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 -
Oh, very little written or drawn porn or erotica does much for me, given my own tendencies. But I think the page does present the fantasy as erotic/arousing, this is how the author imagined it would go in her/his sexual fantasy, and few people imagine sexual fantasies that are weird and ridiculous and completely unarousing. The contrast is the point here, and if you're going to say "image of fantasy is meh, image of reality is meh", then that point is lost: "I thought it would be sexy and cool, but in reality it turned out to be weird and awkward and a turn-off".
In the drawn image of the fantasy, the author is imagining she has a genuine, flesh, penis being sucked by the girlfriend/boyfriend. In reality, it's a pink plastic strap-on with a harness over her underwear. The former is the erotic fantasy of the author in her daydreams, the latter is how it was when she tried it for real. If both images are "well this isn't a turn-on for anyone", then they're both pointless and don't need to be included.
Note that the set of those people and the target audience for the book overlap nearly completely. Everyone else is either busy having sex or browsing nhentai (which is just as bad, according to traditionalists, but their understanding of human sexuality is just as malformed as it is for the self-proclaimed queers).
Yes, but the fact that they're both drawn the same way is the main reason I criticize the book in the first place! It's the story of a woman who bought right into Orthodoxy-Approved sex, rejected it (because it was stupid), "but hey, at least it's not straight sex amirite".
If this author actually wanted to promote queer sex, which she doesn't (and 'queer' in this sense, and more generally in usage of that label post-Tumblr, is just 'women who want an excuse not to have sex with men'), I'd expect it to be pushing top of the charts on [insert your favorite drawn porn site here]. But it isn't, and that is why.
So the reason I'm against it being in libraries is that it's a bad piece of literature that fails to do what it sets out to- which is the mistake theory version of why it's bad, not conflict theory coming from [people who also don't understand sex but no longer have the institutional power to force their misunderstandings onto everyone else].
It's the woke version of a Chick tract, really. Art's just as ugly, too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link