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 -
Russell Brand Accusations
Russell Brand has been accused of sexual misconduct and/or rape by four women in a large exposé by the Sunday Times [2]. The mainstream consensus online is that the testimony of these women is absolutely correct. I wonder, though, how many false accusers we should expect given the context of Russell Brand.
Russell Brand is not just some guy, he was at one point a party icon in the UK. As such, he has slept with 1000 women. And these are not just some women, just like Brand is not just some guy. This is not a sample size of the median woman in the UK. The women he slept with would differ psychologically from the average woman: more likely to make poor choices, more likely to be partying, more likely to be doing things for clout (like Russell Brand), more likely to be involved with drugs and mental illness. A study on the lives of “groupies” in the heavy metal scene found that groupies were more likely to use sex for leverage, to come from broken homes, and to have issues with drugs and alcohol. (This is not a one-to-one comparison; heavy metal is different than the rock n roll persona of Brand).
Scott has written that up to 20% of all rape allegations are false. But with Brand, we have a more complicated metric to consider: how many false accusers will you have sex with if you’ve had sex with one thousand women who make poor choices? Scott goes on in the above article to note that 3% of men will likely be falsely accused (including outside of court) in their life. If this is true, we might try multiplying that by 125 to arrive at how many accusers Brand should have. That would bring us to four, rounding up — but again, this would totally ignore the unique psychological profile of the women he screwed.
There’s yet more to consider. Brand is wealthy, famous, and controversial. His wealth and stature would lead a mentally unwell woman to feel spite, and his controversy would lead a clout-chasing woman to seek attention through accusation. What’s more, (most of) these allegations only came about because of an expensive and time-consuming journalistic investigation, which would have lead to pointed questioning.
All in all, it seems unfair to target a famous person and set out your journalists to hound down every woman he had sex with. It’s a man’s right to have consensual sex with mentally unwell and “damaged” women, which would be a large chunk of the women Brand bedded. Of course, this cohort appears more apt to make false accusations. Quoting Scott,
IMO, the kind of person who has sex with more than a critical mass of people was already broken to begin with or will be sufficiently broken by the end of it. This applies to both men and women.
An endless supply of sex completely distances you from the intimate nature of it, converting it into a bare transaction. When viewed as a transaction, you can't help but view everything about it with contempt. This is especially true about rock-stars who can clearly see the proportionality between their rising fame and rising body-count.
I believe this, but it is womankind's responsibility to enforce this on all other women. When 50%+ of the 1000 women this dude has slept with has said some variant of 'noooo stoooop' before actively engaging in sex, No does not mean No.
"No means No" is something I and a good few of my principled peers actively practice. That being said, almost all of them have stories where women expect men to make non-consensual moves by 'reading their signs'. Signs that I can confidently tell you, are NOT consistent. It is a good principle to always ask for consent, but it is a well-acknowledged losing-move if you want to get laid.
Things get even more fucked, when a guy has some impression of initial consent and then exploits that for increasingly extreme sexual fantasies.
Russell Brand sounds like a terrible human. He is one among thousands of typical frat-boy assholes who treat women like trash. If a woman ever speaks out against them, they're either ignored or bullied by other women. At the same time, men like Russell Brand keep getting bodies thrown at them, as long as they are on the side of the system. Ideally, these men would get cancelled
The present form of accountability culture is completely broken. It involves further scaring the principled and paranoid, while the brazen and unaccountable continue to live life as they always had. Every once in a while, the iconoclast (Brand) has the hammer brought down on him. But only after the damage has been done.
David Mitchell's legendary rant remains as relevant as ever.
If women want to explore extreme kinks on 1 night stands with the same top 5% of physically desirable men and have consent be conveyed through soft-hints, then you will inevitably incentivize habitual line-steppers into occupying that 5% space.
I am all for a society where everyone has the freedom to do what they want without patriarchal oppression holding them down. BUT, we need to be practical about 'cause and effect'. People are going to behave according to their incentives. And in this world, narcissists like Russell Brand are incentivized to be aggressive, abusive and unaccountable liars. As long as that's the case, more Russell Brands will keep popping up. And No, being cancelled after fucking 1000 women is not what accountability looks like. You have to nip it in the bud.
You call that a rant?
Serious question, I'm not a native speaker.
This one wasn't a rant, but David, specifically is known for his rants. So calling it a rant comes naturally when its David.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Let's break it down to a 2x2 quadrant.
Brazen and Competent
Brazen and Incompetent
Principled and Competent
Principled and Incompetent
The brazen, competent people live like rock stars; the brazen, incompetent people get their heads kicked in literally or figuratively. The principled competent people do okay, while the principled and incompetent people wind up like Scott's comment 171 and choose lifelong celibacy.
