site banner
non_radical_centrist  26d ago (farhakhalidi.substack.com)   5620 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.

I enjoyed the article. I think I'm one contributing factor here is what Scott identified over a decade ago in should you reverse any advice you hear. People in either sex positive or purity cultures are probably in thick information bubbles that take those positions to pathological extremes. This is probably even worse today than when Scott's article was written.

I suspect a lot of people operating in an enthusiastic consent framework would agree with the author that the circumstances she describes some of her friends having sex under were problematic. There's a reason those articles have the disclaimers they do. I suspect they would do so using a language of consent, that various kinds of pressure had rendered the sex in question not really consensual. The problem with this angle is that it turns what is supposed to be a simple and intuitive concept into one that hides a lot of complexity and nuance.

From my perspective it seems like there are two key issues. Firstly, women feel a social and interpersonal pressure to have sex they don't want. Like they need a good reason not to have sex with someone. This is totally backwards to how it ought to work. You do not need any reason to refrain from sex with someone beyond "I don't want to." "No" is a complete sentence, as they say. Related to the first, many men apparently feel no compulsion to respect that "no." Badgering women into having sex with you after they've said no is apparently fine in some people's minds. So the question, then, is how we create the social conditions so that women feel empowered to give that "no" and men feel compelled to respect it.

Badgering women into having sex with you after they've said no is apparently fine in some people's minds.

Including women! And to go a different direction than the poster below me, women expect men to ignore their "no". Say no and then being pursued regardless makes them feel desired. You hear anecdotes all the time of women who said no, the man respected it, and they thought less of him for not just going for it. Like that's not how a "real man" is supposed to act.

This is further confused by the fact that girls who say "no" but are timid or nervous, and girls who say "no" but are just playing coy can sound exactly the same. Grinning ear to ear, giggly, clingy.

Yes, women playing coy is definitely a problem. Maybe this is just me but I think the better option is just... not having sex with women who do that! They can either learn to ask for what they want or no one should have sex with them. Errors in the direction of "some people miss sex they could have had" seem much better than errors in the other direction.

or no one should have sex with them

So how exactly are you going to enforce this rule? If there's a fixed contingent of women that wants to be "conquered" in this fashion, the more men you persuade to follow your compact, the more advantageous will it be for the marginal man to defect, as there will be droves of women waiting for someone who is, in their eyes, still enough of a man to pursue them. Even if you posit that this preference that some/many women have is purely acquired and can be untaught, there will at least be a transitional period where you need to exercise tremendous amounts of coercion - which will, from the outside, look a lot like the "I consent - I consent - I don't" image macro, with the "don't" being an unpopular and unsuccessful man while the first two are popular and well-adjusted men and women - to stop male defectors.

The most likely outcome is that any attempt at enforcement will look exactly like our present reality, where you only get to pick off defectors at the most awkward and unsuccessful fringe, who at the end of their efforts can not present a woman witness that says that she actually liked it, both of them understood consent was actually implicitly given and outsiders should stop creepily insinuating themselves. This will only increase the signalling value of ignoring a "no" and getting away with it.

So how exactly are you going to enforce this rule?

The same way any other social norm is enforced? Shaming the people who violate it.

If there's a fixed contingent of women that wants to be "conquered" in this fashion, the more men you persuade to follow your compact, the more advantageous will it be for the marginal man to defect, as there will be droves of women waiting for someone who is, in their eyes, still enough of a man to pursue them.

Yes, as I mention in several other replies I'm aware it is a complex coordination problem. Still I think it is a thing worth doing.

Even if you posit that this preference that some/many women have is purely acquired and can be untaught, there will at least be a transitional period where you need to exercise tremendous amounts of coercion - which will, from the outside, look a lot like the "I consent - I consent - I don't" image macro, with the "don't" being an unpopular and unsuccessful man while the first two are popular and well-adjusted men and women - to stop male defectors.

"Ahh but you see, your social movement is doomed for I have already drawn myself as the chad and you as the soy!"

The most likely outcome is that any attempt at enforcement will look exactly like our present reality, where you only get to pick off defectors at the most awkward and unsuccessful fringe, who at the end of their efforts can not present a woman witness that says that she actually liked it, both of them understood consent was actually implicitly given and outsiders should stop creepily insinuating themselves.

My point is that I don't think it matters, and it is no defense, that the woman liked it. It is (or ought to be) bad to ignore a woman's "no" even if she wants you to in a symmetrical way to how it is wrong to enslave people even if the enslaved people like it.

it is wrong to enslave people even if the enslaved people like it.

How is that slavery if they like it?

If they are not free to leave? Or say no?

There's always a way out, and slaves can say no until their tongues get cut off, it just doesn't do much.

Slaves can be in a situation where they are regularly looked after, fed, clothed and sheltered, which means that they have less incentive to revolt or end their life and their master keeps profiting from owning them.

It's only a matter of difference of degree with wage-slaves who keep showing up and are only technically free to leave or refuse directions if they accept renouncing future paychecks. Then it's a matter of the employer being able to find new wage-slaves to replace the ones that 'revolted' by finding better prospects (slightly better working conditions).

Now if a slave likes it, where's the harm? Who can deny them their fun?

Should mentally-impaired people not be under the guardianship of parents with better capacities to make decisions and guarantee their well-being, if not their self-sovereignty? Should the children be in charge of themselves?

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