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 -
Anything up until the late 60's is the Hays Code era, so there was a hard limit on what they could show, but no I'm talking also talking about the 70's, 80's, and yes, even the 90's. That's not to say there was not a single movie that showed the act of sex in those eras, but there was a lot fewer of them to begin with, and even when they went there, they showed a lot less.
Yeah, me too. I invite you to rewatch some of them, and have another look at what passed for "pretty darn horny". The 90's is when they started pushing the boundaries, but it was still pretty damn tame by modern standards, even the ones explicitly marketed as "you get to see a titty in this one!".
That doesn't say much, when “sexualized content” you'd bump into those days was a sideboob or gyrating ass, “going looking for it” involved staying up late, and somehow turning on the TV without waking up your parents, or sneaking out someone else's porn stash, which itself was pretty tame, whereas now “going looking for it” is a 5 second search on your smartphone, and the material you get is hard-core porn routinely involving weird fetishes.
I think you hit the nail on the head that the disagreement is about pessimism, but if my assesment of the world is accurate, I think I can get away with calling you that.
I'm not going to fight you too hard on that. It might be a qustion of where, as I notice a difference between diffferent parts of Europe. Maybe all that sun you're getting down under is good for you.
Not quite, but we're not far off. There are pro-pedo orgs that the MSM is running cover for, though they have to hide behind “we're trying to help them so they won't abuse anyone” (even as they host chatrooms where adults can talk to minors), and I can't think of anyone quite as prominent as Foucault.
I also only had second-hand reports, but the gods of the Internet dropped this on my lap today.
I think that data comes from here. I can’t do any parsing on mobile, but authors discuss the results here and here.
I’m more interested in the surge in “met at work/as coworkers.” Presumably, that’s due to women actually entering the workforce postwar. Except it also couples tightly with “met through friends,” which I’d have expected to be a dominant force in old-school dating. Weren’t introductions to eligible ladies a staple of Victorian mores? What happened?
Other weird features: no inflection point after WWII. Generally low prevalence for “met in college.” The “met online” trend taking a nice pause in 2008 before resuming exactly as it left off.
Oh, and then there’s the fact that some couples claimed to meet online in 1981. Lizardman constant, or just the nerdiest of nerds?
"Neighbors", "through family", and "grade school" is taking a dip in favor of "friends", "bar", and "work". Looks like an artifact of people putting marriage off until later.
How do you want to see a post WWII inflection point, if the chart starts in the 50's?
What's weird about that?
Early adopters plateauing out, only to be hit by smartphones.
Sexting over the DARPANET must have been exhilarating in it's own way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link