site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35581 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023

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.

13
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Miranda he 33 year old lawyer with 42 partners and chlamydia is basically guaranteed to be miserable for the next 45 years of her statistical life.

I'm not convinced a counter-factual Miranda with 0 partners and 0 chlamydia at age 33 would have a particularly easier time finding a man who'll make her happy for the next 45 years of her life.

There's lots of references in the redpill-sphere of how high body count leads to infidelity, but that sounds like something very easily prone to mistaking correlation for causation. I think it's very plausible that women with high body counts have high body counts because they enjoy having sex with lots of different people, and that that desire was already present in them before they had sex for the first time.

As a famous sportsball coach once said "adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it".

Let's say you're right and that X% of women from birth will be unhappy in a relationship because they need sexual fulfillment or validation from multiple sexual partners. Because access to sex is easy for modern women, this X% will tend to have high N counts by age 33, moreso than the average person.

This makes things rather easier for modern men looking for partners. In earlier times, when women married as young virgins, you might have no clue if your wife would turn out to be Madame Bovary. In modern times, the Madame Bovarys of the world have already self selected, revealing their character by having huge N counts.

Which isn't to say that women with high N counts are always unsatisfactory partners, it just makes it more likely. It also applies to men. I'm nearly certain that men with high N counts are more likely to cheat. The difference here is that male cheating is less likely to have an emotional component which would torpedo the relationship.

I'd agree. I just don't think trying to make women have fewer sex partners in their youth is the right societal strategy. Trad men should be happy that people have their characters revealed. And for all the men who don't care, they don't lose anything partnering with those women.

No trad men don't get a good deal because even many better women may have had one or a few one-night stands at some point, or some form of casual sex. And to a trad man that is absolutely repulsive, taking care of a woman who gave herself away to some other man to use as an object of pleasure. Even a small number of ex-boyfriends also don't help, the woman may still be bonded to them.

Trad men may accept these women nowadays, but that's only because there is such a limited supply of truly good women.

I don't think the number of actual trad men is that much larger than the number of virgin women out there. Also I don't have much sympathy for this view point because trad men, and many other various types of conservative men, will rail and rail against women having casual sex, but don't have much to say about other men having casual sex. They might say they disapprove of promiscuous men too if you ask, but they never write long posts about how the quality of our nation is declining because of all the men out there sowing oats instead of settling down. Casual sex should be degrading the character of men just as much as it does women, but these types aren't taking a stand against men engaging in casual sex.

Trad men should be angry about men ruining more pure women. That said, men and women aren't the same. All the men can rail a few prostitutes, which is fine as long as they still devote themselves to, and take care of their wives.

I would expect the number of trad men is larger than the number of virgins, because there are so few virgins.

This "double standard" of men being able to bang prostitutes (not wives!) has been common throughout history. If you really want to see real double standard hypocrisy, see the billion other double standards that favor women. Like women not going to war, not having the responsibility to have children and respect their husbands, female adultery being glorified etc.

All the men can rail a few prostitutes

Why can all the men rail a few prostitutes, but women are only allowed to ever rail a single man? Just because it's traditional or is there an actual reason why it's bad for women to have casual sex but not men?

I'm not convinced a counter-factual Miranda with 0 partners and 0 chlamydia at age 33 would have a particularly easier time finding a man who'll make her happy for the next 45 years of her life.

Of course, because she is 33. The problem is feminism's propagandizing that you can flip a switch from promiscuous sex fiend to stable mom + girlboss in your mid 30s.

I think it's very plausible that women with high body counts have high body counts because they enjoy having sex with lots of different people, and that that desire was already present in them before they had sex for the first time.

Of course its plausible, it is probable. It is also destructive, which is why we typically had rules and organizations attuned to limiting this self-destructive constellation of sexual impulses.

Of course, because she is 33. The problem is feminism's propagandizing that you can flip a switch from promiscuous sex fiend to stable mom + girlboss in your mid 30s.

A few girls got pregnant and got married in college when I was a student, and everyone was "eeeh, not the best outcome", but now that I'm older I kinda think college or the gap year before it might be the best time to have a child if you want a career as well, certainly better than trying to settle down in your mid 30s.

You finish high school, get married, get pregnant, give birth, spend the first six months with the baby, go to college. The college has daycare, and the classes are not 9-to-5, so you can spend more time with your child. By the time you graduate, the child is old enough to attend kindergarten and you can careermaxx and maybe even have another child later.

The biggest drawback is that most husbands will be college students as well. Too young and too dumb, and fatherhood doesn't trigger wisening up in men the way having a job and dependents does.

Indeed it would be interesting. I think the real issue is that once women get outside the brainwashing space of careermax girlboss feminism they are able to realistically evaluate how much that life sucks, and thus don't do it.

and, unlike work, you can take a semester off college and pick up where you left off.

I think it's very plausible that women with high body counts have high body counts because they enjoy having sex with lots of different people, and that that desire was already present in them before they had sex for the first time.

They enjoy having sex with lots of different people AND have the poor impulse control that prevents them from reining in this impulse for the sake of their future husband.

It's the combination of these 2 traits that's the marriage-killer, not just the presence of the first one.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats