site banner
non_radical_centrist  6mo ago (farhakhalidi.substack.com)   7084 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.

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.

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