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.

It's fascinating, going through this bizarre, alternate reality hellscape of sexual relations. Absent is even a single person in a monogamous relationship. Not even a single one. How is that even possible? You don't know one single person in a relationship? You don't even know of one? This reads like some sort of speculative fiction where relationships have been outlawed.

It is a bit of an elephant in the room in the article, but at the same time, I don't think it'd be completely necessary to include. Most people agree that a loving monogamous relationship with good sex is the ideal. Saying that out loud again doesn't change anything. The point of this piece is just to push back against toxic sex positivity without back sliding into toxic purity. It's about nudging our current culture a little bit closer to a better equilibrium. It's not about describing the perfect equilibrium with lots of happy loyal relationships for everyone.

Maybe there really are just two breeds of men.

I think it's more of a spectrum, but there are definitely a lot of different male archetypes. Incel and red pill types are mocked for stuff like that video which went something like "Are you a Sigma Male? And is it better than Alpha?" for the weird categories they had, but I think there's a fair amount of truth to those categories.

The point of this piece is just to push back against toxic sex positivity without back sliding into toxic purity

"toxic" aren't traits of impersonal "sex positive" or "purity" cultures - they're attitudes and actions of individual people, which are going to exist no matter the "culture" or "norm" you set up. There's no systematizing your way around human imperfection and failure, including but not limited to shittiness and evil.

Leaving out any examples of healthy monogamous relationships, in an article trying to figure out how to escape some sort of sex positivity trap, and then throwing up your hands and going "There is no way out! Might as well do sex work!" Is nonsense. Its ignoring the most obvious examples to learn from about how to escape said trap.

But then again, this assumes agency. That there is something women could do in order to find and keep emotionally healthy relationships, as opposed to them being things that randomly happen to some people and not others. And if you dont believe women have agency, I guess it makes sense to not try to learn from them. It would be like trying to learn how to win the lottery.

Which way modern women... which way. If they don't believe they have agency, they'll be treated the way those without agency are treated.

Cultures which treat women like children have notably higher marriage rates, and marriage is probably the best proxy for what women actually want(loving, committed, and more or less monogamous relationships).

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