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 -
I'm probably going to be corrected by some theology major (I don't care) but let me give my best explanation of Calvinism:
Before you're born, it's already predetermined whether you're going to heaven or hell.
"So why, pastor, should I be good and righteous"
"My son, when you sin, it reveals that you're wicked and going to hell. Best, therefore, to abstain from sin."
As a persuasive technique, this probably works just as good as anything. It's often difficult to tease out causality in noisy data. I point this out in the context of Scott's latest post. Look at the graphs here and tell me what you notice:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-polyamory
I notice that choosing to be monogamous or polygamous barely matters at all across many aspects of wellbeing. But there is one key difference: fertility. Polygamous people have many fewer children.
Does polygamy cause infertility or does infertility cause polygamy? Does it matter? It's extremely dysgenic and bound to go the way of the Shakers.
I would guess that a possibly important outlier for polygamous people is the "roving seducer" type of guy who fathers large numbers of children because he moves on after impregnating each woman. It's just that this kind of person isn't usually considered polygamous in the modern rationalist community sense of "polyamory".
Playing typology with these things beyond self-identification makes it mush in seconds, when we talk about Monogamy vs. Polyamory we are asking people which relationship style they ideologically affirm, not which one they practice. If we're doing practice, it's a mess. We'd have to equally distinguish between varieties of monogamist. If we really wanted to drill down I would propose a spectrum of practice running something like:
"First kiss at the Altar" monogamists, who have never had significant romantic entanglements with anyone prior to marriage. The most ideologically committed monogamists.
Virgins at marriage monogamists. What it says on the tin. May have had romantic, but not sexual entanglements prior to marriage with other partners.
Widows/Widowers who remarried, along with extreme cases of divorce "victims." Last exit in traditional religion.
Serial monogamists. Have had multiple romantic/sexual partners that did not result in marriage, prior to marriage or after a failed marriage, but had some form of "commitment" and exclusivity with each, never had more than one partner within the same time period.
Serial monogamists with exceptions. Trended toward monogamy as a goal, but with occasional periods of hook-ups or hiccups in between. Probably also the right place to put people from 1-4 who cheat. The last of the ideological monogamists.
Hookers up. People who have had multiple partners they are not committed to. They may not have actually had multiple partners within the same time period, but the relationships did not formally preclude that possibility as a condition to the relationship. Drift towards a 5.5 where they have monogamous partners, drift towards 6.5 where they are committed to the bit.
Limited Polyamorists. People who have multiple partners within a ruleset with a primary partner that inherently limits the number and nature of those relationships. The first "real" poly category. Restrictions on Gender, location, care, etc. are common. Typically a requirement of being added to the "circle" is that one is equally ideologically committed to polyamory on this model, so that ie Cheaters are frowned upon.
Equal Polyamorists. People who have multiple partners who are all equally able to draw on time, attention, resources. No primary/secondary distinction within the group. Extremely rare in the wild.
Fully Open Relationships. A relationship structure within which everyone is free to pursue sex with whoever they please, at any time they please. No restrictions are placed on anyone. Typically the strongest believers in the value of "free love" etc.
1-4 are definitely Monogamists, 7-9 are definitely Polyamorists. 5-6 are a little mushy, one can label them either way. If you profess Monogamy but fuck around are you really monogamous? If you fuck around but don't get into the all the emotional and ideological stuff, are you really Polyamorous?
Then you get into the problem of lifetimes. Lots of people I know started out aspiring to 1 or 2, dropped into 4-6 for their twenties or even play at a 7 or 8, and have since rounded down to 4 in their middle age. Where do they fall? Some people get married as a 1 or a 2, then cheat or get divorced and land at a 4 or a 5.
But I hope what's obvious is that trying to poll that precisely is going to be useless, but at the same time trying to conflate categories is going to be useless. A 4 and a 1 are both "monogamous, but I would bet on them having very different TFRs. Ditto 9 and 7 with polyamory.
Until I got here, this is where I was going to object. Among educated, high-income groups that aren't in the Bay Area or rationalsphere sorts of tastes, I would say that (4) and (5) are modal life arrangements, but with the capper being a completely monogamous and normal marriage sometime in their late 20s or 30s. Thinking about people I'm close to, this isn't just modal, it's the almost exclusive pattern. Mess around a bit as a teenager, go to college and date a few people with varying levels of commitment and varying levels of intermittent hookups, then start dating seriously after college, then after a couple relationships settle down. It's entirely possible that I'm in even more of a bubble than I realize, but it seems like not doing that is basically looked down upon among the upper middle-class.
Exactly normal, but also distinctly different from having a partner count of 1.
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