site banner
non_radical_centrist  6mo ago (farhakhalidi.substack.com)   7090 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.

It's the usual stuff. Your parents assumed that it will, like, just happen.

Now that it's been 10 years I realize that the whole point of my Ivy league education was to meet people and that dating would have been a better use of my time than doing my homework. But at the time I didn't understand.

It's the usual stuff. Your parents assumed that it will, like, just happen.

People don't waste mental effort analyzing things that work. It's why no one can draw a bicycle even if they ride one regularly.

It's a curious phenomenon. When I was a teen, I made an effort to seek out the best arguments against gay marriage, in favor of traditional gender roles, in favor of Christian sexual prudery, etc. The apologists I found were hilariously bad at this, and they melted into a puddle of "it's not natural" and "things have always been done this way". I did not find them convincing.

Now that dating and marriage are broken, cogent defenders of these position can be found. The clock was taken apart, and people see how it ticked.

I believe this happens with almost all belief ideologies - Most modern socialists are hilariously bad at defending socialist/communist idealism beyond the most elementary criticism, with the only notable person I know who can hold their own being Zizek. Likewise, modern atheism has become low hanging fruit and poorly upheld compared to it's intellectual roots of Dawkins and others. There needs to be intellectual and social challenge to peel away the grifters and the stupid to reveal the people capable of actually defending an ideology.

IME, almost every bit of "bad" advice I see people complain about is basically this - just assuming well-adjusted people will find their way. And it isn't (wasn't?) even usually wrong, which is what makes it worse. There's no easy solution in just stopping people from it.

What do you mean it isn't wrong? My friend with by far the most successful love live in high school and university told me that getting a girlfriend is something that "just happens" and that you don't need to try. Is that what you're referring to? Because that doesn't work.

and that you don't need to try.

Oh, that's too far. There are annoying people like that but they're oversold. I don't think the average person thinks men should literally do nothing. The people telling you to "just be yourself" are taking it for granted that you are doing other things (like maintaining a social life).

I mean that the banal advice people give that you always hear complaints about are usually just assuming that people possess the same amount of socialization and enough agency to work their way through it like they did. People for whom it doesn't work naturally get frustrated, but that doesn't make it wrong or, as more neurotic and paranoid sides of the internet claim, some sort of plot or acceptable lie like telling kids about Santa Claus. To use one example from this sub: this is not bad advice, even if someone is not well-adjusted enough to take it.

The little advice I got from my parents wasn't bad, even though they came from a totally different society. They assumed it'd work out. And, had I been a different person, it absolutely would have.

That reminds me of some useless (for me) advice I've read online, where people say that, to socialize more, you should start accepting any social invitations you get. I and many other people already do that. The hard part is getting the invitations in the first place.

For a certain type of person this is indeed good advice though. I definitely know people who are struggling to meet anyone for dating but don’t see how rejecting any social interaction has any relation to this.

Also social interaction is a snowballing thing. When you first enter a new social network (university, work, potential new friend group, sports team etc) saying yes to that one invitation early on can mean hundreds of invitations down the line. Conditioning someone to always say yes so they don’t miss out on that freshman’s party where multiple friend groups formed is quite useful

For a certain type of person this is indeed good advice though.

It might have been good advice for OP, if they'd gotten it at a different time.

Using your example, much more useful if you're headed into your first year of college compared to when you're 25-35 or whatever.

So far I have given them four grandkids. So that's something. But I didn't start participating in the dating market until I was 25 and married someone they probably thought was a step down.

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