site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1549 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 19, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've forgotten the name of a writer, whom I think was introduced to via The Motte: The webpage that was linked to was a long piece on female physical attractiveness to men, with good examples of convergence in art (e.g., depictions of fertility goddesses) and less persuasive evidence from porn and sex dolls. The author also had an argument that almost no homes should be built with attached garages, and a zoning scheme that would purportedly accommodate everyone having a SFH with a detached garage. (He was much more persuasive that attached garages generally make facades ugly than that attached garages are a net negative. Part of the argument was that cars don't strictly need to be stored indoors, and other things could be stored in a shed. However, most of the things you would store in a garage are things that are designed to be used outdoors, but would benefit from being stored indoors, and cars are far and away both the most expensive of these things and the most likely to be resold to fund their replacement - if you can park in a garage, you should.) Anyone recognize this description?

Shielding your car from precipitation and sunlight at least is generally a good idea and contributes to the longevity of the framework. And if you go as far as to build a garage for that purpose, it should be used for that purpose, and not as a shed, I'd say. If you also need a shed, then get one built.

Multiple people have linked it, but no one has yet pointed out that the author is a female (cis I believe)

Could be lying, but I don't believe she is.

This certainly makes the complaints that she's 'mansplaining' quite hilarious!

In retrospect I probably should have guessed from the handwriting font used in a lot of the posts.

Bro what

It's more apparent in her essay on why the red pill is wrong, and she calls herself a female writer at the end.

It does make me question how accurate the beauty myth essay is, though, since it's apparently written by a (very unusual) woman and not a man.

The critique that the redpill turns men into emotionally annihilated performing monkeys to satisfy women’s dark urges isn’t new (there was some MRA vs PUA drama back in the day), but it’s well made.

Every time I see that blog post, I get irrationally angry.

The author has bad taste and a myopic, illiterate understanding of art and aesthetics, especially in relation to female beauty. There is a fundamental lack of knowledge about mythology, anthropology, psychology, symbolism, female archetypes.

The section on love/fertility goddesses should be a massive red flag. There is no engagement with the mythology surrounding the goddess figures he writes about. And any extrapolation of beauty standards from these mythological figures, without first a correct understanding of the mythos of said figures, is wholly meaningless, surface-level. And you cannot write about sexual archetypes and not mention Camille Paglia. The section on male gaze is laughable. No feminist theory was consulted in writing the piece. No Freud either, nothing. I am asking for the very basics here.

I hate the picture spam. It is dishonest

The author has bad taste and a myopic, illiterate understanding of art and aesthetics, especially in relation to female beauty. There is a fundamental lack of knowledge about mythology, anthropology, psychology, symbolism, female archetypes.

What is a better interpretation of these pieces of art?

I think that the blog post is great, and has a lot of insight. It's overly long and belabors its points sometimes, but is much more right than wrong imo. I think that the things you're describing as "the very basics" are completely extraneous and I have no idea why on earth you're demanding these irrelevant digressions.

I enjoyed the first few paragraphs as I leapfrogged the weird AI pics mixed with what looked like Flashman illustrations. Then he started using lovedolls as evidence for what all men want, then wouldn't stop with the lovedolls already. By the time he got to the picture of I think peak Tyra Banks along with a few other supermodels in their prime wearing lingerie and his caption was "Not really what men want" I felt certain either I am an extreme outlier (because I want) or he was blinded by his own biases for thicc. Admittedly I have not finished reading, and probably will later

Yeah, that was confusing. Those women have ideal 0.7 hip/breast to waist ratios. Men very much want that.

But, of course, what men really want is the impossible 0.6 hip/breast to waist ratio of anime dolls. Sadly, hyperreal does seem to dominate over real in terms of male (and female) desire.

I think 0.7 is actually the sweet spot and 0.6 is considered less attractive.

One of the things the author does which is kind of bad from is that he will switch between two meanings of "not what men want". Sometimes he seems to mean "men find this repulsive" (as in the case of many fashion models), and sometimes he seems to mean "this isn't most men's ideal woman". In the second case, someone can not look like the average man's ideal woman and still be attractive to many men (both because men are not insistent on getting their ideal, but also because men's individual preferences vary so that some men's ideal woman does look like that).

sometimes he seems to mean "this isn't most men's ideal woman". In the second case, someone can not look like the average man's ideal woman and still be attractive to many men (both because men are not insistent on getting their ideal, but also because men's individual preferences vary so that some men's ideal woman does look like that).

It's explained at the end of the article: the goal is to move into a niche where demand exceeds supply. You can have a body that 15% of men find appealing and 40% of women have or you can have a body that 40% of men find appealing and 15% of women have. Unless you have The One in your sights or have a Groucho Marx approach to mate selection ("I won't date any man that finds my gravity-defying anime tiddies attractive") it's better to have the latter body, simply because now you have seven times more men to choose from and can get to be picky.

