site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   31387 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 9, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trigger warning - this is related to pornographic material

Lily Philips is an onlyfans model who slept with 100 guys in a single day. She is from the UK and does not have the background of a typical pornstar from the looks of it. Popular Youtube video maker Joshua Pieters made a documentary around it with her in it where at one point she just cracks where she gets a hint of what she just did, in trying to sleep with more guys than most friend circles do in a few lifetimes all for the sake of being edgy.

The clip has gained traction and I feel bad about the girl. Some Christian women are asking for her to be forgiven and taken back under gods grace whilst the Tate Brothers asked their followers to go undercover in her gangbang and literally preach the gospel to a cum infested e celeb. Hell this is the first time I have seen either of them show regret for having ran an onlyfans studio.

Lily and her friends have done similar things before but I cannot find any of it since any mention of her name brings up thousands of links about what she did this week. How do you even describe what she did given that she wants to do a 1000 in a day despite breaking down on camera? The cherry on this cake is that she can get married to a fairly normal guy tomorrow because Riley Reid, another adult entertainer did this too.

edit - removed a question about religiosity, since I think it came off in bad faith which is not my intent at all as a religous person

You shouldn't be aware of any of these people.

Here's a weird and kind of dumb article about the stunt that I didn't like very much. Every writer has their blind spots, the topics where their ordinary rigour fails them and they fall victim to the motivated reasoning and logical fallacies they're so careful to avoid on other occasions. Scott's are trans stuff, any and all criticisms of EA, any and all criticisms of polyamory, and anything feminist-coded (and he's only fessed up to the latter); Freddie's are trans stuff and HBD. Mary's is porn and the sex industry. If a factual claim casts the porn industry and/or sex industry in a negative light, she'll believe it, regardless of how implausible it is or how incongruent it is with the other factual claims she's endorsed which are critical of the porn or sex industries.

Here she goes on a bit of a ramble, looking for some way that she can make out that Philips is the victim here, suggesting a bunch of hypotheses in which Philips might be the victim (if you squint) without really committing to any of them, consistently putting the word "consent" in scare quotes. Philips fell victim to audience capture against her will! Philips was possessed by the digital egregore! Philips was slutty before she started her OnlyFans - hey, did you know that a lot of women who are slutty are trauma victims?? isn't that interesting??

Weak stuff all round, far from her best work.

I wish to revisit this matter again in a few days. Who's Freddie btw?

This incident did make me sad, my perspective is skewed towards wanting to believe in the goodness of people, especially women despite having been on the Pua redpill side of things.

Philips ultimately isn't a victim, her choosing to have sex for 8 hours straight for attention isn't because of society forcing her to do it. Thanks for the article though, I had no clue who mary was.

Who's Freddie btw?

Freddie deBoer.

Thanks for the article though, I had no clue who mary was.

As I said it's not her best work. I wanted to share some of her better articles, but reviewing her Substack it seems she's paywalled some of her articles which were once visible to free subscribers. Annoying.

Tate Brothers asked their followers to go undercover in her gangbang and literally preach the gospel to a cum infested e celeb.

Absolutely insane levels of grift given their source of wealth and fame.

a cum infested e celeb.

I suppose if this revolting term applies to anyone it applies to the girl in question. I'd like to think, however, that we'd avoid such wording (I originally thought this was a quote but I see it's your term.) Why? Because it's pointless and smacks of a chodey kind of schadenfreude.

Because it's pointless and smacks of a chodey kind of schadenfreude.

I dunno, I think "the only thing valuable about certain women is their bodies, and so if they're not saving them to sell to a man in exchange for resources this is a massive problem and it means the men won't want to buy, which has implications for family formation for those women; also DAE think sex with men is Bad and Evil?" is certainly a worldview.

Of course, you have to actually unpack that rather than just saying it to be obnoxious.

The circuitous way you're making your point is flying by me. I don't agree with the quoted worldview, but I'm also not saying practicalromantic has that view.

Trigger warning - this is related to pornographic material

Not to be rude, and off topic, and I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but I just dont get trigger warnings. Why is "trigger warning: [your trigger here].........[your trigger]" less triggering than [your trigger]? I get "nsfw" on a hyperlink that is risqué or etc., but it is never used this way and pro tw is justified pretty different anyways. But is triggering even a real thing? Is the idea that someone is just so porn addled that they cant even see the words "onlyfans model" lest they just start jerk jerk jerking? Every time I have seen it used, the writer will not cover something (allegedly) traumatic in an callous and likely triggering way. But obviously holocaust_rape_groyper will be covering that topic maximally toxic and awfully and they will not be warning the reader it might trigger them, so what does it even do? It just seems so empty and performative. Especially on a forum to discuss controversial things.

