woman: one for physical dominance where it would be unattractive for them to worry about the alignment/feels stuff, and one for alignment/feels where it would be unattractive for them to worry about the physical stuff, where one man also serves as a stabilizing force for the other, or rather, isn't going to be turned off by the attribute that's unattractive to the woman. I get the distinct impression that trying to do both ends poorly.
And I see no indication why that wouldn't hold sexually as well, or even necessarily be unworkable in practice- though it does mode-lock the more andro male into a role that might not necessarily have been the most productive thing for them to do.
(And really, if there's only one objection I have to being in/trying to start a gay relationship with someone, it's this. Sure, I could lock myself into the physically dominant role, which is what he clearly requires of me to bother flirting back, but that's not where I get most of the joy out of a relationship... and so inevitably I'd end up doing the exact same threesome thing to do the emotion/build-up things I couldn't do with that partner, which from other experience is inevitably going to feel like cheating, because in truth it kind of is.)
My read on yaoi fangirls is that they're more aware of this dynamic than the general populace. Which, if it's written by more-aware-than-average women, seems correct, but falls short on productive ways to deal with that (other than explicitly form a polycule, which seems like a hyper-autistic solution to both recognize and resolve the cognitive dissonance about 'cheating' I described earlier... and evidence bears that out).
(As an aside, I notice that there are some women who sometimes aren't always aware of this, and get kind of confused when this 'threesome' dynamic asserts itself under certain conditions, because [if you only consider the existence of the physical dom position] the andro man is by that definition malfunctioning because there is no 'andro' role, so what is [in full context] male co-operation can only [from the first perspective] be observed as 2 doms fighting over the single position. Maybe men instinctively understand this dynamic better, but good luck getting them to tell you it exists.)
I don't know if this effect is symmetric or mirrored across to yuri fanboys or by extension MFF couplings. More research is clearly required.
There's a real pattern there in broad strokes, and with more layers than you'd expect, in no small part because there is a genuine contradiction. The physical rock character's stoic, good at problem-solving, traditionally masculine... and this is simultaneously desirable and absolutely infuriating to most women, since it seems belittling even in its best form where it solves problems easily and correctly. The Other One is emotionally open, in touch with his feminine side, risk-taking, and very understanding any triggers from past relationships/male authority figures... and also doesn't really come across as the sort of person a woman she be chasing, and not just in the stereotypical 'bad boy' way, either. Which, to be fair, can also be a fun taboo violation of its own, but still an awkward matter in a real relationship.
Yaoi fangirls are aware of a dynamic, because the genre formalizes one. Ukes are feminine, emotionally open, perceptive (often to a fault), shorter, and a bottom. Semes are masculine(ish), emotionally steady, inscrutable and less perceptive, taller and tops. In some circles, this can get as formal as hair color or blood type. Obviously, many of these associations are not real -- a lot of traditionally feminine skills in particular end up being pretty top- or switch-coded in practice, and a uke/seme excludes a pretty wide variety of real-world physiotypes -- but my guess from the outside is that they're part of what make yaoi attractive to women.
And in the real world, it doesn't really break down easily into one role or the other all the time, either in gay relationships or in M/M/F ones. In the trivial sense, there's a lot of switches, but more broadly it's extremely rare for people to have the same level of confidence and awareness in all fields, or just daily variation in personality expression. It's hard to actually set up a reciprocal norm when at the raw flirting stage, but it's something that tends to evolve pretty quickly in a real relationship in my experience and in those I've seen second-hand.
I have absolutely no idea on yuri/FF. Not really my thing, and while I'm aware of butch/femme people and how they act, I can't say much as to how well they generalize.
I'm kinda curious which one of spudyjek's guys seems androgynous masc to you. In her adult content, they tend to swap (the gray-furred bat is socially confident but physically vulnerable, the white-furred rabbit is socially vulnerable but physically confident... most of the time, but between furry genre assumptions and knowing about that content, I'm not going to get the same read as an outsider would.
I take the opposite view, where the genre (and its conventions) exist as a natural extension of how people subconsciously act -> it works because it inherently resonates. Categories for the (wo)man, and all that.
