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 -
Australian boys make spreadsheet of girls attractiveness, national media, federal minister and state premier rush to condemn them. I'm pretty surprised this got any media attention, doesn't it seem trivial? This all happened on some discord server, it's not like they were parading it around. Does anyone think this would happen in their country?
I can't see how 'unrapeable' could possibly be a threat. Saying someone is vulnerable could be a threat, calling someone invulnerable is not... OK it's very rude, suspend the ringleaders - do police need to be involved? There's a certain level of hysteria here, you get the sense that the male principal fears for his job unless he takes this as seriously as humanly possible.
It would be pretty crushing to be labelled unrapeable or 'get out' by your male peers, though I don't see how a counsellor could help.
Context: Australian media and govt have been panicking about male-on-female violence for a few weeks now. We recently had a mass stabbing by a mentally ill man, who targeted mostly women. Accordingly, male on female violence has increased statistically and the government has thrown a lot of money at various NGOs.
Additionally, there has been a lot of concern about Tate corrupting the minds of the youth. So this lets the media hit two talking points at the same time.
A related matter - youtuber argues that ranking women's attractiveness upsets the Byzantine system of female intrasexual competition, where every queen is praised as a 10/10 regardless of ugliness. I found the video pretty decent albeit a few minutes longer than it needed to be. It features the infamous Gorlock the Destroyer claiming to be a 10/10 (sarcastically?), which does make you think. There might be something to it - ranking women by attractiveness seems more dangerous than one might naively imagine.
In the male-dominated patriarchal society of the distant past, accusing men of being bastards or having incorrect lineage was a very serious matter. Legitimacy and preventing cuckoldry was deeply important to men, it informed the whole structure of European politics, inheritance and succession. Perhaps in the emerging future it's female sexual dynamics that will take priority and we'll see more of this kind of thing.
Premier (woman): "This pattern of violence against women — not only does the act of violence have to stop, but these displays of disrespecting women. Like, it's just disgraceful."
Lèse-majesté: an offence or defamation against the dignity of a ruling head of state or of the state itself.
Fun fact - women are way way more critical of other women's appearance than men. In men's category waist, normal weight, clear skin - and you are stable 7. I had some of my female circle declare a 20 year old, tall, blonde, cute, normal weight, nice ass, blue eyed, B-C cup that I was interested in as completely unattractive because of her - wait for it - slightly bigger than average nose. She was also very nice/polite and smart.
And they will tell me that we are objectifying women. Yeah right.
That’s partially because women are more neurotic and partially because they’re competing for men. Men can be pretty harsh on each other and themselves if they’re neurotic and insecure about attracting women, see incel forums obsessing over shoulder to hip ratios and canthal tilt and jawline mewing and cheekbones.
Like men, women often misjudge what the other sex is attracted to (for example most men prefer women who have thicker hourglass bodies, like Sydney Sweeney or Christina Hendricks, to rail thin models, and most women prefer a guy with lower bf% to a roided beefcake type), but I don’t think most women are delusional enough to think a 20 year old skinny tall blue-eyed blonde woman unattractive to men.
To be fair, canthal tilt is a really big deal (and yes mine is that of a god).
More options
Context Copy link
Since "low bf%" and "roided beefcake" are not mutually exclusive, this is an interesting view into the female view of men.
By roided I don’t just mean bodybuilder physique, I also mean the distended stomach, like what Joe Rogan has which people say is a result of steroid use. Muscles help but they’re not a significant factor as long as he’s neither skinny fat nor actual fat. Henry Cavill is hot because he’s tall and has a great face, if he had the physique of a runner or something it would make minimal difference, that was my point.
The pot bellies are a result of HGH abuse.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think this is true. He's got a large, wide frame that he'd continue to have even if he had a runner's physique, and women like large frames. If he was about a foot wide in the shoulders nobody would think he's attractive.
John Hamm is a good example of this. He's a handsome guy and looks good in a suit because he's got a large frame. His actual physique is similar to a sack of potatoes, but it just doesn't matter (yes, it never even began for framecels).
Both Hamm and Cavill are "face attractive" hall of famers, as well.
I agree with everything said about frame size. Add in above average height (that mythical 6' barrier). With those basic ingredients, your next step is building a social status and generally signalling competence and potential (good career, respected by beers, etc.) There are interesting memes that float around the gym-bro internet (these are my people) the hint at the enduring loneliness even after years of "looksmaxxing." Lots of this is tongue-in-cheek, however, the hinted at truth is that, beyond a basic level of fitness, you hit diminishing returns quickly save for those women who really geek out over biceps or something. Especially as you round 30, you need to have all of the "longer term" attributes going as well - career, social life, etc.
But then there are the likes of Cavill and Hamm. These dudes won the genetic lottery. Hamm is notorious for his dad bod. But his face is so epically GOAT'ed (as the kids say) that I think he's largely responsible for the phenomenon of women saying they like dad bods. Think about it - it's not so much a woman saying she wants a dad bod as saying "If he looks like John Hamm, I don't care about him going to the gym." Pretty girl privilege is real, but I also believe that four-standard-deviations-of-handsome privilege is also real for men. I mean, that's the whole plot of John Hamm on 30 rock
you know what they say: in America, first you get the frame, then you get the respect of your beers, then you get the women.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a better stated version of what I was trying to say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah I agree, broad shoulders are important too.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link