I simply forgot about both because I was in a hurry and will use the NSFW thing next time. Many people don't wish to read about NSFW things so I put it out there as there are some, not many but some who would take a look and move on.

I tend to lean towards politeness, there are new visitors and some may be used to trigger warnings, hence my usage. It's the same as with pronouns, I'm not a rabid leftist but I'll use whatever the other person requests so that at least I can put forth my views and not cause any unnecessary drama. Moldbug pointed this out and I quite agree.

My arguments are things that are caustic already, they're in good faith for all things, culture war included, being default kind helps put them out more plus I don't like being rude. I was helped immensely by this forum, people were kinder here than irl, I simply want to repay it back. I limit my usage of slurs too for this reason. Sounds cucked but I do want to act the way I'd want my ideal self to.

You aren't rude or off topic at all. These are valid points.

Its not really "nsfw" vs "trigger warning", its the context in which it is used. I see "nsfw" used almost exclusively in the context of warning what a hyperlink connects to - something porographic, or gore, or something that would literally run into a workplace IT web filter. "Don't click this if you want to avoid getting on a workplace IT naughty list", not "don't read this if you are especially offended by topic X". I can also understand its use in the context of a content warning for children, to not have them exposed to something that parents would not want them to be yet.

While I do think you are in good faith, and you're using "trigger warning" in good faith, I don't think the entire concept of "trigger warning" is in good faith. Those that want such warnings want their issue to be elevated to a special and sacred status. That whatever they are offended and traumatized by deserves a ritual acknowledgment before it can be discussed.

When you adopt this language it is accepting this insane frame: that good faith words can be harmful, and that we ought to change our thoughts and behavior to avoid that harm.

Adding a trigger warning to whatever I want to say is legitimizing their frame and enabling their neuroticism.

This is probably my biggest issue with Scott, he argues very well and logically and convincingly within a frame. But the frame is fundamentally wrong. See his writing on this:

I like trigger warnings. Trigger warnings aren’t censorship; they’re the opposite of censorship. Censorship says “Read what we tell you”. The opposite of censorship is “Read whatever you want”. The philosophy of censorship is “We know what is best for you to read”. The philosophy opposite censorship is “You are an adult and can make your own decisions about what to read”.

Censorship does not just say "Read what we tell you." It also says "Write what we tell you and how we tell you." It says "Think how we tell you." The words can be trauma and violence frame is unworkable, there are a near infinite amount of things to be offended about. Arguments should stand and fall on their own merits, their own internal merits, not those of some moral superstructure.

They say that “Confronting triggers, not avoiding them, is the best way to overcome PTSD”. They point out that “exposure therapy” is the best treatment for trauma survivors, including rape victims. And that this involves reliving the trauma and exposing yourself to traumatic stimuli, exactly what trigger warnings are intended to prevent. All this is true. But I feel like they are missing a very important point.

YOU DO NOT GIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY TO PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

Because this is where it leads. Someone claiming that not censoring yourself is somehow psychotherapy. As if we need an MD to adjudicate acceptable arguments. Reject the moral superstructure. Don't let people impose it on you and us by being neurotic.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/30/the-wonderful-thing-about-triggers/

I agree people don't tend to do it here, but in general these days I mostly see people use "content note" instead of "trigger warning" to specify topics that the reader might not want to read without implying that it's specifically about triggers, which are often too random and personal to tag. For instance, I see a lot of posts on Mastodon (which has explicit support for warnings so a post with warnings shows only the warning until you click on it to unfold the full post) with the warning field mentioning "us pol" because enough people on social media don't want to hear about US politics. Additionally, social media generally has a way to filter on keywords (either explicit warnings or just anywhere in the text), so including a straightforward warning can be a way to hope you hit a keyword filter so people who don't want to read something never see it.

But also, it's definitely possible to reference undesired content without describing it in detail. "Gore" or "abusive relationship" gets the point across well enough warn someone without eliciting the response they might have to the actual content. And depending on the warning and the person, it may be sufficient to know it's coming / maybe a part they might want to skim over.

Here's an interesting question that occurs to me, inspired by this post:

Is promiscuity worse when it's public or when it's private?

