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 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