And sure, that's complicated by the lowest-effort to express, perhaps like love triangles are for het or yuri romance (such that I believe this is just something the typical man likes and that criticisms that it's "tropey" are more from people who have enough mental capacity to both notice that pattern and get bored of it), but if it works for most people in the target audience, then it's probably a signal about that audience.
Which is why it seems that a solution to that paradox is to spend effort abstracting that tendency into a symbol [of... attraction, acceptance, devotion, I... guess?] and move on (and so places where that abstraction breaks down re: 'mansplaining' are going to feel worse, since that abstraction is broken -> proof/meaningfulness of accepting it happens is not only denied and the person/group for whom that emotional work was done is now the exact thing denying its worth). Reminds me of how certain Christians approach God for what I'm pretty sure are the same reasons. (See also: notice me, senpai!)
If I recall correctly, the second quick pass of the given examples suggested it was the black one. The white one does have some signals of this (most stereotypically the glasses), but he also appears to be quite a bit larger and isn't usually doing the 'girly' thing in the linked example.
This is more trying to compare and contrast how straight men see MFF throuples in opposition to how [straight?] women see MMF throuples (I guess I could just read Ouran High School Host Club for a bunch of other examples that I remember even the show just outright stating, but anything other than MM non-twins aren't currently in scope and that's not really the only dynamic featured in there). Gender isn't a symmetric "object" so it's not just "the same thing but flipped" should you examine it in front of a mirror, so to speak (for instance, men and women both might find opposite-sex-twins-on-self-insert hot, but I don't get the impression that men are attracted to the cascade of background of emotional connection leading up to whatever it is they're doing that women seem to be), or rather, examining "what lines up with what" seems to me to be the wrong tool with which to examine the question.
Yet you still seem to require some background awareness of it, especially when you're trying to flirt with someone who doesn't know that. And then that background awareness colors every other interaction (even when it's not meant that way).
For example,
Yeah, totally a mystery as to how that would be appealing to straight women at all- either of the two modes it's going to go into (which is either 'why yaoi has that name' or focused a lot more on the emotional side, which is something that isn't really found much in yuri made by men even though it's something I would naively expect from both sides of a lesbian relationship [but for different reasons in each participant]). Then again, I'm also aware that lesbians are very unusual, so...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This either/or thinking doesn't check out to me. Scan women's romance literature and you'll find countless instances of the ideal being a strong and physically protective male partner who's also tender and emotionally attentive, something like having a guard dog who's tough to other people but a sweetie to you.
I suspect some women don't have a lot of experience meeting this type IRL, so it's likely that the splitting into tender partner + strong partner is a workaround for someone who's been traumatically convinced that strong + tender (or, as Sabrina Carpenter says, "jacked and kind") combo doesn't exist in a single man. You see something similar in the many romance heroes who are constructed as dashing and brash while also having some kind of physical handicap or emotional wound, which is perceived as making them safer to be around.
Then, too, there are a lot of people who falsely believe they display unappreciated "tenderness" when actually they're just passive or defensively/anxiously polite, neither of which is especially attractive.
I think it's just rare and a natural adaptation for there not being enough for those types for everyone.
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
Nobody is claiming that drunken frat bros were good guys here.
What seems to have happened is there was a social role of ‘young lady’ that was violated, the sorority decided she wasn’t going to parties anymore, and she went nuclear. This is woman drama with a few unsympathetic young men caught in the crossfire.
I do claim Male #1 was a good guy.
He had sex with her, contacted her afterwards to inquire about her well being, continued pursuing a romantic or at least friendly relationship with her, and invited her to a party (presumably as his guest). What else do you expect him to do?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To paraphrase Scott since I don't remember the source, don't hate the player, hate the lazy millions-of-years-old evolutionary meme generator that optimizes for stupid things. Sexual exclusivity was ~always the deal in heterosexual relationships, and seems likely to remain the deal; I too have my gripes with certain "faiths" and behaviors of women w/r/t dating and sex, but that's the table stakes.
Can't speak for the meatheads in question, but I imagine that nobody thought this through and (as with the woman) the idea sounded pretty exciting to the men beforehand, the immediate aftermath was pretty cordial from circumstantial evidence, and it wasn't until the inevitable rumor mill and social consequences kicked in that there was any destruction taking place. (Another strike against the social media panopticon.)
