site banner
non_radical_centrist  2yr ago (farhakhalidi.substack.com)   9974 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.

Humans aren't even going to be recognizable as such in a few hundred years, pearl clutching about population decline is a non-starter in a world that still has 8 billion and climbing and robotic and AI tech that is about to make us all obsolete anyway.

Ahhh, AhhTheFrench.

My personal value is that humans are awesome and we should do a lot (within reason) to keep the species going. I don't worry about population decline per se, but I worry about the fundamental relationships between men and women (who need to get a long to maintain the species). The global drop in fertility rates is real, but I think the jury is still out on if its actually a crisis (for instance; while fertility has dropped, so has infant death, net-net are more people making it to adulthood?)

Nonetheless, these are problems I think are (a) problems and (b) worth solving. Is your contention that either or both (a)and(b) aren't true?

It’s almost certain that societies today produce fewer new young adults than in the past, given history tended to see population growth outside of crises.

Thanks. I'm happy to defer on this one because I wasn't citing stats, I was just thinking in terms of combining two known trends. (TFR, infant death).

Are there problems between the sexes and how they interact? Yes. Have there always been problems between the sexes and how they interact? Yes. Are they even solvable writ large? No.

Men and women want different things out of relationships so there will always be power struggles, strife, breakups and makeups. Messy business really.

There will always be harmonious unions and terrible joinings, because people are different and some are willing to make things work while others are not, some luck into a wonderful match, others never had a chance. This is the history of the world.

Fertility is dropping due to birth control, education, rising living standards, more options for entertainment and a devaluation of human labor. This trend will only accelerate if things keep getting materially better for people.

If you want more people 150 years from now you're going to have to grow them in a vat and raise them with a robot. That is just how it is going to be unless you're in some kind of originalist cult in AD 2174. Getting pregnant yourself when a machine womb can do it for you will be seen as grotesque and unnecessary.

If you want more people 150 years from now you're going to have to grow them in a vat and raise them with a robot. That is just how it is going to be unless you're in some kind of originalist cult in AD 2174.

Well, shit. We agree

Getting pregnant yourself when a machine womb can do it for you will be seen as grotesque and unnecessary.

Yup! And this is why I am Pro-Life on the grounds of future concerns. "My body, my choice" holds some water, but when the robot-womb babies start, there's going to be some portion of the population that wants to reserve the right to unplug (read: murder) because they change their minds 6 months in.

I'm old fashioned in that I don't really see a lot of value in a human life until they come a little closer to personhood. I'm the opposite of the "every sperm is sacred" idea. Most children used to die. Other than wasted resources that parents should rightly be upset about dealing with, including pregnancy risk, I think parents should have right to terminate defective or unwanted children for even a bit after they have come to full term. Should we really force a family and society to raise a retarded child that they will neve be free from and that wouldn't even survive without modern medicine anyway?

I think parents should have right to terminate defective or unwanted children for even a bit after they have come to full term.

And this is where we're just going to disagree intractably. So be it.

I was a casual pro-choicer for much of my teenager / early 20s cause I just hadn't thought through the issues (and their interesting parallels to end of life ethics). But the thing that really pushed me hard to hardcore pro-life status was thinking about future robot wombs. There will be some amount of people who decide that a fetus they were previously all in favor of will now somehow inconvenience them - and this fetus will be otherwise healthy and the technology advanced enough that a successful completion to term will be all but guaranteed.

And yet, somewhere out there, people are going to get righteously indignant about being "forced" to raise a child. I think that would be a fundamental failure of the social contract that's hard to come back from.

Should we really force a family and society to raise a retarded child?

I mean, your parents obviously chose to. I would think you'd be thankful for that.

(Sorry, Mods. I really tried not to, but then I did.)

Sorry, Mods. I really tried not to, but then I did.

Yeah, you did.

History shows two previous warnings, four AAQCs. I don't see the point of a warning here, given that you obviously knew exactly what you were doing and that we don't want you to do it. Banned for a day. Please do not make a habit of this sort of thing; the bans will escalate if you do.

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