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 -
Your reply is very enlightening and makes sense, thank you.
While I'm not of the mind that all women "want it" just as much as, or in the same way as, men, I wonder if it's true that the majority of women loathe hookups and get no sexual pleasure from them. (I do not dispute that they--hookups, or casual sex without long-term commitment in general--seem mostly downside for women, not even just relative to men but objectively).
Your explanation for why, then, they participate in them (because of exposure to unrealistic media, or again, as a strategy to wrest commitment out of a man) seems as if it could account for some behavior, but I wonder. In the past I knew a number of (younger) women who seemed less interested in commitment at that point in their lives than I was, and certainly were more heavy into hedonistic partying. Now maybe these were a subset of very attractive women who follow their own playbook, and it's possible over time they grew into having more of a view similar to yours, I can't say. But they certainly didn't act that way when younger.
Rephrased that says 3/4 to 2/3 said they did gain something from the experience. Other comments from that table:
You also write:
3% of respondents made comments that were placed in the factor of "learning experience," and of those, yes, they all said the learning experience was negative. But that's still only 3%.
The results section:
Notably yes about a third did not state any benefit, or, put another way, stated there was no benefit. ("i cant think of any in my most recent" was one of the responses that made it to the paper.) I don't know why it is less notable that 2/3rds (the majority) did not lean this way.
I guess at my age I would agree that casual sex for females is risk-heavy, and certainly risk-heavy compared to the same activity for boys, but I can't help but think part of this is still just age talking, this is me forgetting what it was like to be young. And the first paper you're referencing doesn't change my mind.
The second paper seems less interesting in some ways but considerably more rigorous, but then I tend to doubt studies in sociology of this sort, especially when they have neat conclusions. Before that seems like a disagreement, let me point out that at the end of the paper they write:
More options
Context Copy link
It's kind of flimsy honestly. If you don't have a car, you don't get in car accidents usually.
They took an action hoping it would bring further benefits(who doesn’t), and the lack of this (in some cases) is supposed to invalidate the original decision?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link