site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33233 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One distinction: homosexual men and men who have sex with men (MSM) are different terms. As far as I know, the blood donation screening questions have always been activity based, maybe very early understanding and terminology was fuzzy (GIRDS). So claims of discrimination against homosexual men are conflating terms and missing the epidemiological reason of the bans. On current blood donations, the organization I donate with asks about 'new sexual partners in the last # month', STI questions, if you have ever tested positive for HIV or taken HIV prevention medication. Questions which maybe more finely target the MSM population they want to exclude.

One time when I was donating blood an old-time volunteer about how at one point blood donation was a free HIV test, so some men would donate and then call later and ask the red cross not to use their blood.

One distinction: homosexual men and men who have sex with men (MSM) are different terms.

Only to the extent one is trying to get gay men in denial to admit that they are gay. In normal usage, if you have sex with men you are gay or at the very least bi.

There's actually a practical use here. Certain populations (two big examples in the use: inner city black men (see: "down-low" culture), and the prison population) will have sex with men and never ever say they are homosexual. In the case of the convict side of things they'll often never have sex with men outside of prison.

Awareness and use of this information ends up being relevant for certain kinds of health screening.

There is a distinction. Despite being ex-gay I have never been a sodomite; there's supposedly some in the opposite direction though I have more trouble modeling them mentally.

You can be gay and not have sex with men, of course, just like you can be straight and not have sex with women. But I reject the idea that you can have sex with men and not be gay (or bi). That makes no sense whatsoever.

Ehh... I could see straight guys going 'gay for pay' in porn or prostitution while they're otherwise heterosexual in their desires.

The late Billy Herrington (RIP) did manage to discover his bisexuality after having been in a straight relationship. His girlfriend was the one who got him into modeling in the first place.

Would you mind explaining, if you’re willing? It sounds like there’s a story there.

I was attracted to men in the past, consider myself cured, and have never had sexual contact with another male.

Were you exclusively attracted to men, or to women as well? If the latter, wouldn't that make you ex-bisexual? If not, does this mean you also became attracted to women at a certain point, or have you wound up asexual?

I see, thank you for explaining.

Did the "cure" happen spontaneously or was there some method that you used?

Yes. I worked through a therapy book written by a doctor van den ardweg(I don’t remember the title) under supervision.

Trivially, I was bisexual or gay for the better part of a decade before I entered even the most expansive definition of MSM, and that's as someone that was a pretty late bloomer when it came to having any interests.

One distinction: homosexual men and men who have sex with men (MSM) are different terms.

As a gay man who has only ever had sex with women, I appreciate this.

This is one of the artifacts of left thought that I find to be especially intellectually bankrupt. The idea that identity is only ever a personally applied label without dependency in the real world, especially behaviors. If I can identify as whatever I want despite hard counters by reality and/or a repeated behavioral pattern, then "identity" is as meaningful as fantasy LARPing; I'm gay, and also a level 40 dwarvish warlock. They're both made up and just fun things to goof around with!

But the problem is that we've imbued identity with the force of law. Protected class of people exist. Bostock v. Clayton County linked sexuality identity and gender identity to the 1964 Civil Rights Act --- what I "identify" as is literally as important, legally speaking, as age and pregnancy status - things that, for now at least, is still objectively measurable.

Either something is real and important or it isn't. If the only arbiter of my "identity" is my own self conception and subject to instant total revision based on nothing more than my mood, how can we ever approach something like equal protection under the law?

One distinction: homosexual men and men who have sex with men (MSM) are different terms.

Fellas, is it gay to bang another dude?

Is it gay for intoxicated college girls to kiss and grope each other (or more) for the purpose of getting male sexual attention, without "debasing" themselves with male sexual interaction? I wouldn't say it isn't, but the point (in case it needs to be stated) is that demographics aren't natural kinds, so having purpose-specific definitions of certain categories in certain contexts is better than the alternative.

(See, also, The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For The Categories)

I think you can argue that behaviors can be gay as distinct from people being gay - so those girls would be doing gay stuff, but if it's just a one-off thing rather than something they pursue regularly, they aren't themselves gay. The phrase "Men who have sex with men" however, implies men who habitually have sex with men, not just "Men who fooled around with another man at some point". Bisexuals notwithstanding, it's easier to argue that that is essentially synonymous with "gay".

