site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28224 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I meant that I imagine that for men who are attracted to women, that those men also have to be able to see themselves as more dominant and masculine over the women they are having sex with

No, this is what I thought you meant -- you imagine wrong, it's not like that at all.

When you imagine having sexual intercourse with a woman who do you want to have sex with? Someone who is aggressive and dominant or someone who is submissive and docile? I prefer the latter for men, the former keeps me from being comfortable enough to imagine performing with them. When bottoms are too active it is a turnoff, do you not feel the same way toward women? Of course I need to believe my partner is attracted to me, so I'm not seeking disinterest entirely, but a partner who is doing less makes it easier to perform versus a partner who is trying too hard to perform their role. You need confidence in yourself and your partner to make love and it's easier to have confidence with a smaller weaker partner than with a stronger one. If straight men don't feel this way then muscular strong women would be more popular as sexual prospects but they're really not. Similarly I don't want to have sex with men who are too strong for me because it makes me feel weak.

Someone who is aggressive and dominant or someone who is submissive and docile?

Either is fine IRL -- if I'm imagining then it varies, but extremely submissive and docile would be kind of a turn-off now that you mention it.

When bottoms are too active it is a turnoff, do you not feel the same way toward women?

No not at all, activity is definitely a plus -- unless one of the partners has some relevant kink I wouldn't normally even frame it in terms of dominance/submission though. I don't think I've ever had a long-term partner with whom the more active person doesn't vary from time to time. I have heard that this is not usually the case for gay men, but while I'm not a mega-slut I'm pretty sure I would have seen something like it at least once if it were generally similar in the hetero world -- do you have any reason to think so other than 'hetero people are probably similar to gay men(!?)'?

If straight men don't feel this way then muscular strong women would be more popular as sexual prospects but they're really not.

The framework you are seeking is just not that much of a thing hetero relationships -- possibly because even a muscular strong woman is in fact easily physically overpowered by most men. A (relatively) strong tall women who takes control of things can be super-hot -- as can a woman who would rather be 'overpowered' or 'used' in some sense.

a partner who is doing less makes it easier to perform versus a partner who is trying too hard to perform their role.

No offense but for me if anybody is 'performing a role' (outside of literal roleplaying) something has gone very wrong.

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