site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   33893 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 2024

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not cool and fun when men engage in casual "fun" sex

No offense but you need to touch grass

  • -30

Your talking points are straight out of 2015, it's amazing that you just pretend the last decade of evidence for e.g. title IX abuses doesn't exist

Either make the actual argument, or keep it to yourself. Dropping in for an insult is against the rules.

No offense but you need to touch grass

Notably, this is not actually an argument.

Can you provide a rigorous distinction between "casual fun sex" and "rape culture", as understood by current-year Feminism? I certainly can't, and I notice most feminists can't draw one either.

It tries to change, through brute legislative force, the most private and intimate of adult acts. It is sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent; two college seniors who've been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test.

The "yes means yes law is terrible, but necessary...

If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. Because for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended, and men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.

We're a full decade past the point where the ideological schizophrenia within Feminism became impossible to ignore. Naïve ra-ra sex-positivism is dead, Jackie killed it, and Title IX cremated the corpse. If you disagree, take it up with Ezra Klein and the DOE.

ideological schizophrenia within Feminism

I think it's better understood as "the Junior Anti-Sex League wearing a rotting skinsuit of sex positivity", which is why feminism for the last 10+ years has been very concerned with promoting everything-but-straight-sex.

The problem with doing that is that eventually, you run out of road and have to get more extreme to still be considered sex-positive, which is why they've pivoted to things like valorizing the castrated (i.e. transgenderism) and ensuring that, provided you pass a paper bag test, the age of consent does not apply to you.

Was Sex Positivity ever actually workable, or did culture war dynamics aid in sweeping its contradictions under the carpet for a decade or two? "Skinsuit" implies that there was something alive and worthwhile inside that skin in the first place. Does it seem to you that this was the case?

It seems to me that Horny Liberalism was never actually going to work long-term. Sex is not, in fact, harmless fun; it simply has too many consequences, physical and psychological, for it to be treated as such. Those consequences can be hidden for a time, but they build up and sooner or later they demand a reckoning. For that matter, it seems likely to me that the same is true for LGBTQ2A+; the reckoning will come, sooner or later.

Was Sex Positivity ever actually workable, or did culture war dynamics aid in sweeping its contradictions under the carpet for a decade or two?

The latter. It "worked" for a small group of elite men, who could use their celebrity star power to reel in an endless series of naive young women (or teenagers), bang them, and cast them aside. Their wealth and social status shields them from most of the worst consequences. Huge boost for them over the days of Victorian England, when even a celebrity aristocrat like Lord Byron faced the risk of a lynch mob from his scandalous actions.

But its not going to work- it cant work- for the average male. There's not enough women to go around for wvery guy to get groupies, and women aren't going to be attracted to the average guy compared to the celebrities she sees on TV. The women who do sleep with those celebrities often end up psychologally scarred from the encounter. Or in the extreme case, trafficked to Epstein's island or something similiar.

[I hope this is at least somehow coherent. If I had more time I'd compose a post that has more of a condensed point.]

Sex is not, in fact, harmless fun; it simply has too many consequences, physical and psychological, for it to be treated as such.

Sex is harmless fun so long as you're a man liberal. Most people are not men liberal, a lot of people resent the fact they're not men liberal, and the gender role of men social role of liberals is to make devotion to them not degrading (a role in which they have failed as is in their nature to do, and something that "well, the man brings home so much money that I can deal with the occasional mistress standards of living are increasing so quickly that even spaces free of all that liberalism are enhanced by accepting that the sanctity of the commons is diminished by their presence").

The Sexual Revolution made it possible for a lot of women to enjoy being men liberals too. Technology and antibiotics brought the risks of straight sex to an all-time low; so women on the margins (with a slightly higher risk tolerance) could reasonably expect to get more action without getting knocked up. Which is good [citation needed]. It helped marriages in all sorts of ways, too; you could actually have a healthy marital sex life without having so many children that you couldn't fit them all in the station wagon.

And then the '80s came and the places you could meet people all died. And a turbo-STD came out as a death sentence. And the economic golden age ended, so the social stakes went higher (to the point where the non-liberals were once again empowered to whip out their purity boners and fuck up everything). In short, sexual liberalism stopped being affordable; it recovered slightly in the '90s and '00s only to take a dive [suspiciously coincident with the rise of ZIRP economics, now that I think about it].