Looking back on this thread, I can't believe my throw-away joke sparked this much conversation...

I took it as a joke, but it's also an interesting question.

so having purpose-specific definitions of certain categories in certain contexts is better than the alternative.

I am in agreement with this specific statement.

The point in contention between the two sides here is precisely if 'MSM' and 'gay' mean the same thing or not.

If they are not, then of course there needs to be a separately-created purpose-specific definition.
If they are, then 'gay' is said purpose-specific definition, and 'MSM' serves no purpose.

The point in contention between the two sides here is precisely if 'MSM' and 'gay' mean the same thing or not.

If they are not, then of course there needs to be a separately-created purpose-specific definition.

If they are, then 'gay' is said purpose-specific definition, and 'MSM' serves no purpose.

I think others gave good examples of ways in which they have different meanings.

Gay is an identity (something you are).
Banging other dudes is an action (something you do).

Men do, women are, so men naturally assume that when you ask them this, you're asking them to apply the woman's label. Unless you're a man predisposed to Gayness (which forms part of the problem with Gays, from the average man's perspective), that is inaccurate, insulting, and outright dangerous.

Of course, that also means they won't be part of any discussion when women and Gay men are trying to create an identity to describe this phenomenon, so it's not like the mistake theorists in those groups are even going to get a chance to know that. And the conflict theorists do it intentionally because male-coded sexuality bad.

I’m rather confused by this post.

Are you trying to say that there are no “gay men” because “gay” is an “identity” and “identities” are “for women”?

Do you believe that there’s a legitimate distinction to be made between “gay men” and “men who have sex with men”?

Do you believe that there’s a legitimate distinction to be made between “gay men” and “men who have sex with men”?

Yes, I find Sin's wording a bit odd regarding the women thing, but I like the are versus do description. There is a legitimate distinction there. Gay men are a particular subset of MSM, and part of defining the subset is the cultural component.

Do you believe that there’s a legitimate distinction to be made between “gay men” and “men who have sex with men”?

Gayness is a white construct, other (sub)cultures may reject the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low_(sexual_slang)

Down-low is an African-American slang term[1] that typically refers to a sexual subculture of black men who usually identify as heterosexual but actively seek sexual encounters and relations with other men, practice gay cruising, and frequently don a specific hip-hop attire during these activities.[2][3] They generally avoid disclosing their same-sex sexual activities, even if they have female sexual partner(s), they are married to a woman, or they are single.

Gayness is a white construct

On the contrary, it’s a colorless reality!

subculture of black men who usually identify as heterosexual

Much the same as how men can’t “identify” as women, your capacity to alter reality through self-identification is quite limited!

In the overwhelming majority of cases, a man who continually seeks out sexual contact with other men is doing so because man ass/dick turns him on. We have a word for such men, and that word is “gay” (or, occasionally, “bisexual”).

In the overwhelming majority of cases

This is only true if you restrict the scope to the West (I suspect the key criterion is "countries formerly but no longer dominated by Abrahamic religion"). Globally, the overwhelming majority of male-male sex happens in the context of machismo-based homosexuality, and the man dicking another man doesn't think dicking men is gay, or at least not in the context he is doing it in.

He accounts for the existence of "gay men" as a population distinct from men having sex with other men.

I suppose the evidence (e.g. prison sex) indicates that there is a distinction to be made. Although in the majority of contemporary cases, it’s being used as a cope.

In 19th and early 20th century Britain you were a homosexual if you liked to be penetrated by men, but if you were the one doing the penetrating you were not considered homosexual. This is similar to the culture of the Roman empire, which saw nothing wrong with man penetrating another man but considered being penetrated to be shameful. All that to say, the conception of the "gay man" as being someone who wants to have any kind of sexual activity with other men is historically quite recent.

I don’t think it’s quite true that gay topping was even remotely socially acceptable in Victorian England.

Who ever said it was acceptable? It wasn’t: sodomy was a sin and a crime, both for the sodomizer and the sodomized. It’s just that the sodimizer wasn’t considered to be homosexual. He’s just a guy who stuck his penis in the wrong place, like someone who commits beastiality. They wouldn’t consider someone who shtups sheep a zoophile with a sexual identity, he’s just a guy who did a sex crime.

