site banner
non_radical_centrist  7mo ago (farhakhalidi.substack.com)   7245 thread views

confessions of a femcel: why i'm a 24 year old female virgin.

farhakhalidi.substack.com

It's an essay about the various flaws modern feminist sex positivity culture has for women, and that it's often a good idea to refrain from sex even if one isn't religious. The author is an Only Fans model for context. I thought it did a great job laying out the downsides of ubiquitous sex.(Reposted because I accidentally linked to reddit instead of the original essay earlier).

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In no particular order:

  • Her college sex and dating environment does sound pretty bleak.
  • Islam as represented by the people in her life also sounds pretty bleak in respect to women.
  • She does seem to be perpetuating some of the bleakness with camgirl activities and inviting romantic prospects to bed then ejecting them again, rather than just not inviting them.
  • As is sometimes said, it probably isn't to women's advantage that colleges are very female now. But it doesn't even seem cearly to men's medium term advantage, if the women come out jaded and thinking of men as basically beasts.
  • It seems like eventually the college girls would learn to say things like "I want a romantic relationship, not a one night stand" and hold out against the "why's" with their experiences of disappointment? It doesn't seem like most of them care all that much for the sex in and of itself, or are all that carried away in the moment aside from the effects of intoxicants they're choosing to take.

I think saying you want a romantic relationship has the excluded buyer issue especially with gender imbalances in Universities.

Let’s so there is the captain of the football team let’s call him Travis. And there the Rich hot girl who’s a ten let’s call her Taylor. Taylor may want a relationship. But Travis knows he can also get a dozen girls who don’t quite know they aren’t Taylor quality. So he goes that route. Which then puts Taylor wanting a relationship at her level to jump in the game too. Then add in gender imbalances. Maybe the bottom 30% of male market doesn’t hasn’t matured and doesn’t have many desirable dating traits yet.

Guys getting a choice between hanging out with the better choice or going down a rung and having a lot of fun choose to have a lot of fun. They learn to fake interest a little (but kind of think it’s just manners by providing plausible deniability). Now you have market dynamics where sluttiness is required to get attention. Of they aren’t invited to the right parties/events. Or even get chances to hang out one on one.

I guess one could say girls should form a union to eliminate the behavior. Which we did use to have. It was called religion. But society decided that was archaic.

It’s like game theory. Perhaps the best position for all girls is not to be a slut. But once a lot of girls are defecting their move becomes to defect too.

This seems to prove too much. How is it that anyone finds a long term partner in college? And yes, this does happen, I know of several cases.

One party intentionally or unintentionally dates down, finding a partner who recognizes the very good thing they got and holds on tight.

I don't think so.

Back in the day, fathers and brothers would take it upon themselves to defend the woman's honor. If a man slept with a woman under false pretenses of a long-term relationship and then just abandoned her, they would beat the crap out of him, ostracize him, and possibly even kill him.

We can't do that in modern society and, while the rule of law is useful and helps protect people from threats of violence for less significant offenses, I think something was lost here.

You can totally do that today, it would take 5 seconds of google to find a story about someone beating up his daughter’s boyfriend for messing around. And there are literally laws on the books in multiple states against things like ‘seduction under false promises’.

You can do that, but it's rare. Therefore, as in Scott's Be nice at least until you can coordinate meanness (which I only partly agree with), it doesn't really do much unless it's a norm. The curve of behavior as a function of consequence is highly nonlinear, and a rule which is enforced in 0.1% of cases might as well not exist, since people will just ignore it. A world in which each instance of hooking up under false pretenses carries a 0.1% chance of getting beat up or having to go to court leads to basically no change in behavior and just increases violence to no benefit. It's only if men seeking to take advantage of women expect to actually face consequences, and have either had it happen to themselves in the past or to people they know, that they will factor those consequences and rethink their behavior.

Back in the day, fathers and brothers would take it upon themselves to defend the woman's honor. If a man slept with a woman under false pretenses of a long-term relationship and then just abandoned her, they would beat the crap out of him, ostracize him, and possibly even kill him.