Make no mistake, I defend the men here only insofar as they are slaves to sexual/social incentives they can't unilaterally change. I am however also against promoting female hypoagency, and think that normalizing making certain choices like not getting into what sounds highly similar to a gangbang with drugs and men you barely know involved, as suggested downthread, would be a good start.
Implausible that you'd find a sexual instinct so strong as to be irresistible in straight men, but not appearing at all in gay male sexuality. But it's irrelevant because the central issue here is not just male preference for women's sexual exclusivity; it's male gang-bang/promiscuous seduction instinct in combination with male preference for female sexual exclusivity. That is, it's not just sexual disgust, it's sexual disgust in the context of prior sexual aggression. Not just "sex defiles you," but "sex defiles you, AND we get to use everything in our power, including lies, drugs, false promises, intimidation, gossip to manipulate you into having sex so you can be defiled."
(For the second half, given that the male gangbang instinct is empirically observed to apply to old women, ugly women, corpses of dead women, children and babies, women who are visibly being raped to death by this act, I don't buy the universal "hey guys this thing is incapacitated, everybody come over and fuck it!" impulse as part of any kind of procreation program; seems much likelier to be an an accidental transfer from group hunting or prey-drive behaviors.)
Still more broadly, though, evolution has optimized us for many incentive-driven instinctive behaviors that Mottizens nonetheless expect others to control via reason - including theft and robbery, gang violence, gambling, child abuse, binging McDonalds and avoiding the gym. There are people who make a living by blackmailing old folks with AI-spoofed ransom pleas from their grandchildren, they technically have "consent" to take that money and it makes good evolutionary sense to do so: would you sigh and cite "don't hate the player, hate evolution" if you found a son of yours running that con? If the idea is that young men are just trousered apes (brain so small balls so big), that would have some serious downstream implications for Cornell grads' job prospects.
I don't think "not appearing at all" is valid here (I imagine gay men would also like their partners to be faithful to them, for one, though "gay relationships are just ✿better✿ without all this dumb het monkey-neuron baggage" is a common headcanon among fujos in my experience), but even assuming arguendo - really? Even without leaving the topic of gay porn, it's plainly observable that gay porn for straights, gay porn for gays, and gay porn for women are three radically different categories. Straights and gays are indeed attracted to different things. Do you think it's a coincidence that traps/femboys tend to look like young women (hint: it's in the name)?
In any case, you've missed my main point:
We are actually in agreement that the former produces ungood results and is overall uncouth and bad; the difference is that you also condemn the latter, whereas I point out the impossibility of being rid of it, as "the corrupting power of cock", ie sexual exclusivity, is more or less the core of male heterosexuality. You expect your gf to not fuck around, or vice versa, only elevate a woman who doesn't fuck around to the position of "gf". Visible disregard for fidelity is disqualifying.
Hence, the men's initial offer and the whole "free pussy" part were straightforwardly unsavory (and are what's actually contemptible about them, here), but the gradual dissociation from the woman after the fact, especially once the rumors started getting out, is at the very least unsurprising considering the nature of a gangbang. Again, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This ain't Manacled, she wasn't getting adopted by a gaggle of
vampire billionaireshandsome strong men as some kind of honorary gf, and the first guy to step up and defend m'lady would've instantly made himself the scapegoat hate-sink and designated loser (and I heard women happen to not like socially-shunned losers much, so everyone loses anyway). Absent airtight privacy, which I don't think you ever have at a frat house, this could only ever end in catastrophe; as mentioned somewhere downthread, in the current_year there isn't a word for "woman regrets a sexual encounter". In the grim darkness of the literal present, there is only rape.To reiterate, much of this could have been avoided by the woman by simply uh, controlling via reason some of her baser impulses, like that to attend a drug-fueled gangbang. Even if the gentlemen in a sudden show of cojones managed to coordinate and close ranks around m'lady, with seven impulsive men and one easily-swayed woman vs. literally the entire zeitgeist hankering for a good ol' rape scandal, not to mention frat/sor heads covering their own asses, the odds are pretty grim.
