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 -
There's a large difference between having a high body count and repeatedly telling your boyfriend about it. The former can sometimes be ignored (and contra redpillers claims, has nothing to do with sexual desirability. Wife-material-ibility, perhaps) , the latter is an emasculating power play (fine, shittest).
At the heart of my disagreement with redpillers on female promiscuity however, is that I cannot bring myself to condemn women for what I take for granted. Trads, okay, they’re against promiscuity generally, no hypocrisy there. But redpillers apply trad arguments only to people who aren’t them. Sex harms your soul or something, unless you’re a man, then I guess it’s okay to harm other people? Their locks and keys analogy isn’t doing it for me. You can get treasure from some terrible locks, and some locks are pristine simply because there isn’t any treasure behind.
I'm sure there are moral hypocrites out there, but from what I've seen of redpill arguments per se, the reason for men to be promiscuous and women to be innocent is simple: Men like innocent partners, women like promiscuous partners. Therefore if you are a man who wants to succeed, you should be promiscuous, and if you are a woman who wants to succeed, you should be innocent. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Suggesting that a man should be a virgin himself if he wants a virgin wife is like saying that he should have D-cup man-breasts if he wants a girlfriend with good knockers. It might seem fair in a moral sense, but as strategy it's gibberish.
Likewise, the question isn't whether a promiscuous man should want a promiscuous woman, the question is whether he actually does. The question isn't whether women should feel empowered and emotionally whole after a promiscuous sex life; it's whether they actually do.
Of course, recommending in favor of promiscuity for men and against it for women runs into the practical problem that the amount of casual sex has to add up somehow, even if it's never been exactly equal. But that's just as much a problem for modern feminism as it is for redpillers; if the hot guy who was juggling 5 different casual partners suddenly became Mr. Open Honest Commitment, the other 4 women he didn't pick would still have to re-asses their sex lives. As the OP says, there aren't enough mega-players to go around. The reason every promiscuous woman has slept with one is that they were sharing.
You said his strategy was to have a high body count. So to get the non-promiscuous woman he wants, he should want promiscuous women. It creates a paradox in evolutionary terms.
Secondly, does he actually want a virgin wife ? Sure, if you ply me with studies showing promiscuity and infidelity are correlated, I’ll concede that less is better, I guess. But it’s not important to me like attractiveness is. Show me the man who averted his eyes from porn because it featured a promiscuous woman. And women’s love of men’s promiscuity is even less clear.
This comment makes it clear that you don't understand the argument being made by the other side.
If you did, the question you'd actually be asking is "show me the man who withdraws commitment and resource-provision from a woman when he discovers her promiscuity" - and that's a question that can actually be answered a lot more thoroughly.
Then I'll show you women who withdrew commitment when they discovered their husbands' promiscuity.
Are you actually interested in having a conversation and understanding what the other side is trying to claim, or do you want to try and score sick burns instead?
The basic assumption they operate under "Men like innocent partners, women like promiscuous partners" is false, or marginal at best. So when you try to use anecdotes as proof of your universal law, I think a counterexample is appropriate.
Is true if you just add the statement with "traits associated with". A 22 year old who has had sex with 9999 guys, had her mind and body wiped to be equivalent to the 22 year old that lost her virginity at prom, eventually broke it off, and is now marrying her college sweetheart is probably just as appealing so long as the man doesn't know. But there is no such thing. A man who is promiscuous is high status because he can win women. A woman wants a man who can win women, because women are convinced by this. But the woman also wants to win him and end his promiscuity streak. If they could have a virgin that simply refused 100 propositions a day from hot actresses, they would pick him over the guy who slept with all 100. But again, they can't have that because it doesn't exist (aside from possibly Tim Tebow).
Isn’t it strange that when they marry, women do a 180 on what they want in a man? I thought those were hard-coded preferences. And if they aren’t, I’m pretty sure early promiscuity in men is also correlated with greater rates of infidelity, so women would be just as anti-promiscuity in partners as men.
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
More options
Context Copy link