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 -
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.
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(!?)'?
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.
No offense but for me if anybody is 'performing a role' (outside of literal roleplaying) something has gone very wrong.
More options
Context Copy link