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 -
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.
I never said women want the opposite, where are you making this stuff up from? Your imagination is running wild. Of course women evolved sexual jealousy, although not in the exact same way as men.
"Hormones released during sex leads to pair-bonding" is highly simplistic. I don't have sources on hand and am not putting together stuff for some clown who can't read and accuses me of things I didn't say, but mating strategies are a widely studied topic.
You're being uncivil.
I took it from the subject we're discussing, redpiller's beliefs . As formulated by thasero in the highest upvoted comment in the thread: "Men like innocent partners, women like promiscuous partners." If you think this is stupid, say so, but I don't think you will, so spare me the fake strawman defense.
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
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