In goatfucker patriarchy, male family members would "defend a woman's honour" by killing her first. Whether they go on to deal with the man depends on the clan politics of the situation - punishing him is a nice-to-have for the standard honour-culture reasons, but not a social obligation. Farha Khalidi is Arab and claims to have been raised in an at least somewhat traditional Arab Muslim family, so she is seeing this through the lens of goatfucker patriarchy, not Christian purity culture. This is based on a (correct) assumption that getting into a situation where illicit sex can happen almost always involves mutual co-operation, and also on the practical issue that the no-longer-virginal woman is damaged goods regardless of fault and therefore her continued existence is embarrassing to the family.

The notorious Jeb Rubenfeld rape article points out that similar ideas exist in the English common law of rape - before feminism, "rape" was a carve-out for the small subset of illicit sex which was 100% the man's fault. Trad Christian culture solved this problem with shotgun weddings, which are not okay in a culture with strong arranged marriage norms. Modern Christian purity culture deals with it by denying the agency of teenage girls and allowing Daddy to lie to himself that she was mind-controlled into it by Chad's magic thunder cock, so punishing Chad is a sufficient solution.

goatfucker patriarchy

Write like everyone is reading and you want to include them in the conversation, please.

I think you’re pointing out, correctly, that she’s going at it from the perspective of ‘this is how patriarchy works in goatfuckerstan’. It’s worth emphasizing for the audience- goatfuckerstani patriarchy is legitimately a worse deal for women than modern or historic Christian purity culture. Pagan primitives patriarchy is possibly an even worse deal.

FWIW, I think modern Christian purity culture is bullshit (in the Harry Frankfurt sense of something fake and not intended to be taken seriously, not as a moral condemnation). Apart from a small number of families still practicing Christian patriarchy most "conservative" Christians are living in mainstream post-sexual revolution America and lying to themselves about it.

There is a certain minimum degree of patriarchy in societies with enough socially necessary physically demanding work that they need non-elite men to be productive (i.e. not hoe cultures). It is an interesting question how close medieval Christian patriarchy got to that minimum. I find it entirely plausible that if you asked the question "Where was the best place to be a non-elite woman in year X given various gender norms in different cultures?" that the answer would be "Cishajnal Western Europe" for most values of X between 1100CE and the present.

Absolutely agree that if offered the choice to be reincarnated as a woman in a city of your choosing, but a random year, you should pick Rotterdam or London.

There is actual change in behavior involved in ‘Christian purity culture’, however, even if the patriarchal elements are generally larping.

Out of interest, why Rotterdam over other places in the Netherlands?

As the main trade hub for Western Europe it would have had a relatively consistent middle class and some insulation from food shortages.

It seems like eventually the college girls would learn to say things like "I want a romantic relationship, not a one night stand" and hold out against the "why's" with their experiences of disappointment?

That does happen, but is also impeded by men putting a lot of effort into deceiving women they want more than hook ups, then not doing hook ups. And some women also being horny enough at times to go along with it even if they regret it later.

It seems like eventually the college girls would learn to say things like "I want a romantic relationship, not a one night stand" and hold out against the "why's" with their experiences of disappointment?

It seems like they don’t do this because teenaged girls(which is what they are) aren’t capable of regulating their own emotions well enough to say no to a guy their interested in.

I was admittedly both rather low agreeableness and not particularly hot, and also unlikely to be friends with Ms. Khalidi. But it doesn't take all that much willpower to not invite a man into your dorm room on the first date after getting burned a couple of times?

This is precisely why these debates are grating as @f3zinker says; we suddenly develop a whole new standard for agency in order to turn a problem into a trap.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What trap? What standard for agency? Isn't f3zinker the one asserting without elaboration that women have no agency?

There is no trap - as in "a problem that's unpredictable and becomes worse if one uses their better judgment". There's a problem that's very soluble to the actions of the selective sex.

I took f3zinker's point to be more that, in many cases, we just tell people to do the sensible thing to avoid certain problems. But in this particular case people try to contrive some explanation (and/or blame society/men/patriarchy) for why people can't just do the thing that makes it seem like they've been trapped rather than just misusing (allegedly - revealed preference and all that) their agency.

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