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 -
Young Prudes: Are sex norms mostly a manifestation of sex ratios?
Aria Shrecker of Works in Progress puts forward an interesting hypothesis. What if the sexual revolution of the 1960s was driven not (primarily) by the pill, but by a growing population?
The thesis rests on a few key points:
1 is fairly uncontroversial, 2 is a mathematical derivative of 1. The only part of contention is whether 3 is true, and if so, how strong the effect is.
There is definitely a correlation between the ratio of men to women at US colleges and its sexual culture. And the mechanism is pretty intuitive. This would also explain the current sex-negative turn among young people. There are fewer 21 year-old zoomettes than there are 23 year-old zoomer boys, and so with the 'upper hand', the young ladies are turning the sexual culture towards their preferences.
The greatest weakness in the hypothesis is that it predicts that a higher male:female ratio should increase commitment (marriages, having children, buying houses together) and all those things are declining. Of course, its possible that atomisation caused by smartphones is simply too strong of an effect and swamps the influence of sex ratios. Peter Foreshaw Brooks points this out in his review of her article.
If Aria is right, then we're soon in line for a marriage boom. Watch this space, folks!
The problem with this argument is that we aren't seeing the now-scarce Zoomettes getting what they want.
The problem with the dating market in 2026 is that it does not clear, not that it is clearing at a price that young men don't like. Both sexes think it sucks, and there are people of both sexes who want to match with MMV peers and are unable to. Most people of both sexes still want marriage, but marriage rates are low and falling. This is a disaster, not a shift in power in the battle of the sexes.
The normie view on what is wrong seems fairly clear - that the main socially acceptable way of meeting strangers as potential dates (subscription-funded dating apps) does not work.
Dating is a matching market. Matching markets just tend to be hellscapes, and the larger they get the worse they get. But that's not the only problem. The change in balance in power is part of it. I just saw a thread on twitter where a man was derided because he said he want on something like 30 dates and they all went the same way: he took the girl out for dinner, they went for a walk, and he waited for them to initiate physical contact because he didn't want to be #metoo'd. Only 2 did (which is higher than I'd expect). You can claim this is merely paranoia on his part, but that requires putting your head in the sand.
From a certain perspective and to a certain limited extent, this is just things working as intended. The men who are stupid enough or paranoid enough to allow themselves to be totally stymied by the propaganda (i.e. undesirable men) will weed themselves out of the dating pool, leaving only the men who are savvy enough to actually navigate complex and adversarial social dynamics (i.e. more desirable men).
Yeah except there's readily available news stories, RIGHT NOW, about 'more desireable men' getting blasted with rape accusations YEARS after the act despite evidence on the ground showing it appeared fully consensual at the time.
So you are in fact showing that these men are not 'savvy' they just get what they want right up until one of their past conquests gets uppity enough to pull the trigger she had available all along.
You can't "navigate complex and adversarial social dynamics" when the actual dynamics can be unilaterally changed by one party a long time after the fact.
That dog won't hunt, even 'desirable' men can rationally opt out of that.
Aren't most of the high profile cases mostly a powergrab from the women in question? Like, they are taking someone down in order to advance their own career in some way, or simply profit off the settlement.
For average people it might be better to just view this as noise. The parasites are attracted chiefly to the rich and famous, so more ordinary guys should be fine.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn’t this just the male equivalent of a woman saying “I can’t go to parties or bars or walk alone ever because you never know when a rapist will jump out from around the corner”?
It’s just paranoia + skill issue.
Women's claimed issue is easily solved by having a male chaperone, funny enough. Just get a boyfriend/husband to protect you bro, what's stopping you?
And said rapist can't jump out of the shadows 3 years later after you think you're actually safe. The danger is limited to when you're actually out and about.
Its a very different category of risk.
How, precisely, can a man mitigate the risk of any given woman he slept with accusing him of rape at a later date?
Is it just possible that the rewards on offer aren't really enticing given the 'skill' required to get them?
You're asking them to be extremely skilled at navigating a hostile environment. But if the reward isn't worthwhile, why would a 'desireable' man do so? What's the motivation/incentive? If its 'sex' then... he can just pay for it. Much more manageable risk profile, less skill required.
If its "companionship" he can get that from dudes, or a dog.
If its "romance, marriage, children" women are not providing those as much in the past, objectively.
What's left?
This reaches the point of unreasonable neurosis. Nothing stops a random person you pass on the street from just abruptly jumping you and bashing your head on the curb, the laws of physics allow this to happen. Yet, people still go outside.
Obviously false rape claims occur about as frequently as really newsworthy mass shootings do. The perpetrators are from the same social class, look the same, and are just as unpunishable.
If fear of mass shootings is not considered "unreasonable neurosis", fear of false rape claims can't be either.
Standing down from one can't be done unilaterally. Both sides must stand down at the same time.
More options
Context Copy link
This type of thing happens socially all the time anyway. I can’t even begin to tell you how many times I’ve experienced shit like this all throughout my youth. If you came upon two people fighting in an alley, you wouldn’t automatically assume that each has a good reason for wanting to hurt the other person. You’re perfectly aware that one of these people just attacked the other person, for no good reason, and the other’s just doing his best to defend himself. Unfortunately, I’ve managed to collide with a fair number of these people throughout a good chuck of my life. For reasons I’ll never understand when it comes to the social sphere, everybody automatically assumes there must be two valid sides to every argument. This is just straight up not true. Some people are in fact, Total. Fucking. Assholes. They’re unscrupulous. They’re dishonest. They’re powerfully self-deceived. They’re narcissistic. Some people are just walking case studies in various psychopathologies and bad faith. And yet somehow ordinary people still manage just go full retard, come around and take these people seriously.
Situations like this happen all the time, on a daily basis. And too often whenever you try bringing it to light to someone things just go haywire and they say things like, “Well why would this person lie about this?” I can think of a million reasons why. To cause harm to someone they don’t like, to deflect blame and responsibility, to avoid embarrassment, to get something they want, for the thrill of getting away with it. I don’t fucking know. Why do they? How normal people become so gullibly duped into coming to the defense of pathological liars, and attack normal, honest and upright people is something I will never understand.
I don’t know if there’s anyone here who ever watched the movie The Strangers (the not-so-good horror film). There’s a scene in the end of the movie where the last surviving victim of the killers is captured and bound to a chair, while being hysterical and the killers are silently standing right before her; and she asks them, “Why are you doing this?” And there’s a silence, followed by the voice of the female attacker who simply says, “Because you were home.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s quite plain that you think that the rewards on offer are enticing, given your persistent and vigorous interest in this topic.
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