Do I think it was worthwhile to encourage high-value transgender liberated people (as in, people who are liberals inside but unable to come out of the closet for various sociopolitical/socioeconomic reasons)? Yes, because I think that when people who can do that get to do that, it makes them happier and thus more productive (and considering the people who can do that tend to be of high value more generally- one only need look at how many furries in tech there are- keeping them happy has far more value than keeping an angry wokescold happy and therefore that wokescold should be oppressed by having to suffer the existence of furries). People who are able to act like children/liberals/mistake theorists all day are more innovative than those who have to act as adults/in self-defense/conflict theory; that's why tech startups outcompete large firms. And so on. (If men must toil, they might as well maximize return on investment while they're at it.)

[I do admit this is more 'feelings' than anything else; I haven't measured workplace productivity across free and non-free societies and I'm not even sure you can given different starting conditions. I have noticed that most people who migrate from less liberal nations to more liberal ones tend to be unusually productive, though.]

So yeah, I think there is value in having less friction in sexual relationships (because the negative consequences are less salient, you can disengage from a relationship that goes south much easier), and the need to fuck defensively is net-negative for the enrichment of a class of person who does not actually create anything (while they do tend to spawn 200 pounds of cat food upon death that's not intentional on their part). Especially if we can encourage the people who eventually might end up in the unproductive class to not even consider it.

For that matter, it seems likely to me that the same is true for LGBTQ2A+

I'm honestly not sure how their position follows. I think that the only thing that's going to do them in is some unforseen upheaval that puts them in the same company as the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts (i.e. they fall out of favor with old women while old women are in power), and because they're an excuse for old women to wield power through weaponized tolerance, well...

sweeping its contradictions under the carpet

I think the problem with liberalism/childishness is that it's an emergent property of a society (enabled by its wealth) and not a coherent means of political organization (mainly because once they can organize they're too busy enjoying the fruits to plan long-term). If it was able to do this, it wouldn't be liberal, it would be something else.

Can you provide a rigorous distinction between "casual fun sex" and "rape culture"

Do both parties enthusiastically want to have sex with each other? That is casual fun sex.

It’s really not hard to define rigorously. Of course it’s harder to set down a list objective evidence that proves both people enthusiastically wanted to have sex with each other, but notably for the vast, vast majority of casual sexual encounters the facts are not in dispute.

  • -13

Do both parties enthusiastically want to have sex with each other?

What if one or both parties later think "You know what, I wasn't enthusiastic about it?"

Do both parties enthusiastically want to have sex with each other? That is casual fun sex.

This is not a rigorous definition. A rigorous definition would offer a clear way to distinguish the state of "enthusiastically want to have sex with each other" from the absence of such a state.

It’s really not hard to define rigorously. Of course it’s harder to set down a list objective evidence that proves both people enthusiastically wanted to have sex with each other...

...You say it isn't hard, and then explain why it is hard, and make no effort to actually do it successfully.

but notably for the vast, vast majority of casual sexual encounters the facts are not in dispute.

Do you disagree that the vast majority of rapes are unconvicted, and a large majority unreported?

This is not a rigorous definition. A rigorous definition would offer a clear way to distinguish the state of "enthusiastically want to have sex with each other" from the absence of such a state.

It’s a fully rigorous definition, “enthusiastically want to have sex with the other person” is a well-defined state of the world. Separately, it is difficult to provide objective evidence of this state to outsiders, but that doesn’t mean that the definition isn’t rigorous. Fortunately it’s extremely rare for there to be any disagreements.

  • -16

It’s a fully rigorous definition, “enthusiastically want to have sex with the other person” is a well-defined state of the world.

So it's a rigorous definition because it's well-defined? What makes it well-defined? What are the simple, easy-to-assess components that allow us to distinguish A from !A?

Separately, it is difficult to provide objective evidence of this state to outsiders, but that doesn’t mean that the definition isn’t rigorous.

My understanding is that definitions exist to draw distinctions in reasoning, and rigorous definitions allow us to draw distinctions in reasoning rigorously. You seem to be conceding that your "rigorous definition" can't actually draw distinctions in practical examples of the issue encountered in the real world, which is the fact that I'm attempting to discuss with you. If "rigorous definition" is a hindrance, I'm happy to discard the term and use whichever term you'd prefer to encapsulate the problem of actually determining, whether in advance or in hindsight, whether sex was rape or harmless fun, in a way other than simply the woman's say-so.

