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 -
Do you think men are more or less likely to go out rioting, shooting, or looting if they have a wife and/or kids to come home to?
Do you think men are more or less aggressive and/or desperate when they can reasonably expect that they will be able to find a long-term partner and 'settle down' with them in the near future?
Do you think that the current environment of hypercompetition in the dating market makes men more or less altruistic and conscientious?
Is that what 'control of female sexuality' looks like? Isn't tying a man down and having kids controlling male sexuality?
I guess my point here is that I don't see this idea of rampant promiscuity ruining the dating market any more believable than a claim that men spending all of their time watching Minecraft streams ruining the dating market, and I definitely don't see 'dating is hard' being the main cause behind recent unraveling of the social contract.
I doubt that it has a large scale net effect.
You might notice the term I used was rein in, not 'control.'
So yes, promoting the idea that both women and men should try to partner up monogamously is reining in female sexuality, in a world where they otherwise have virtually limitless partners to choose from.
It's likely a series of feedback loops that all play into each other. I said as much: "Note I'm not saying this is the ONLY condition for dysfunction (plenty of dysfunctional societies which heavily police female sexuality, cf. Iran) but just a seemingly major factor that contributes to dysfunction in the long run."
But I suspect that its similar to the obesity epidemic. Despite the prevalence of technology and prosperity making our lives easier, lots of people have worse health and less fulfilling lives than before.
So, too, is the 'ease' of connecting with potential partners causing some people to see worse outcomes. I think the evidence is clear that women are asymetrically able to exploit their sexuality for personal gain in this environment.
Hence, you'll see outsized effects by focusing on female sexuality as a causal factor.
Interesting.
Pick a source you find reliable and tell me if you still believe that after reviewing it:
https://news.unt.edu/news-releases/men-have-highest-risk-low-self-esteem-while-using-tinder-unt-study-finds
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201810/are-dating-apps-damaging-our-mental-health
https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-020-0373-1
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/cyber.2019.0561
https://nyctherapy.com/therapists-nyc-blog/how-dating-apps-can-impact-mental-health/
Synonymous.
Hell, that might be a bigger influence than anything else, because it's making a larger and larger fraction of people unattractive, but you're still striving for an attractive partner. Just not striving in a way that includes reducing calories.
I still don't understand how you're seeing a scenario where young women go after older men as entirely the fault of women or their sexuality and not a mutual decision made by both men and women.
'Dating apps are bad for nental health' isn't automatically a support for the notion that unrestrained female sexuality is responsible for societal ills.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link