site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   24696 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 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.

Men really aren't built for monogamy, huh? [...] 3. The few who actually just disagree.

I'm certainly in 3. I think most men are, too. I barely have the time or interest to put up with/keep track of one woman at a time. I'll also take monogamy (and an IUD) over condoms and a harem. If I ever blow anything up for the cause, spare me the 72 virgins - I'll take one moderately slutty broad who know what the fuck she's doing and hates texting.

Cases like Greene's seem to vindicate me.

Do they? He's so far from a typical guy. I have an enormous amount of trouble understanding how anyone's response to any of this is "ah yes, let's post about my legal troubles on Youtube." I may be old.

condoms and a harem

Isn't having children with the harem women part of having a harem?

In general, sure, but that wasn't my impression of how the word was being used, which was more like "brothel." I suppose in the hypothetical where it's my exclusive use harem, but I still don't have to interact with them, there's no STD concern. And while we're at it, let's stipulate that they each have a dozen IUDs.

I would still not want them, given the alternative of something monogamous. They sound exhausting. I like the feeling of winning on my own merits that comes with sleeping with someone I "earned" rather than bought.

Given all of the stipulations here, we've moved so far from "men want to cheat/have lots of casual partners" that I think it's pretty irrelevant. And, so implausible as to be even more irrelevant, in the same way as "if science could perfectly grow new bodies and move over minds, and adjust for the lack of growing up as that gender, and retcon others' memories, then surely you'd agree trans women are women."

Uh, do you know what a concubine was? That's not a trick question by the way- lots of people actually literally don't know.

Concubinage varied from culture to culture but typically referred to a relationship very similar to marriage, but in which the woman got a worse deal often due to having a lower social status. Most cultures, unless they suppress this tendency, will develop some form of this over time- cohabitation and sugar babies in the modern US fills the same niche- and it was a committed relationship. And throughout history you tend to see kings having multiple concubines(mistresses being the same thing in practice), but you don't see kings brothel hopping that often.

Uh, do you know what a concubine was?

Well, now I do. I suppose if I'd thought about it harder, I could have defined harem/concubine/brothel correctly, but mea culpa.

I still don't want one.

Most cultures, unless they suppress this tendency, will develop some form of this over time

Well said, and a decent metaphor for fighting reality on a number of fronts I suspect.

By the way- harem doesn’t mean what you think it does either. It refers to the woman’s part of a large household- in other words, it’s a reference to gender segregation and not to the sexual satisfaction of a single man. Historical harems housed a large number of women which were not involved sexually with the man who owned the house.

Weren't harems typically exclusive to a man?

The relationship between the man and his concubine in his harem is different than a man seeing a prostitute in a brothel.

Children with concubines in a harem seems desired historically some men haveing hundreds of children with hundreds of concubines.

If your successful enough to have a harem with many concubines, you have earned it, even if you've bought some at the slave market. Presumably this level of success is also helpful in supporting the hundreds of children you produce with the concubines. The concubines may be motivated to have your children as it raises their status as well.

Weren't harems typically exclusive to a man?

Yeah. As mentioned in another thread, I got my whorecabulary a bit mixed up.

If I could do it over, I'd s/harem/bunch 'o fuckbuddies/

I doubt any men who own a harem are going to agree that theirs is not a true harem because they do not aim to have children.

If you want my opinion, then if you want lots of sex, have sex; if you want lots of children, have children. In the era of IVF, there is little need to mix the two once you've hit the "harem" scale. Musk got the right idea with his sperm bank sugar mamas.

if you want lots of sex, have sex; if you want lots of children, have children. In the era of IVF, there is little need to mix the two

I find the seperation creepier than having lots of children with concubines in a harem.

The seperation of sex and reproduction I think is in part responsible for some of the current year dysfunction.

How far do you go with this? Condoms and the pill are bad?

Just the tip.

Yes, oral contraceptives were introduced in 1960 combined with the following 'sexual liberation' has produced an increase in any number of negative outcomes.

Condoms have a longer history, I appreciate their use as a tool of war to protect troops from venereal disease.

Ok, hard mode- do you condemn sodomy?

Do you mean immorality in general, beatiality, homosexual anal sex, or something else?

I'd likely condemn sodomy.

I mean sticking it in the wrong hole, maybe rounding out to all same-sex acts but definitely not excluding eg homosexual blowjobs.

More comments

Responsible for much of the current year difference from The Way It Was Always Done, perhaps. I see no reason to believe the dysfunction comes from some law of nature, rather than us being unadapted, for now, to the differences.

It's not the way it was always done. Many pre-Christian societies managed fertility and reproduction differently.

You may now perceive pre-sexual revolution way of doing things as the way it was always done but this was new social technology at a point in the past.

Abandoning this and hoping that the current year dysfunction resolves as we 'adapt' seems more like wishful thinking than a strategy.

My sense is that if men had access to a harem, in the sense pool of women you could freely fuck but not otherwise have to interact with in any meaningful way, they would be pretty down for it. Separate-palace-managed-by-eunuchs type of setup. The trouble comes with have to deal (intimately) with >1 woman in any capacity outside of this.

Most surprising thing in this story is Greene's fiance still marrying the guy. I don't expect this is the first, or last wild ride he's going to take her on...

My sense is that if men had access to a harem, in the sense pool of women you could freely fuck but not otherwise have to interact with in any meaningful way, they would be pretty down for it.

I suspect part of the confusion downthread is a clarification of the statement.

  • I expect many men would be 'down for it' if the alternative was not a monogamous relationship.
  • I expect many men would be 'down for it' if the alternative was limited-to-no access to sex.

With confusion based around mental estimates of the proportion of the population that falls into said categories.

As for me personally:

  • If I otherwise had no access to sex, likely yes but I'd also likely hate myself for it.
  • Otherwise no.

I'd rather not even talk to the cashier. I definitely don't want to fuck the hypothetical harem (given the alternative option of a ~zero-effort monogamous casual arrangement, or, even better, a high-effort monogamous serious one).

freely fuck but not otherwise have to interact with in any meaningful way

But "fuck" is a whole lot of interacting with a stranger. (don't) Fuck that.

Out of curiosity are you over 30? I can't imagine any man 15-30 endorsing this attitude, to be honest.

Over 30. Was way more sex negative before. Pre-Lesswrong me would respond to such a comment ... either as if personally attacked, or by glibly retorting "At least someone agrees I am not a man."

...

At least someone agrees I am not a man. ::P

(I italicized "someone"! That makes it different!)

I think this has become known as asexuality,, among psychiatrists. Mostly because SJ pushed it hard in response to the strictness those of your view insist upon its functional universality.

FWIW, I have lots and lots of notes and posts and maybe some IM conversations from the 00s and early 10s, if you want verification of my mindset at the time. But TLDR, Dr. K's description of asexuality describes me more or less to a t.

Yes. Mid 30s.

I see, any chance that you from 10 years ago would say something drastically different?

I'm approaching 30s myself. Compared to a peak of around 5 years ago, I can already feel a material change in libido and how much it affects, although i find it difficult to disentangle whether it's my libido that is shifting or the effects of being in a LTR.

As it stands, if I wasn't in an LTR I would pass up exactly 0% of effort and consequence-free sex opportunities, if those existed. I will know in 5 to 10 years, if the libido changes become more pronounced.

I see, any chance that you from 10 years ago would say something drastically different?

Hm, maybe a little different, but not drastically. Even in college, when I was sleeping with a few people, I always had a favorite/tended to break things off with all but one/want something serious. It's not that I was low libido, and while it's probably lower now I wouldn't at all say low/below average (for mid 30s). I think I'm just wired more monogamously than you.

This definitely changes as you get into your 30s. Throw in a long term live-in woman? Then maybe add a kid or two? Yeah, your libidos gonna take heavy hits and the harem cravings go way down (but never to zero)

It’s honestly kind of nice though. I remember my libido being so strong it made me depressed, like being extremely hungry but never getting enough food, while constantly seeing delicious food everywhere you couldn’t ever eat. So glad to leave that behind me.

As a counterpoint, I'm in my thirties and my libido is not weaker one bit, I'm still surrounded by delicacies while starving. What changed is that my looks cratered and my misogyny skyrocketed, so I don't spend even a moment in a free-form interaction with the opposite sex now.

Perhaps it’s contextual factors like relationship status and parenthood that are more important than age per se. I’ve read studies that show your T goes down a lot after living with a woman and even more with kids around

I think you heavily overestimate the amount of (mental) effort required to fuck the harem in this hypothetical. I don't like to talk to the cashier either and I can envision having to talk to the harem girls even less than I have to talk to the cashier.

Perhaps the fundamental difference then in our viewpoints is I think the mental effort that goes into fucking someone is actually a lot of the fun. Knowing how to press each other's buttons in bed, the comfort of familiar company. So by the time you've removed that from the hypothetical, I no longer consider the activity really all that worth doing. Don't get me wrong, if it were the only thing on offer, I would take it with a big old smile on my face. But it's hot dogs when I'd rather slow cook ribs.

But as long as you have learned to cook ribs, how hard can it really be to learn a few more recipes? As long as you have the general knowledge down, so to speak, I don't think it would be that much harder to keep up with two casual hookups' preferences than one, or three rather than two.

Not hard to learn, just don't wanna. (And, I've, uh, learned a number of recipes over the years, just because I move etc.)

To continue overextending the metaphor, I actually have the same preference with food: I'm good at cooking a range of recipes, but mostly eat Soylent and put a small number of things in the air fryer.

The number of potential conflicts between N people grows as O(n^2).

I have an enormous amount of trouble understanding how anyone's response to any of this is "ah yes, let's post about my legal troubles on Youtube." I may be old.

He's a YouTuber, it wasn't just legal trouble it was to protect his image which had been tarnished, losing 60k subscribers out of 580k is massive.

barely have the time or interest to put up with/keep track of one woman at a time

Casual sex is very low-effort. Actually dating multiple women might be a nightmare but if all but one only want you for sex?

Do they? He's so far from a typical guy.

Well yes infidelity is not "typical", but the subset of men who cheat is a subset of the ones who can which is a subset of the ones who are tempted.

Well yes infidelity is not "typical", but the subset of men who cheat is a subset of the ones who can which is a subset of the ones who are tempted but don't attempt for convenience/morality reason.

The set of men who cheat is a subset of the set of men who don't attempt to cheat? I think this one got away from you.

Oh yeah that train of thought ran off the rails, edited

it wasn't just legal trouble it was to protect his image which had been tarnished

Legal trouble is way more important than your image! I'd rather lose my job than end up in jail because I said the wrong thing on youtube.

A lawyer definitely signed off on the whole video. Greene would have known there's ~0% chance of him going to jail, but he was already losing sponsorships, subscribers, and publishers. His brand IS his job. Clearly the right move I think.

Interesting. Do you think it helps his legal case to post the video, or that he's just so clearly legally safe that it's worth optimizing for his job?

Or that the lawyer was just doing damage control by telling him how to do the video? Lawyers will (although not always) advise you on how to do the stupid thing you want to do the least stupidly if you tell them to.

Interesting. Do you think it helps his legal case to post the video, or that he's just so clearly legally safe that it's worth optimizing for his job?

The latter, 99% sure. The former, don't know enough about law to say for sure but I expect yes.

Casual sex is very low-effort.

I think @lagrangian 's point is that sex in a monogamous relationship even lower effort/better so why bother with the casual. Especially if there is a non-zero chance you end up in the OP situation

Right. Hard to beat a recurring calendar event.

the sex is better

Yeah I don’t think this would dissuade me. Sex with the same woman, even if I really like her, feels like eating my favorite meal for dinner every day. It’s always good but at some point I might just start craving a simple Chinese takeout for novelty’s sake.

From an evo-psych perspective this also makes perfect sense: sex with another woman is almost always a positive expected fitness value-add.

Sex with the same woman, even if I really like her, feels like eating my favorite meal for dinner every day. It’s always good but at some point I might just start craving a simple Chinese takeout for novelty’s sake.

I think that this might just come down to how wired one is for novelty. Eating my favorite meal for dinner every day sounds fucking awesome to me. Maybe I would get sick of it at some point, I've never tried. But it's difficult to imagine I would.

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