If on the other hand, you believe that the woman's say-so is in fact all that is needed, that abuse of this power isn't a problem worth worrying about, and that men concerned about this evident power imbalance are just being silly, I'm prepared to take you at your word. At that point, it would be interesting to hear how you reconcile your perceptions with those of Ezra Klein, the state of California, and the Department of Education, which seem to directly contradict you.

Fortunately it’s extremely rare for there to be any disagreements.

You are arguing that sex is basically just harmless fun in the vast majority of cases, and we don't need to think too hard about the exceptions. Klein is explicitly arguing that enough cases are harmful that a considerable portion of all the Fun in sex needs to be replaced by explicit, government-enforced fear.

So it's all fun, except for the parts you don't want to talk about, and those parts need draconian punishments stripped of due process and all the other procedural safeguards. But they're rare, which is why it's okay to be super-loosie-goosey with who the draconian punishments stripped of procedural safeguards will actually be applied to, and why there's no actual need for someone to be able to tell, in advance, whether they're in danger of them.

Klein says there's a crisis that demands immediate action, and damn the consequences. You say everything's fine.

Which is it?

So the fake "1 in 4 women" statistic about college rape counts as something being "extremely rare"?

I uh, think he had more to his comment there that you failed to respond to.

For my part, casual fun sex is probably the optimal outcome/lifestyle for like <10% of males, who are psychologically inclined against commitment and towards Hedonism, but outside of the literal rockstars who engage in it, merely being a manwhore doesn't make you 'cool' to the larger population.

The point is men having casual sex are widely perceived as cool.

Yes, and the comment you replied to was making a normative rather than descriptive claim, and it’s wild and uncharitable to interpret it otherwise.

Were the anti-drug PSAs in the 80s that said “it’s not cool to do drugs” making a claim about the belief systems of teenagers?

I really do not think that is the case.

For example, is a man who constantly goes to strip clubs to pick up strippers for sex, or hires escorts on a weekly basis... do people consider this guy 'cool' for all the sex he has (and pays for?).

Is the guy who hangs around college campuses to hit on younger girls and seduces a new girl every month or hits up frat parties to bring drunk girls home 'cool?'

Is the guy who trolls the apps and hits on every single unattractive female he can find, and manages to bag one every so often, 'cool?'

I think the 'coolness' is ALMOST ENTIRELY derived from the status of the person engaging in the casual sex. A rock star, a celebrity athlete, maybe the guy who fits the 'bad boy' or 'outlaw' model to a T is 'cool.'

The mere knowledge that a guy engages in lots of casual sex isn't going to raise his social status much, but a guy with a lot of social status will have an easier time getting casual sex, and the fact that he gets so much casual sex is considered a perk of being so cool.

I.e. casual sex doesn't grant men status, men acquiring status grants them casual sex.

I think this is a kind of sleight of hand.

The image of a man who has lots of casual sex is perceived as cool. Movie starts and rock stars, playboy business gurus etc.

The reality is way bleaker - Bikers, gang members, drug dealers, drug abusers, semi-homeless but sort of handsome or a smooth talker, divorced uncles who cruise North Vegas casinos, real estate hustlers and YouTube "buy my course!" influencers. Their sexual partners are not starlets and supermodels - they're desperate, often addicted or otherwise compromised women who are so fragile that a literal smile is all that's needed to win their affections. The reality is that your median "playboy" probably has a familiarity with the criminal justice system and is not someone you would want to hang out with.

This is I believe both inaccurate and extremely uncharitable. Guys who fuck around are probably not mostly criminal losers.

Nor are they mostly superstars. We don't know the real mix, but men that are so successful and popular that women throw themselves at them are rare by definition. The most common non-"criminal loser" guy who has lots of casual sex is a mildly sociopathic college student/young professional: he knows his target demographic, knows how to steer the first or at most the second date towards sex, knows how to dump them the morning after.

But being a guy who gets fresh disposable poon every weekend is lower status than being a guy who gets a new supermodel girlfriend every few years.

Also I think its a reversal of cause and effect.

Guys who are 'cool' just have an easier time getting casual sex.

So casual sex is a perk of being cool.

So yes there's some association with coolness and casual sex, but I can think of a number of scenarios where guys who get regular casual sex are in fact deemed 'pathetic' by society.

Is a guy that goes to Thailand on a regular basis specifically to engage in sex tourism 'cool?' I can't think of a single case of such.

I’m not sure what your point is? I’ve been married for a while but had lots of fun casual sex beforehand?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats