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 -
There's a large difference between having a high body count and repeatedly telling your boyfriend about it. The former can sometimes be ignored (and contra redpillers claims, has nothing to do with sexual desirability. Wife-material-ibility, perhaps) , the latter is an emasculating power play (fine, shittest).
At the heart of my disagreement with redpillers on female promiscuity however, is that I cannot bring myself to condemn women for what I take for granted. Trads, okay, they’re against promiscuity generally, no hypocrisy there. But redpillers apply trad arguments only to people who aren’t them. Sex harms your soul or something, unless you’re a man, then I guess it’s okay to harm other people? Their locks and keys analogy isn’t doing it for me. You can get treasure from some terrible locks, and some locks are pristine simply because there isn’t any treasure behind.
As far as I can tell, the male equivalent to the slut in the Red Pill worldview is the orbiter simp beta, who's mostly just as much of a duped loser as the other. When you think about it that way, it makes sense.
Men and women trade sex and commitment.
Simps cheapen commitment in the same manner that skanks cheapen sex. It's why they're seen as "losers". They do not value what they have enough to demand its value from others.
Or maybe, what they have just isn't valuable. Free stuff is usually shitty.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Men and women are nothing alike so this makes no sense. It's like a man saying women are hypocrites for wanting a man taller than them when they're only X feet tall. Nothing operates on logic here, so you can't suddenly apply logic to the male "hypocrite" case, everyone is a hypocrite.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sure there are moral hypocrites out there, but from what I've seen of redpill arguments per se, the reason for men to be promiscuous and women to be innocent is simple: Men like innocent partners, women like promiscuous partners. Therefore if you are a man who wants to succeed, you should be promiscuous, and if you are a woman who wants to succeed, you should be innocent. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Suggesting that a man should be a virgin himself if he wants a virgin wife is like saying that he should have D-cup man-breasts if he wants a girlfriend with good knockers. It might seem fair in a moral sense, but as strategy it's gibberish.
Likewise, the question isn't whether a promiscuous man should want a promiscuous woman, the question is whether he actually does. The question isn't whether women should feel empowered and emotionally whole after a promiscuous sex life; it's whether they actually do.
Of course, recommending in favor of promiscuity for men and against it for women runs into the practical problem that the amount of casual sex has to add up somehow, even if it's never been exactly equal. But that's just as much a problem for modern feminism as it is for redpillers; if the hot guy who was juggling 5 different casual partners suddenly became Mr. Open Honest Commitment, the other 4 women he didn't pick would still have to re-asses their sex lives. As the OP says, there aren't enough mega-players to go around. The reason every promiscuous woman has slept with one is that they were sharing.
You said his strategy was to have a high body count. So to get the non-promiscuous woman he wants, he should want promiscuous women. It creates a paradox in evolutionary terms.
Secondly, does he actually want a virgin wife ? Sure, if you ply me with studies showing promiscuity and infidelity are correlated, I’ll concede that less is better, I guess. But it’s not important to me like attractiveness is. Show me the man who averted his eyes from porn because it featured a promiscuous woman. And women’s love of men’s promiscuity is even less clear.
Not in the least? There is a long historical phenomenon of men with the ability (often higher status) plowing through great numbers of lower-status women, but with one equal-status partner/wife. In evolutionary terms, this is the apex of male evolutionary potential, both the high-investment of a stable, high-status partnership for one set of kids, plus a scattering of bastards across the status spectrum. An economist might call it a well-diversified genetic portfolio.
Does he want the promiscuous women or not ? It makes sense for him to have a non-promiscuous woman as a wife, just like it makes sense that she should be rich, politically connected etc, but how is that hard-wired ?
Camus says of Don Juan: "[When he leaves a woman], it is not because he has ceased to desire her. A beautiful woman is always desirable. But he wants another, and it is not the same thing."
Of course men are attracted sexually to sexually attractive/available women. Of course some percentage will take the opportunity of sex with a promiscuous woman, regardless of their intentions or hopes for a long term relationship. Of course some percentage of that will be fine with settling down with a formerly promiscuous woman, and some even smaller percentage would be fine with settling down with a currently promiscuous one.
Where you fall on this issue depends a lot on how big or small you think those various categories of behavior are.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This comment makes it clear that you don't understand the argument being made by the other side.
