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 -
Oh, no- so is mine.
And... sorry about that. /c/ is the 'cute anime girls' board, /cm/ is the 'cute anime boys' board, /u/ is the yuri one, /y/ is the yaoi one, /h/ is the vanilla porn board. (/hm/ is turbo-gay and full of nude men, /b/ is the everything board.)
I actually figure the 'cute' boards are ironically more representative precisely because they're non-central examples of sexuality; there's no nudity on either one (mostly), and it's not generally something anyone wants to admit is sexual mainly because it's really embarrassing for both parties (which I find fascinating and mysterious).
My running theory at this point is that male and female sexualities are mirror images that are supposed to compliment each other, but are not symmetric. So, before one should adjust a visible piece of, say, male sexuality, you then have to back-derive which aspect of female sexuality maps to it, and then ask for moderation in that piece for compromise.
I think "well, stop men from sexualizing us" is more productively mapped to "well, stop women from taking away our ability to perform in a way such that they will be attracted to us". The other way is rejected by both men and women, because running it backwards results in an invalid state (i.e. "why are you saying women are sexual predators? Only men can rape"), and that state will continue to be invalid. In an environment where equality between genders exists- an equality neither gender was ever equipped to handle (and is depending on physical effects to moderate its impulses that was largely automated away 100 years ago)- co-operation is only possible if the right questions are asked.
That sounds plausible to me - male and female sexualities must connect at some point, because that's how the human race continues, and the fact that most men and women enjoy sex with each other suggests that it must be possible for the man and the woman to satisfy each other's desires at the same time. That doesn't mean there aren't differences or that there isn't going to be a level of negotiation around any sexual act (that is, you're going to do things that your partner enjoys even if it's not your favourite thing personally, and vice versa), but there must be some large area of overlap.
It's the lock-step I'm most interested in. Because I don't think they are satisfied at the same time; I think the mating dance of 'dinner and a show' and then 'sex' is like that for a reason, so when 'I don't want to have sex that way' comes out, it's 'the song and dance beforehand isn't good enough for me to want to have sex that way'.
But if no man can perform well enough to merit the sex because the woman has already separately prohibited dining and shows, then that ask is fundamentally unreasonable [and has to be accompanied by 'back off on the prohibition on dining and shows', and a proper understanding of why that prohibition made asking for less sex unreasonable, to be honored].
What happens right now is... very much not that. You can't convict someone of being unfair if you are unwilling to first speak their language, and since women think it is fair (and have received zero comprehensible communication that tells them it is not), it falls to men to open that line of communication.
Yet, I don't see them attempting this; it's all just "retvrn to veiling our she-devils" or whatever, and then all anyone on the other side hears is "they don't understand and they just want to replace shitty 21st century sexual relations with shitty 19th century sexual relations; selfishness is rational, guess it's back to Plan A".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link