It is a really bad post. If I was going to try to annoy the majority of posters here, I would call it mansplaining, but that really is what it is. It starts from a strange premise that women don’t know what men find attractive, and are all out here starving themselves trying to be as skinny as coke era Kate Moss because they’re too stupid to understand that men like the slim thick build with big tits (something rather incongruent with the huge implant industry, almost entirely driven by female demand - ie not husbands demanding their wives get surgery). If anything, it’s men who seem more confused about what women like.

It starts from a strange premise that women don’t know what men find attractive

I actually am much more willing to believe this than I would've been in the past. As I've gotten to know my wife better and better over the course of our marriage, it is shocking the number of times she'll say something which shows that she (or her friends sometimes) doesn't really understand men. My takeaway has been that women do not actually understand men as well as they think they do. It wouldn't surprise me to find that women don't have a very good idea of what men find attractive either.

For what it's worth, some here claim the author is female, and I've seen her referred to as "her" in essays she re-tweeted.

It starts from a strange premise that women don’t know what men find attractive,

Men are belittled for not knowing what women find interesting in dating app pictures (ie not the stereotypical photo of a man with a large fish he caught). Why would only men not know what women like, while women would have insight into preferences of both genders?

If anything it is the opposite: a literal hairy pigwoman can get laid, thus showing women do not need to know anything about men to get their attention, while only a smattering of men will ever be considered worthy of female attention. Thus men have an incentive to try to understand women, which diesn't exist vice versa.

If anything it is the opposite: a literal hairy pigwoman can get laid

Women generally don’t want to get laid, they want commitment from a good man who treats them well. Kudos to circus freaks who find that, but ‘had sex’ does not necessarily indicate it.

Why would only men not know what women like, while women would have insight into preferences of both genders?

Because I think being attractive to men is simpler than being hot to women because men care more about physical features alone while women care about both physical features and more intangible but easily perceived qualities like a sense of presence and charisma, for which being hot is often necessary but not usually sufficient. If that’s misandry I do apologize.

Say you ask the average relatively attractive woman to wear the outfit she thinks men will like the most - she will probably know what it is. Will the average man know the inverse? It’s not that women don’t care about men’s style, either. Men just don’t seem to think about it.

If anything it is the opposite: a literal hairy pigwoman can get laid, thus showing women do not need to know anything about men to get their attention

Since most women have little interest in maximizing the number of sexual partners they have, whether they could find ‘someone’ to fuck is irrelevant. What matters is finding someone good, who will commit, who is nice and who is attractive (in various ways), and that is very much as competitive for women as finding a good partner is for men.

It starts from a strange premise that women don’t know what men find attractive

Do they? If they do, I think the most charitable explanation is that they prioritize other evaluations of their appearance:

  • evaluation by other women, who rate fashionable outfits higher than they rate attractive ones and who downrate women that exploit their attractiveness to the fullest, branding them pick-mes/sluts
  • deliberately lowering the amount of male attention they receive. Back when my wife was my GF I asked her to get a bodycon knit dress, because she had the right figure to rock it (still does). She bought one (nothing racy: long sleeves, knee length, crew neck) and wore it just once, because sudden lulls in conversation when she entered the office really upset her. Her friend would wear the same model in a different color to the same workplace with no regrets

It's fine, you can always annoy us. The lesson of ‘mansplaining’ is that women find correct information threatening.

something rather incongruent with the huge implant industry

Not huge enough, evidently. He probably thinks it should be near-universal, personal interest well considered, given that it’s like 3 points of attractiveness for little effort.

He doesn’t really cover the issues with implants which is that rupturing is an issue, they have to be replaced every 10 years for life (expensive, time consuming, recovery process, inherent risk of anaesthesia), and the initial cost is quite high for many young women, plus you want to shop around to find someone good.

Most people also aren’t relentlessly focused on maximizing their hotness, which is why plenty of people don’t care about style, don’t go to the gym, are overweight etc.

Jesus Christ, I had no idea how shitty they were. All the sales-talk about "helping you achieve the feminine curves you desire" followed by dropping the "hardened scar tissue and breast deflation" stuff is surreal.

The cost/benefit of those things is far higher, especially for women. Men don't care if women have no style, don't go to the gym, and are (slightly) overweight.

You’re typical minding when you say most people know this. People’s opinions bounce off random shit they hear (eg, lies by men reassuring their wives), they can’t cut through it with a sharp intellect like yours.

What would you imagine drives that demand for boob jobs, if women's wants are indeed the driving force (maybe they are, I'll take your word for it)? Women imagining this is what men want them to look like? Personal self-consciousness before the judgment of other women? Or something else?

It ties into intrasexual competition which is ultimately derived from opposite sex attraction but in practice sublimated beyond a broader layer of activity best described as posturing. Men and women both do this in different ways, throughout their lives. Being a man with a small dick is bad, imagine if everybody knew you had a small dick, including other men.

Whoah whoah whoah, who have you been talking to? If it was Ingrid, don't believe a word, plus we dated in the winter time, so there's that.

No feminist theory was consulted in writing the piece. No Freud either, nothing.

I cannot tell if you're serious or sarcastic.