More comments

Unacceptable like cannibalism, or "unacceptable" like adultery?

More comments

There was a researcher from the mid twentieth century whose name I forgot said this is basically supported by the psychological research.

Being the top or bottom is more than a preference, they’re really more like two separate sexualities in which very few people naturally gravitate towards both.

Tops are much more likely to be bisexual using modern terminology.

I understand the objection to “gay” as a label in this context, although I have no dog in this fight. People also use the term “gay” to essentially bind extremely disparate people whose behaviors vary wildly into one essentialist unit of cultural and political valence, which I imagine some “Men who have sex with men” would object to.

I’m sympathetic to this because I suffer from a mental disorder but I find attempts at building cultural and political solidarity amongst people who suffer from my disorder or a cluster of related ones to be absolutely abhorrent; I’m not a member of a “community” with proscribed political and economic interests, I’m just someone with a fucked up brain.

This is one of the few things Freddie deboar gets 100% right.

I think basically how we moderns think about identity is fundamentally harmful and stupid, getting in the way of understanding behavior which is the real interesting and functional bit with regards to how individuals interact with society writ large.

Freddie deboar

It’s DeBoer; he’s (nominally) a Dutch/Afrikaans farmer, not a swine.

More comments

it’s being used as a cope

Why do you believe men feel the need to use it as a cope, and why is there anything to cope with?

Why do you believe men feel the need to use it as a cope

Because they are gay, and they would rather not be.

I reflect rather than endorse. I think there's a pretty clear political division, though, looking back over history, so the argument seems colourable.

Men do, women are, so men naturally assume that when you ask them this, you're asking them to apply the woman's label. Unless you're a man predisposed to Gayness (which forms part of the problem with Gays, from the average man's perspective), that is inaccurate, insulting, and outright dangerous.

I think there is something interesting here but I can't figure out any of this. Can you clarify?

"Women are human beings, men are human doings". Men are valuable because they can do stuff for you, women simply are valuable, innately and without meaningful argument. Advocates of this assessment generally hold that it emerges from biology: sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. A tribe that loses three quarters of its men will bounce back in a generation, while a tribe that loses three quarters of its women will bounce back maybe never.

The claim here seems to be that "Gay" connotes innate nature, "being", rather than activity, "doing". Hence, the women's label?

Very helpful, thanks!

I suspect the answer includes "not if you do it in prison - particularly not if you didn't have any choice in the matter."

In machismo-based homosexuality (which appears to include the kind practiced in both American and Russian prisons), it isn't gay to dick another guy, only to take a dick.

I imagine it also includes straight men who work as gay porn stars.

Are there any?

... arguably? (cw: no actual wing-wong, but still NSFW)

Gay4pay as a genre also attracts just masc-looking guys who are pals with guys, but there is significant crossover workforce from the het side of the aisle, including people that are pretty clearly more into the het fuckery. A lot of them focus on solo work (eg, the squirrel guy), but the difference in pay is significant, and modern chemistry can do a lot to keep an erection going even if physical interest isn't there.

((There's a handful of pieces that involve gay-focused actors who are gay-focused in their personal lives having heterosexual pairings-or-more, though for a variety of reasons that's a far less common kink.))

The line gets fuzzy and definition-focused: you can argue a strict definitional no-het-would-stick-their-dick-in-a-dude, and I'm sure at least a few are either self-closeted, or playing it up for the viewers. On the flip side, I know enough people that thought they were bi and then found out that it wasn't working for them once they actually got another dude involved in person (and a few that thought they were bi until they got a woman involved in person), and while that occasionally fails around the physical bits not working out, it's as or more often something where only the mechanics work.

no-het-would-stick-their-dick-in-a-dude

I mean, I'm 0% aroused by the idea of having sex with men, but it's also not the thing you would have to pay me most to do either. I can easily imagine there are some guys who don't like it, but also don't mind it, and would be fine with doing it as just another job.

Only if you make eye contact

Obviously but the distinction exists because a surprising proportion of gay and bisexual men just openly deny they’re gay even as they openly have sex with other men.

The terminology was selected because at least some of the dudes in question say "no", and asking about "MSM" is (supposedly) easier than trying to convince the men in question that they are gay. And that's okay.

Not if you keep your socks on!

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