site banner
Crowstep  1yr ago (worksinprogress.co)   1743 thread views

Why we Duel - Works in Progress

worksinprogress.co

Submission statement: Anthropologist William Buckner discusses the social purposes and methods of duelling in various societies.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As an experiment, I want to have a season of the reality TV show The Bachelorette with the rule modification that any contestant can publicly challenge any other contestant to a boxing match at any time. Currently the basic rule features one woman and thirty men competing for her affections, each week she chooses some men to stay and lets some go, until she gets down to the last guy, and then they get engaged and hopefully (though not typically) later get married. Typically they already do one boxing/wrestling or other forced violence date a season. Much of the show is about competition and dislike and hatred and other reality tv show drama created between the male contestants.

The new rule implemented would be that any contestant can challenge any contestant at any time to an amateur boxing match in front of other contestants and the cameras. If you do so, everyone (other contestants and the woman) knows that the challenge has been issued, but the challenged is under no obligation to take it up, and victory or defeat means nothing. Winning doesn't mean you automatically move on, or that you're right about the argument, losing doesn't mean you lost the argument or you have to go home. The lead woman is free to send the winner home and keep the loser, or send a challenger home and keep the man who refused to fight him. Win or lose you are free to go right on talking shit about what x said about y or whatever. The only impact of the challenge would be that everyone knew the challenge was made and whether the challenge was accepted, and then the men would fight publicly.

I'd love to see how this would play out. Would the lead favor winners? Favor smaller weaker men who accept challenges even if they lose them? Would she send big strong men home if they challenge a smaller weaker man over nothing worth the effort? Would she send a man home who challenges repeatedly, win or lose, because he is too violent? Would the men themselves behave differently, avoiding drama or giving bigger dudes a wide berth, to avoid challenges? Would there be a standard established, a Bach-verse "Code Duello" where x is a sufficient insult to require a fight but if you challenge over Y you're the weirdo and he is under no obligation to accept the challenge? I'm sure a lot of people think they know the answers, but I'm curious to see what they actually are. How is the willingness/skill to use violence valued in a romantic partner in 2023?

There have been real life examples of big violent dudes who try to start shit with smaller, weaker dudes and use their physicality to intimidate or injure others. Often a particular smaller, weaker dude will latch onto this for screentime and start playing "bait the gorilla" hoping to provoke a violent response. The violent dudes nearly always get sent home quickly, but the smaller weaker bullied dude also ends up getting sent home not long afterward. It's tough not to read that as the women saying: I don't want a violent moron, but I also don't want a pussy-boy who can't stand up for himself and runs to mommy to tattle. How would this dynamic change if there were a formal "let's fight it out" process?

Typically they already do one boxing/wrestling or other forced violence date a season.

I've always asked women watching the show if they understand what's going on here at a more-than-subconscious level. Watching the show in a multi-gender group is illuminating (even if the women are self-censoring quite a bit).

I absolutely love the idea of a formalized process, but I can't imagine the mental toughness it would take to juggle:

  • Being isolated from friends and family for multiple weeks

  • Trying to act and build a personal brand for your financial future

  • Avoid committing crimes against leftist orthodoxy during a sexual pitfight

  • Deal with the perpetual threat of real physical violence from your housemates

As much as these reality show pricks deserve a punch in the face, it's not something I'd personally sign up for.

The violent dudes nearly always get sent home quickly, but the smaller weaker bullied dude also ends up getting sent home not long afterward. It's tough not to read that as the women saying: I don't want a violent moron, but I also don't want a pussy-boy who can't stand up for himself and runs to mommy to tattle.

This has been exactly my read in previous watches of the show. However I'm refusing to reward them with a viewer for metrics after the sold Chris Harrison down the river for the race-baiting BS kerfuffle. The ratings tank seems to show they've miscalculated on how valuable the woke kowtowing was.