I would suggest if he's serious it's not an unreasonable point. Straw(wo) manning a view isn't a compelling argument for any but the already devout. There are, as well, a gamut of feminist views, from the pathological (Andrea Dworkin) to the clear minded but currently criticized (Germaine Greer) to Ms. Male Gaze herself (Laura Mulvey). He didn't need to write a treatise but not even naming any of these people suggests he just has an idea of what Womyn TM think. I agree the author should read a few books of Camille Paglia's.

https://www.jsanilac.com/essays/

Thanks

It's this guy.

Thanks

https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/?ref=jsanilac.com

This guy, I think.

Thanks

Why on earth is a detached garage a good idea? Just complicates electrical service and makes the house insulation less efficient.
I really regret having so many shitty outbuildings, but it's optimal for property tax purposes. The only one I wouldn't rather be connected to the house is the wood shed.

Unless the house has a very wide and/or particular facade, attached garages are ugly. (And, if you have a large enough lot that you can spare the outdoor area, the indoor area might be put to better use.) In every other way, attached garages are superior, though he believes that most garages are unnecessary and detached garages are a lesser evil, more precisely.

An attached garage lets you enter your house directly after getting out of your car, which is rather practical whenever it rains/snows, or whenever you need to wipe your feet.

This has nothing to do with attached garages and everything to do with garages being the most prominent part of house facades. The latter is indeed bad, but an attached garage is neither necessary nor sufficient for this to happen.

There's also a section on other ways to utilize the interior space. I disagree that attached garages are a net negative, but the argument is not purely aesthetic.

If we're arguing against garages, period, that's one thing. Detached garages are still a utilization of interior space, though, so they don't get a pass there.

I think this has to do with the lots getting narrower and narrower in the US. You can no longer build your house next to a garage without violating various bylaws about setbacks. Look at "Walter White's house", a two-car garage takes up literally half the frontage. You would need to replace the house with a two-storey one to be able to get rid of the garage on its façade and even then it would be a squeeze: the lot is 72 feet wide, with two 6-foot side setbacks it's just 60 feet, a nice two-storey house is 40 feet wide, which leaves just enough space for an attached two-car garage that doesn't crowd the facade.

Front setbacks are bullshit, no doubt about it. However even in this case, plenty of Mista White's neighbors are parking their cars further back. Seems it should be trivially possible to put a garage where that car is and move the main house closer to the curb to compensate. There's no windows on the side facade of the house anyway. I am not aware of setback requirements treating houses and garages differently, but I may be unaware.

Are lots getting narrower in the US? It is my impression that they are getting wider.

I have seen US houses built on agglomerations of four 25′×110′ lots. Obviously, a 25-foot-wide lot would have approximately zero buildable area under most modern zoning codes (example). But such a lot was perfectly buildable back when the lot was originally laid out, one or two hundred years ago.

This video I watched says they are: https://youtube.com/watch?v=b8wnnFUazOY

I think you’re both right but looking at different time periods. Two story houses built on deep, narrow lots were the rule throughout much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in what were often called the “streetcar suburbs.” As the name suggests, residents originally relied primarily on public transportation and so didn’t need lots large enough to accommodate stables, carriage houses, or garages. That changed during the post-war era, when modern suburban neighborhoods with their one story houses on relatively large lots became the norm. Most newer subdivisions these days seem to contain relatively large houses on lots that are smaller than those of the 1950s but wider than those of the 1910s (though not necessarily much larger in terms of total square footage).

That article appears to have been written by someone who doesn’t work with his hands… or drive a nice car, for that matter.

You put the nice car in the garage so you don’t have to spend a bunch of time brushing off the car when it snows. If it’s a ragtop, you don’t have to worry about vandals slicing it open; if it’s a truck with a tonneau cover, you don’t have to worry about leaving it open lest the tweakers break it open to see all the nothing inside.

You also have a garage so that you have room to do things to maintain the house. Need to paint a door, or space to marshal furniture, or maintain the car? You can’t do that if you don’t have a clear workshop… which is what the people in those pictures with their cars outside are using their garage for, and dedicated shop areas are even rarer than garages are.

Detached garages are still ugly for the same reasons attached ones are, but if your lot’s on an incline there’s usually no place to put one. With an attached garage that’s not a concern, obviously.

Oh yeah, and you can just put another storey on top of an attached garage. Sometimes you can even fit two floors, so you have rooms on the second storey with a better view.

You can’t do that if you don’t have a clear workshop… which is what the people in those pictures with their cars outside are using their garage for,

I like attached garages but realistically speaking 3/4 of garages I've seen open in my neighborhood are stacked floor to ceiling, wall to wall with various garbage. Only about a quarter are usable shop spaces, gyms, etc.

Also, even if you don't have a particularly nice car or live where it snows, your car is probably better off not sitting in the sun all the time.

Also it's really nice not to have to go outside to get a tool from the garage.

Glad to know I'm politically unbiased and want to punch nrx architecture nerds in the face just as much as /r/yimby-communist ones.
I'd love to have a giant shed extension on my house instead of having to haul everything out to the workshop(s) in the rain. Even better if it's like a portcullis defending my house from the barbarians on the street. Having a two car garage was the only thing I liked about living in Texas.

How do you know he's a NRXer?

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