If you did, the question you'd actually be asking is "show me the man who withdraws commitment and resource-provision from a woman when he discovers her promiscuity" - and that's a question that can actually be answered a lot more thoroughly.
Then I'll show you women who withdrew commitment when they discovered their husbands' promiscuity.
During their marriage or before it?
More options
Context Copy link
Are you actually interested in having a conversation and understanding what the other side is trying to claim, or do you want to try and score sick burns instead?
The basic assumption they operate under "Men like innocent partners, women like promiscuous partners" is false, or marginal at best. So when you try to use anecdotes as proof of your universal law, I think a counterexample is appropriate.
Do you really not believe this? How many women do you know?
This isn't some oblique inference I've picked up or just assumed. From the dozens of actual mouths of horses, women do not want to lash themselves via marriage to a man with unknown sexual skills, preferences, and penis size. While men (bizarrely) tolerate hot dead fish for a long time, rolling the dice on ever having an orgasm from someone else just doesn't even pass the sniff test of rationality.
I'm not saying women only want lotharios with high body counts, but an untested virgin is a massive risk.
More options
Context Copy link
Is true if you just add the statement with "traits associated with". A 22 year old who has had sex with 9999 guys, had her mind and body wiped to be equivalent to the 22 year old that lost her virginity at prom, eventually broke it off, and is now marrying her college sweetheart is probably just as appealing so long as the man doesn't know. But there is no such thing. A man who is promiscuous is high status because he can win women. A woman wants a man who can win women, because women are convinced by this. But the woman also wants to win him and end his promiscuity streak. If they could have a virgin that simply refused 100 propositions a day from hot actresses, they would pick him over the guy who slept with all 100. But again, they can't have that because it doesn't exist (aside from possibly Tim Tebow).
Isn’t it strange that when they marry, women do a 180 on what they want in a man? I thought those were hard-coded preferences. And if they aren’t, I’m pretty sure early promiscuity in men is also correlated with greater rates of infidelity, so women would be just as anti-promiscuity in partners as men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wrong. Men have a preference for women with low partner counts when it comes to seeking long term relationships - but it isn't the only preference that they have. Individuals are complex and there are multiple factors involved in what makes someone a compelling choice as a partner. Partner count is just one of a galaxy of factors at play in any individual interaction or mating choice, and while influential, it isn't the only quality being looked at. Women generally prefer tall, wealthy and handsome men - pointing out that short, poor and ugly men can still find partners doesn't even reach the point of needing refutation because it does nothing to even address the point being made. Some women marry men who are shorter than them - this does not mean that there is not a general trend of women preferring that their partners are taller than they are.
Similarly, the notion that men are the gatekeepers of commitment does not mean that men have exclusive control over all relationships and their preferences are the sole determinant in how relationships play out. Jeremy Meeks and Leonardo DiCaprio are more than capable of turning women down for sex, and JK Rowling doesn't have to think twice when she turns down a local plumber's offer of making her his housewife and living off a portion of his income. This does nothing to change the broader general trends and isn't some "gotcha" for the view you're arguing against.
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
Redpillers have an inherent logic to them too. They don’t think men and women are the same so there’s no issue there. They believe men and women have different desires.
This is the a common opinion in most of the world and throughout history, not something specific to redpillers. Also notice that women are allowed to have different desires of their own, it's only when men have some desire that isn't matched that western misandrist society considers it problematic.
More options
Context Copy link
I am familiar with their logic, I think it poor and self-serving, but you're welcome to try and explain it. I don't believe men and women, the rich and poor, or you and I, are the same either. You need more than that to carve out an exception to a rule. The apparent reasons for the old exception have fallen away: the link between sex and pregnancy, the uncertainty of paternity.
The reasons we love sugar have fallen away. The evolved attitudes towards it still exist though and must be accounted for.
More options
Context Copy link
Are you really saying that there is no difference between biological sex differences and social-economic differences? You seem to be employing a rather weak strawman...
More options
Context Copy link
I’m fairly certain you know their reasoning. We are an evolved species so the desires we have come from what was beneficial when we were evolving. So to maximize happiness you still with the rules when we evolved.
