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 -
A week ago, in the context of a discussion on some NYT article, @2rafa commented that “there is an unstated (on the progressive side) premise among all people that casual sex is a bad deal for women and devalues or dishonors them in some way”. It generated a few replies but basically no further discussion, even though I’m sure it’s worthy of further discussion, and here’s why: as far as I’m aware, it’s certainly not the case that progressives had this attitude from the beginning of the Sexual Revolution, which is what the context is here. Obviously they used to have a different view in general, but sometime along the way, they changed their minds, because things turned sour, essentially.
Before continuing I think it’s important to qualify, as 2rafa also did, that other ideological groups also share this basic view, but the two main differences are that right-wingers tend to state this view openly, whereas progs are usually reluctant to do so, and that they do so on religious and moralistic grounds, whereas progs concentrate on women’s individual long-term interests, not on any other considerations.
So anyway, I said to myself: surely these people, being progressives, believe that the Sexual Revolution, while a laudable event, went haywire at some point, and didn’t bear the fruits it was supposed to. And I can tell that this is a relatively widespread view, because I can see it expressed in various online venues all the time, not just this forum.
What went wrong then? What did the Sexual Revolution basically promise to average progressive women, and why did that turn out to be a lie?
I’d argue that the more or less unstated promise of the Sexual Revolution to young single women was that: a) they will be sexually free without inviting social shame i.e. normalized sexual experimentation and promiscuity on their part will not have an unfavorable long-term effect on men’s attitudes towards them, and women will not sexually shame one another anymore b) they will be able to leave their constrictive gender roles to the extent they see fit, but this will not lead to social issues and anomie because men will be willing to fill those roles instead i.e. men will have no problem becoming stay-at-home dads, nurses, kindergarteners, doing housework etc.
And none of that turned out to be true.
Am I correct in this assessment?
What seems strange to me with progressives is that after rejecting most Christian values that constituted the backbone of Western civilization, they still hold on to some of them arbitrarily.
'Kinkshaming' is bad, sex work is good, but rape is still some kind of immense evil. Raping a sex worker should be seen as a variant of theft and assault. Raping a promiscuous person some kind of assault, depending on the circumstances.
If it's up to a Christian person not to be offended by porn, drag shows, Pride parades, and all of the other almost inescapable manifestations of progressive values, why can't a feminist put the awkwardness or repulsion of unwanted sex aside?
As the joke goes, statistically, 9 out of 10 people enjoy gangrape. Rape is not your thing, it does not mean that you have a right to deprieve other people of their fun.
I think I did see some European progressives defending immigrant rapists to the tune of 'they don't know it's wrong, it's their culture', aside from that rape still seem like a big taboo. Another exception seems to be with the topic of transwomen in bathrooms/prisons.
Now that every progressive woman is probably using anti-pregnancy contraptions, the worst outcome of rape seems to be some discomfort, especially if the receiving end does not struggle.
At a time where suggestions are made to abolish police forces or to provide financial reparations, would it be so crazy to include physical reparations to those who have unfairly been deprived of physical affection?
Another facet of this morality problem of the modern-Westerners-in-Christian-skinsuit is regarding children. If you do not care whether your children grow up to stay chaste then enter Christian-opposite-sex-marriage-for-life, then...
Surely if a child is old enough to make important social decisions about their sexual identity, or taking artificial hormones, why would they not be old enough to engage in sexual practices?
Why would it be immoral for you to make your child available to adults that may want to engage in sexual practices with them, or initiate them to sexual practices, like the government is doing with sex education? Why are they offended about being labelled a groomer? They should be able to proudly reclaim the g-word like sex workers the w-word and rappers the n-word.
Aside from this extreme example related to children, why do progressives sometimes complain about age gaps in relationships? Isn't dating an older man empowering? It's ageplay, it's domination, it's a kink, why do they shame?
Good point.
As someone concerned about juvenile transition, and who also thinks the AoC is too high, I think I can actually use both the modus ponens and modus tollens versions of this.
(More generally, I think the big issue with the AoC debate - or to be more accurate, non-debate - is the one Scott described in the Eighth Meditation: "older person wants to have sex with younger person" is seen as creepy, and for most people advocating for a lower AoC means getting tarred with that brush, which keeps anyone respectable from doing it and prevents the Overton Window equilibrating. In theory, 13-year-olds could advocate for AoC 13 and get away with it, but only for 3 years before it becomes a millstone should they continue; this makes it really hard to assemble a solid bloc, particularly after taking into account the likely reaction if one attempted to recruit teenagers to advocate for lowering the AoC. Still, the Internet probably helps somewhat with this issue.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link