I can't imagine the mental toughness it would take to juggle:

Being isolated from friends and family for multiple weeks

Trying to act and build a personal brand for your financial future

Avoid committing crimes against leftist orthodoxy during a sexual pitfight

Deal with the perpetual threat of real physical violence from your housemates

I've always thought the skillset required to win The Bachelor/ette is actually very similar to the skillset needed to survive interrogation in a prisoner of war camp, or hold up under tough questioning in a police station, or run for Senate. What it's tough to think about is all the producers off camera who are asking them questions, leading them on that so and so is talking shit, pumping them up that they have a chance when they don't, or flat out lying to them about things that happen. And over and over the contestant has to look into the camera and repeat how he's there for the right reasons, how he loves love, never say anything negative or go against the weird mix of progressive feminism and brainless-protestantism that form the core values of the show. It must take a tremendous amount of mental fortitude to ad-lib playing the character in real time, never slipping up, never making a gaffe that becomes a controversy for an episode. A technically perfect contestant, like Katie Thurston when she was a contestant or Tyler C, is impressive in its own right, its own kind of performance.

I haven't watched the bachelor ir bachelorette, but my girlfriend watches love island. And the behaviour of the men and women there is so bizarre.

For no reason, they all profess that they're there to find "the one" and only thing they care about is love. And yet they're all the most handsome men you can find with bodycounts into the hundreds. All suddenly acting like complete simps. And I don't understand what motivates the behavior.

Usually once you break up with the one you paired up with originally you're pretty much out the game. Nobody wants to pair up with you anymore and new people aren't accepted into the OG group.

The optimal strategy seems to be to pretend to love the one you're with, and yet the women all act like huge bitches always finding fault with their man and constantly being annoying and creating drama.

Much of the show is about competition and dislike and hatred and other reality tv show drama created between the male contestants.

In Germany the social dynamic is that at the Bachelor the women contestants are forming cliques, gossiping and intriguing against women outside but giving support inside their group, but that the Bachelorette is way more boring. Every bit of drama has to be inflated 10x by production as the men contestants are just partying as bros.

Just depends on the year. You get some legendary male villains, like Chad and Luke P, who were all-timers. Or Nick Viall, the GOAT, sleeping with the lead midway through the season. I've never watched the German version!

The addition of females has potential to disrupt the peace-making abilities of low-grade violence. In that scenario, I think it produces more violence rather than less.

Unless the woman, who has all the power (quite literally in this scenario) to reward or punish violence by keeping/removing contestants, chooses to prevent or punish violence. Which is the thing I am most interested in seeing play out! Keeping in mind that my theory is the Lead basically wants to end up engaged to a man she could marry at the end of the process; while I do think the contestants/leads are in it for fame, the best way to set yourself up for life fame-wise is to form a couple that stays together, have kids, etc.

The lead could send a man home after a fight even if he won, if she felt it was inappropriate to do so. She could probably send a man home early, before the fight even occurred. I suspect, logically, the group would quickly converge on moral rules for when fights are appropriate or inappropriate. Things like "If you challenge the same guy over the same thing twice, you're going home" or "if you're always getting into fights, you're going home" or "If a big former college football lineman challenges a scrawny programmer, he gets sent home (and maybe the programmer does too)." Or regulate reasons to start fights: "X claiming that Y said that he's only here to promote his Tequila Company" is good and Y has to fight for or apologize; but if X is trying to start a fight because "Y took my lunchmeat and ate it when he knew I was planning on eating it" then Y is under no obligation to accept.

Also keep in mind that the men themselves can pressure the Lead. Either hard power by Unionization plays, more common in recent seasons, where we've seen a group of men go to the Lead together and say "X is dangerous/abusive/mean, if you keep him we're all going to walk." Or by simply speaking to her about what's going on.

Unless the woman, who has all the power (quite literally in this scenario) to reward or punish violence by keeping/removing contestants, chooses to prevent or punish violence.

I guess we have different reads on women then. I would expect them to encourage as much violence as possible. "Let's you and him fight" is the oldest female dating strategy in the world.

I would think that at least in some cases there’d be a check on that. You could get a big, strong asshole that challenges the shit out of guys for slights real and imagined and proceeds to kick their asses because he was an amateur boxer or something. Is this the winning strategy? The Bachelorette devolving into a de facto amateur boxing championship?

Oh not at all, I think that is a very possible outcome. That's exactly why I find the possibilities fascinating. What level of violence would be attractive? At some point choosing for violence becomes maladaptive, but some degree of choosing violence is adaptive, where will it land?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats