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 -
Continuing my theme in the previous comment of springboarding off the QC thread for discussion topics...
War of the sexes, but specifically regarding long term relationships and marriage.
What, in your opinion, should/does a desirable male partner bring to the table? What should/does a desirable female partner bring to the table?
The goal here is not specifically symmetry, if the desirableness is asymmetrical. For example, if you think a woman should desire a man with a stable job, but a man would be neutral or negative towards a woman with a stable job, then there's no need to include that on both lists.
To make the discussion more specific, less hypothetical: excluding amorphous concepts of "chemistry", what is the concrete package of measurable traits the opposite sex needs to offer for you to want to commit to a relationship with them? What is the package you are offering them in exchange? Do you feel this is a "good deal"?
(I'll answer for myself in a reply rather than answering within the question.)
What makes me want to enter a relationship with someone and what makes me want to commit to a relationship with them are two almost entirely different things.
For me to enter into a relationship it's about whether they are hot and socially fun enough.
For me to commit it's how I see them acting long term. What is their earning potential, how is their family (not as in i would have to spend time with them but as an indicator of where they are likely to trend), how do they treat household activities, what are their goals and most important of all: how committed are they to me and the relationship? I also expect my partner to do a similar evaluation of me and if I perceive that they don't then that is disqualifying.
Specific qualities are pretty uninteresting, most things are somewhat negotiable/exchangeable. Although, one attribute that isn't is confidence for men, if you're not able to at least project confidence then you're doomed.
Do you enter relationships with the intent of finding a long term one, or do you expect to perhaps stumble into a long term one maybe? Is long term commitment a goal or just a possible thing that might one day happen to you?
If the latter, your strategy makes sense to me - have fun now, maybe it'll lead somewhere - but if the former, I don't get why you'd waste time on people who have none of the traits you'd want to commit to.
I never had to specifically look for long term qualities in a partner in the first stage but I don't really see that working very well anyway. People falsely advertise all the time. To me it seems better to date in a pool of people that are likely to have the attributes you're looking for than specifically seeking them out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link