I suppose this too might be a feature, not a bug; if a Brant gets way too big for his britches and angers the wrong person too many times he might be brought to justice, via the courts or otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
I’ve never been a fan of the current iteration of no means no simply because it’s often the case where the signals are at best ambiguous. It’s not a woman saying a hard no “I don’t want any sexual activity from you,” it’s quite often “no” while not removing herself, not putting clothes back on, and in a lot of other ways continuing the activities.
My personal rule is I will not leave a public place for a private one unless I’m prepared to have sex. And once I’m there, if I decide not to have sex, I say no, and I get into my car and leave. Anything else is simply entrapping the man because you are acting as if you want sex. If you’re taking off your clothes in the presence of a man you’re telling him you want sex. Even going to private places like parks where you can find corners away from other people is telling the man you want sex.
I’ve always felt like it’s absolutely on the woman if she doesn’t want sex to make it absolutely perfectly clear with no contradictory signals.
The issue is not every girl is emotionally capable in these situation, supposedly Brand had a 16 year old. Her acting a appropriate and knowledgeable is a stretch.
I have no doubt Brand raped a few of these girls.
Girls are expected to not act super slutty so no doubt he’s gotten plenty of no’s that actually meant yes.
There continues to be no possible correct social solution in the modern environment. Men need to take sex when they can get it. Sometimes that aggressiveness leads to long term relationships. Being that females will never directly communicate as a group it will expose some weaker member of the group to more aggressive behavior they can’t handle. Men need to be social sophisticated.
No, they don’t.
If you don't, Brand will, because there is nothing to stop him. So you might as well take what you can get. Like unto a communal plate of French fries; such is the tragedy of the commons.
To solve the problem, need to privatize the commons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The current iteration is worse than that, because it goes beyond "no with a bunch of other signals saying 'yes'" means "no", and it even goes beyond "an earlier 'no' with a later 'yes' means 'no'", it goes somewhat past "a not quite enthusiastic 'yes' means 'no'" all the way to "A 'yes' which when re-evaluated in the cold light of morning should have been a 'no' means 'no', and he should have known that."
I don't think just going to a private place means 'yes'; even when it's part of the dance it's an earlier part. But your example of her taking off her clothes in front of him (in a private place)... that obviously invites the next move being physical.
I think that’s the issue though. If women want “no means no” that no has to be clear and you have to mean it. It cannot be a woman doing everything up to a point, with a suddenly you went to far thing at the end.
Why not? I mean, you may feel "like it’s absolutely on the woman if she doesn’t want sex to make it absolutely perfectly clear with no contradictory signals," but it looks like quite a lot of our society disagrees. (I have a somewhat relevant story about overhearing one side of a cellphone conversation waiting in line at the welfare office which illustrated cultural differences on this topic between modern Western norms and Native Alaskan ones, as well as the human tendency to interpret people's motives through our own cultural lenses.) You say they cannot, and yet many clearly are. There's no requirement for them to follow your "personal rule." If they decide instead that consent can be withdrawn at absolutely any time, for any reason (or none at all), no matter what previous signals, ambiguous or not, she has previously given, then why can't they just enforce such a rule?
Except that a consent that isn’t really clear and can be altered or withdrawn on a whim without even having to make it clear to the other person is simply unfair to that person, especially if it can have very serious consequences for the other person. If I can get your life ruined for a mistake, I don’t see how it can be fair that I not give you clear communication about when I don’t want you do do something. If I will shoot you if you come into my yard, I’m at th3 very least an ass if I don’t tell you that if you step on the grass you die.
More options
Context Copy link
If you have enough power you can do what you want with enforcement, but if women want men to act as if 'no means no' or 'no means never' they do have to mean it. Otherwise the incentives don't work out; you can't ratchet up the penalties high enough to discourage Chads (especially not in western society, but not even if death by torture is on the table), because they think they can get away with anything -- and they often can.
Men chase and women choose. One of the ways they choose is by putting up barriers to filter out the easily discouraged. If you add formal punishment (beyond the rejection itself) to guys who challenge these barriers and are rejected, you reduce her false positive rate -- men who pass that "challenge my barrier" test but are rejected anyway. You also increase her false negative rate -- men who fail the "challenge the barrier" test but should have been accepted, but she doesn't care, there's a surplus of available men on dating apps. The net effect is the Chads have less competition and the others are wiped from the board.
And if you're not one of those "wiped from the board," then what's wrong with that outcome?
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
...taps the sign...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link