Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Neither is "Have you considered shifting the balance of power towards the outgroup? Surely it'll work this time". Socon/crypto-feminist system prompt meets equality/liberal system prompt, tale as old as time.
Really, though, it's more a disagreement on how valuable sex is, or when the payment was made for it. The woman claims the intent of selling sex was buying a future privilege that was then revoked, so the woman "sues" for breach of contract.
Contract violations are not generally criminal matters. Women find it very convenient that this one is, because criminal accusations force the matter into social court, complete with scarlet letter if they win their lawsuit. This is a privilege thing; it worked OK back when a lack of automation meant you had to make a sex and obedience contract called a "marriage" just to get a meal.
But to properly address a contract violation, you have to set the value of sex at some dollar amount. Contracts go bad and people feel taken advantage of in various ways literally all the time- that's half of what divorce court exists to adjudicate. Of course, you can't get into a contract if you don't offer your services in exchange for money, and as any crypto-feminist will tell you, sex isn't a requirement for life.
Of course, you'll recognize that as "a woman must get over the fact that inherently means she's a whore". Naturally, that conflicts with female privilege (and father privilege).
The obvious solution is "fathers have zero privilege in an individualist society; if women can't psychologically handle the act of putting an explicit price on sex, save it for marriage, simple as". But letting more liberated women operate that way means they might get more male rewards, which is something feminists/fathers cannot abide that.
In the general case, is the answer to why a conservative/progressive can't leave a meritocratic system alone. They don't believe being less [morally] capable should result in an unequal outcome. Progressives literally say this, it's just that letting them do it means you let bad people set the rules because demanding them follow the rules was "too hard", and those people cannot deliver anything other than a crooked outcome.
More options
Context Copy link