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 -
In general, sure, but that wasn't my impression of how the word was being used, which was more like "brothel." I suppose in the hypothetical where it's my exclusive use harem, but I still don't have to interact with them, there's no STD concern. And while we're at it, let's stipulate that they each have a dozen IUDs.
I would still not want them, given the alternative of something monogamous. They sound exhausting. I like the feeling of winning on my own merits that comes with sleeping with someone I "earned" rather than bought.
Given all of the stipulations here, we've moved so far from "men want to cheat/have lots of casual partners" that I think it's pretty irrelevant. And, so implausible as to be even more irrelevant, in the same way as "if science could perfectly grow new bodies and move over minds, and adjust for the lack of growing up as that gender, and retcon others' memories, then surely you'd agree trans women are women."
Uh, do you know what a concubine was? That's not a trick question by the way- lots of people actually literally don't know.
Concubinage varied from culture to culture but typically referred to a relationship very similar to marriage, but in which the woman got a worse deal often due to having a lower social status. Most cultures, unless they suppress this tendency, will develop some form of this over time- cohabitation and sugar babies in the modern US fills the same niche- and it was a committed relationship. And throughout history you tend to see kings having multiple concubines(mistresses being the same thing in practice), but you don't see kings brothel hopping that often.
Well, now I do. I suppose if I'd thought about it harder, I could have defined harem/concubine/brothel correctly, but mea culpa.
I still don't want one.
Well said, and a decent metaphor for fighting reality on a number of fronts I suspect.
By the way- harem doesn’t mean what you think it does either. It refers to the woman’s part of a large household- in other words, it’s a reference to gender segregation and not to the sexual satisfaction of a single man. Historical harems housed a large number of women which were not involved sexually with the man who owned the house.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Weren't harems typically exclusive to a man?
The relationship between the man and his concubine in his harem is different than a man seeing a prostitute in a brothel.
Children with concubines in a harem seems desired historically some men haveing hundreds of children with hundreds of concubines.
If your successful enough to have a harem with many concubines, you have earned it, even if you've bought some at the slave market. Presumably this level of success is also helpful in supporting the hundreds of children you produce with the concubines. The concubines may be motivated to have your children as it raises their status as well.
Yeah. As mentioned in another thread, I got my whorecabulary a bit mixed up.
If I could do it over, I'd s/harem/bunch 'o fuckbuddies/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link