site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 27, 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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

[Reason without restraint] Rates of risky sexual behaviors by race and sex in the United States

Reason without restraint is perhaps my new favorite HBD blog. While the topics that he writes about are nothing new (race & IQ, race & crime, etc.), he does a valuable service of marshaling all of the evidence in one place in an easy-to-consume format.

Here, he tackles the topic of racial differences in sexual behavior. He uses survey data taken of high school students where they report on various aspects of their sexual activity. The data starts in the year 1990 and extends to the present day. There are five sections to the article:

(1) Lifetime sexual intercourse (2) Sexual intercourse before 13 years of age (3) Sexual intercourse with 4 or more partners (4) Use of condoms (5) Use of birth control pills

Of the five sections, the first three are the most interesting. Based on the survey data, a couple things stick out:

The young people aren't having sex.

I am a bit, um, obsessed with the "sex recession": the dramatic decline in sexual activity in high school and college-aged people. Sex is perhaps the most human activity there is--the physical enactment of our Darwinian imperative, the raison d'etre of so many hormone-drenched adolescents. And yet: young people aren't having sex. Why?

Based on one of the graphs: in 1990, 65% of white 12th graders report having had sex. While in 2021 only 50% of white 12th graders report having had sex. This drop in sexual activity is not limited to white students, of course. It's a large drop across the board. Why?

Black people used to have a lot of sex but not anymore?

Look, I'm not stupid. At this point, I've had enough experience with the "stereotype literature" to know that, overwhelmingly, stereotypes tend to be true. But even I wasn't prepared for how much sex black teens were having in the 90s. I could cite a lot of different numbers, but just to choose one example: apparently, in 1990, more than 80% of black male 9th graders reported being non-virgins. Over 80%! And even if you rightfully suspect some exaggeration due to male ego, more than 65% of black female 9th graders report being non-virgins.

This is just incomprehensible to me. I'll admit that I grew up sheltered and nerdy, but still: none of my friends were having sex or really even close to having sex in middle school. Maybe the 90s were better after all?

What's interesting though is that there has been a rather dramatic decrease in black sexual activity. By 2021, only 30% of black male 9th graders report having ever had sex. And it's the same story for the other statistics as well: in 1990, black people were way more sexual active than Hispanics and Whites while by 2021, they have mostly converged, especially in the case of black females.

Asians don't have sex.

Not too much to say about this one. Pretty self-explanatory.

Condom usage seems... kinda low?

The survey reports that 60% of teenagers report using a condom during their last sexual encounter. Is that not kinda low given teenage pregnancy rates? I am a prude in real life who dislikes salacious talk, so I haven't talked about condom usage with my friends. So I don't really have a strong intuition here.

Overall, a fun article with lots of great graphs. What do I personally think explains the decline in sexual activity? I basically favor the consensus view as espoused by Jonathan Haidt and others: it's the phones (and social media). I think a lot of sex used to happen because people had nothing to do except each other.

Another possible contributing factor: rising obesity rates causing reduced sex drive/erectile dysfunction etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_and_sexuality

But of course that would contradict the evidence from Japan, where obesity rates are fairly flat over the last fifty years but the rate of sexlessness has skyrocketed.

the rate of sexlessness has skyrocketed

There seem to be a lot of cultural elements in Japanese society which may be contributing to that. I can only speak from "stupid crap I've seen online" but for entertainment there is a sub-genre of "[name] texts" which are a sort of misery porn for women, so far as I can make out? And while they're all supposedly set in America, it's fairly clear they originate in Japan (and other East Asian countries mimicking them).

The main scenario is "wife/daughter-in-law" (and daughter-in-law status is mega-important here) or "daughter/sister/sister-in-law" is being taken advantage of by husband/in-laws/own family.

The cultural assumptions are heavily biased towards what, in the genre, are acknowledged to be old-fashioned, traditional ideas, but even the 'yeah this is how everyone lives' assumptions are pretty eye-opening.

(1) Men will stay late after work for drinking parties with co-workers/clients. They won't come home. This is fine and normal. (2) Men will work a lot of overtime, to the point where they won't come home for days at a stretch. This is fine and normal. (3) Men will be sent overseas/to another area to work, even for years at a time. They won't come home except for flying visits. This is fine and normal.

(All the above is "fine and normal" until wife finds out that husband is using this as an excuse to cheat, kicking off the revenge scenario of the texts).

In family life:

(1) Mothers-in-law expect to rule over the household with a rod of iron. This is how it always was, and even if it's now an old-fashioned notion, you owe filial respect to her. (2) This can extend to "give me your bank book, send me money, clean the house, do my errands, obey my every whim". Granted, this is in the context of setting up the misery porn/revenge scenario, but there is the underlying expectation that, as the daughter-in-law, you try and get on with her and do a heck of a lot more obedience and biting your tongue than any Western woman would accept. (3) You may be derided as a stay-at-home housewife only living off your husband's money or as a working woman who is not taking proper care of the household. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (4) Grandkids. You have got to produce grandkids, or else. Perfectly acceptable for threats of divorce if you don't get pregnant.

A ton more assumptions around elder and younger siblings, respective places of in-laws, etc. Now of course, I realise all this is exaggerated in the same way romance novels are exaggerated, but by the same token, there has to be a certain level of grounded in reality for this to work. If nobody had a nagging mother-in-law and a mama's boy husband in reality, then this stuff wouldn't resonate.

The takeaway is, if I were a Japanese woman, I certainly would have no interest in marriage under those conditions. Parents-in-law expect to move in to household or at the very least be taken care of by me, constant interference by in-laws, and a husband who may be absent more than he's present due to work, and I am supposed to put up with all this and take it.

No wonder there is a high rate of sexlessness. Even on the best showing "Sorry honey, I won't be home all week because work is sending me someplace/keeping me working overtime, I'll get a hotel room" isn't the way to have a flourishing sex life.