I would never condemn a monogamous male's preference for a similarly faithful girlfriend, but we should be clear that by male sexual disgust we're not talking "not wanting to marry a poly person," we're talking about men with the sadistic conviction that because they themselves drugged a girl then gang-banged her as she slipped in and out of consciousness, they can then (by your account) spread rumors about her, ridicule any friend who'd want to date her or even speak up in her defense, "dissociate themselves from her," disinvite her from their parties. That's not visceral sexual preference, it's just pure irrational bullying/pack-hunting drive toward someone who now seems like a vulnerable target. It's extremely feasible to not act like a sociopathic bully to a girl you took advantage of, and I think as a society that we should support people in this endeavor.
This is why I brought up the phone scammer earlier, because there are plenty of similar cases where an evil person can take advantage of asymmetrical information to fuck over somebody gullible. We may regard the victim as foolish, but we don't usually argue that the scammers should go unpunished because the victim ought to have expected that literally everyone they meet would be trying to lie, cheat and steal from them.
In this case, I'd be curious as to what "base impulse" the woman voluntarily followed, other than being prior friends with the boys there, trusting them enough to attend their party and believing they wouldn't voluntarily harm her? There's certainly no indication she thought she was attending a "drug-fueled gangbang," and everything else plays out more like her being a gullible mark with poor self-defense skills than a voluntary participant. The fratbros were very experienced with ketamine; she had never taken it before. They were on their home turf with the strength of numbers; she was smaller and physically vulnerable, which would make most people nervous and placating. I'm sure they pitched the first dose as just a fun party drug (if they didn't straight-up spike her drink, since she says she doesn't remember taking the first time). The drug they forced on her was a dissociative anaesthetic commonly used to tranquilize large animals through treatment they'd normally resist, and it seems to have worked to incapacitate her exactly as intended, even they proceeded to pressure her to take a whole bunch more. By the time the bros stepped things up from hangout to invited gangbang, she was too far gone to speak clearly, much less handle the delicate social work of extricating herself safely from a roomful of big, strong, horny young men.
I would never set foot in a frat house, but I've accepted drinks from male friends at parties, and as far as I can see, anyone who ever accepts a drink from a guy at a party could end up slippery-sloping into this situation. Absent some general principle like "never trust any man however friendly he may seem, know that they are all sadistic liars and manipulators, choose the bear instead" (which folks hereabout tend to also frown on), what would you propose she should have done to avoid your moral opprobrium?
I commend the smooth slide into cataclysmic gender-wide implications, "delicate social work of extricating herself safely from a roomful of big, strong, horny young men" is especially evocative. Still, this is highly overwrought, I don't particularly care for this kind of argument.
No matter how you embellish the literal descriptors, the core issue remains that the initial offer was straightforwardly unsavory, and the woman, holding highly unrealistic expectations (inb4 "what, to not be treated like a piece of meat?", to which my answer begins with "play stupid games"), decides in sound mind to take it. Afterwards rumors get out, as rumors do in their kind of environment (do we even have evidence that the guys started them?), the woman discovers she doesn't like the label that her social circle assigns to women that voluntarily participate in gangbangs, and (only at that point, not before!) reaches straight for a superweapon and outsources her problem to the public court. Judging from cordial text exchanges, she evidently didn't regret the sex she had in the short term - only the reputation it has eventually wrought her. Such oopsies are usually avoided by thinking through the things you want to do, and considering risks wherever you take them beforehand (and you vividly describe how great the risk is, here); neither the men nor the woman have done this here, and now female hypoagency dictates that she is blameless.
My issue is mostly with the last part.
Would you say the fratboys are going unpunished, here? Haven't there been expulsions already? Nothing is ever enough in culture war I guess, but irregardless of that, I haven't even argued they should go unpunished - only that they don't have the entirety of the blame here, and even that seems too much to stomach. You're too comfortable putting words in my mouth.
As mentioned above, not getting into group sex with drugs and men you barely know involved would be a good start. Not hurling spurious rape accusations as soon as her reputation came under threat would also be nice, but given that "there is only rape" I suppose the, ahem, incentives made it inevitable.
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