American legal system is still set up like uncertainty of pregnancy exists. You’re still going to pay if some other dude knocks up your chick. Along with all the other financial losses of splitting assets in divorce etc.
It's not an oversight. The state wants to foist as much of parenting as possible unto some private citizen and not itself, and women obviously want more freedom to leave marriages and so lobbied for more favorable laws.
No one is going to suddenly realize tech has changed the game and adapt because it's serving a pragmatic purpose. Well, people have adapted - in the other direction. IIRC France just banned paternity tests. This is not a failure to account for the lack of uncertainty, it's simply deciding the uncertainty shouldn't matter.
Or redefining the very marriage contract, from another point of view.
Exactly. The system is built to ensure the child gets paid for, not to enforce paternity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Telling men they shouldn't be worried about promiscuity because it's no longer linked with paternity certainty, is like telling people they shouldn't have sex because it no longer results in pregnancy when they use protection.
It's about how evolution wired our brains.
There’s two justifications for those preferences, pick one:
A) It’s hard wired. Counterexamples: men don’t act like it’s all that important, especially in their sexual desires, the most hard-wired of all, desires that bypass the brain entirely. Women do have problems with promiscuity in men.
B) There are rational reasons for those preferences. Answer: Those mostly went away with modernity.
It's not a complete binary, environment and genetics interact in very complex ways. But sexual jealousy is quite common in humans and other animals for obvious biological reasons, and to argue these are completely cultural is just insane.
Women experience sexual jealousy. Men want to have sex with promiscuous women. Evolution apparently wired you differently for fucking, and for the primordial institution of marriage, back in the savannah. Yeah it's very complex maintaining a theory contradicted left and right.
Women do experience sexual jealousy as well, not sure what your point is there.
Yes evolution is complex, pair-bonding did evolve and requires different investment as a strategy on the part of the male. All of this clearly happened and the different strategies can even be seen in different mammals, let alone the Savannah. Human males align with the different strategies and differ in their investment to loyal women vs promiscuous women.
Where is the contradiction?
My point is that you try to use the sexual jealousy of men as the backbone of your 'men want non-promiscuous partners, women want the opposite' theory. Obviously if men and women do not differ on jealousy, your theory goes down the drain. But it's even worse than that, because your theory predicts a sort of anti-jealousy for women.
The second contradiction, and this stands undisputed even by you, is that men do want to have sex with promiscuous women.
The third one is that our ancestors did not have the institution of monogamous marriage. It's clear they wanted to have sex with promiscuous women, and since the hormones released during sex lead to pair bonding, we can assume they were pair bonding with them. Anyway, if you have sources, I'd like to take a look.
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
The "uncertainty of paternity" exception remains in effect because it's socially taboo to ask for genetic verification of paternity. And even so, the husband may still be liable for alimony after a divorce caused by infidelity.
It remains important to be convinced in the reliability of your partner before marriage. Low body count is an honest signal for that worry. (Although, like other honest signals, it's unreliable and can be faked.)
Those are good points, but the logic is mostly post-hoc for many men like me. This is about the most primal and fundamental instinct evolution has drilled into our brains. Even with 100% paternity certainty, non-virgin women disgust me.
That disgust doesn't seem likely to be from evolution though. The posited male evolutionary strategy is to impregnate as many women as possible, in a scattergun approach. Tribes conquered other tribes and integrated their women virgin or not. To put it bluntly, your genes do not "care" as long as the woman is fertile.
Your disgust then seems likely to be culturally instilled not from some in built instinctual urge which in fact the evidence suggests runs the other way. That men are sexually attracted to young, fertile women no matter their status or promiscuity.
Oh I would def bang non-virgin women, but marrying one when I could have a virgin is what makes me so uncomfortable. Men in the west assume they wouldn't be like this and it's not part of their culture anymore, but I've met some muslim converts and when they realize it's an option they quickly change their minds lol.
Also you're only partly right about the tribes conquering, some of the women who weren't virgins were sometimes killed. Sometimes all women were killed. It really depends on the circumstances. I'd love to steal a loyal woman from another man as part of my harem, but that's not the same to me as being with a woman who had promiscuous sex before me.
I agree the gene-environment interactions are very complex, but that hardly means my jealousy instinct is just culturally instilled, any more than the fact that we can pressure people into killing themselves means they don't want to survive.
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