I'm inclined to think that we reached a social consensus that public promiscuity is worse than private promiscuity. ("As long as they keep it in the privacy of their own bedroom", laws against obscenity, etc.) But I'm also inclined to think that that social consensus is wrong. Yes, there are special types of damage done by public promiscuity - "normalization", corruption of bystanders, etc. But there are also special types of damage done by private promiscuity, and I'm inclined to say that they are much worse.

Everyone here can laugh it up about the men who'll marry these open prostitutes. But, y'know - at least they'll know what they're getting. It's not exactly a viable secret to keep. This doesn't seem, to me, nearly as corrosive to the social fabric as the general social expectation that even normie religious women will have some sexual history that they don't need to disclose to their husband.

My instinct is that it is actually better and less sexually immoral for a woman to be a clownish slut and publicly document a farcical orgy centered on herself than it is for her to act chaste and traditional but have a single one-night-stand she never tells another soul about. It is better to unconsciously offer oneself up as a cautionary tale about rough living than it is to consciously erode the trust between the sexes. I do not find that the cases like Aella blackpill me nearly as much as women in explicitly Christian/conservative contexts who accidentally let on that their morals are looser than they realize. It's like the difference people point to between Donald Trump, who's repulsive, but openly so, and a more classically dishonest politician.

A car's value plummets as soon as it's driven off the lot. Provided, I have no interest (in this metaphor) in purchasing a used car - but I have no quarrel with used car dealers, per se. It's about the integrity of the thing.

To make this argument work, you have to consider the problem with private promiscuity to be just that it's a lack of honesty. Then it's only that to the extent those involved placed some idiosyncratic value on avoiding the act. Many people have such standards (such as religious diet restrictions) which outsiders don't have much reason to care about.

On the other hand, if there's some intrinsic reason promiscuity is bad, women who do it publicly aren't only doing the same thing but honest. They're suspect because its publicity creates an added inappropriate relation, now with a public who shouldn't be involved at all, above the men involved.

None of this is to say you should be tolerant of the presentable slattern either...but treating it as just a matter of hypocrisy demeans the issue.

I see your point, but to extend the metaphor further, I feel like a man who marries a woman without knowing her full sexual history is a bit like a man who buys a used car without giving the tyres so much as a cursory kick - caveat emptor and due diligence has to kick in somewhere. Of course people can lie and keep secrets, but if you know someone well enough to consider marrying them it should be fairly obvious that there's something they're keeping from you, unless they're a truly consummate (so to speak) liar.

Everyone here can laugh it up about the men who'll marry these open prostitutes. But, y'know - at least they'll know what they're getting.

On the other hand, many pornstars have a fairly brief career under a stage name and then retire and go into teaching or something. There's a recurring scandal when a primary school discovers that one of their teachers used to be a porn star and fires her (e.g.). For obvious reasons, the porn industry is keen on insulating porn actors from the social consequences of pursuing a career in the industry: some guy compiled a database of porn actors and their real names (so that men could find out if their girlfriend had ever done porn before they popped the question), and Bang Bros bought it for the express purpose of shutting it down.

Perhaps this "one and done" approach is less viable in the OnlyFans era, but still, I have to assume that a significant proportion of "content creators" are performing under stage names. Many even film their videos in such a way that their faces aren't visible.

This doesn't seem, to me, nearly as corrosive to the social fabric as the general social expectation that even normie religious women will have some sexual history that they don't need to disclose to their husband.

I thought hiding that was the point, though.

Normie religious/straight marriage laws and rules are all about managing competing interests, are optimal if you assume you don't actually have love up front, and help keep the marriage together should the desire in learning how to love not be equal among partners. They work even better if/when the woman is not economically useful.

But modern society turns this into a trap for the men in the relationship! If you ask with the tacit statement that you'll be offended by your future wife "having cheated on you before the relationship even begins, what a sinful broad", what do you think your wife going to say? It's the spear counterpart of unintentionally selecting for assholes, where what you're doing here is excluding women who aren't intending to lie to you (which are the ones you actually want... right? Or maybe not; I wouldn't know- is the 'virgin experience' really an emergent property of virginity?).

From a biological standpoint, I want to minimize the chance I end up raising another man's child (if I'm going to put effort into kids I want them to actually be mine). I think I have a better chance of doing that by emphasizing "my wife feels safe telling me things", but my biology hasn't yet resisted me for dating a non-virgin and people tell me this occurs magically, so...

Another analogy that occurs to me is the dsyfunctionally adversarial relationship between employers and applicants. An expectation emerges among the applicants that it's acceptable to lie while applying for a job. The employers tacitly accept this; they don't punish the dishonesty, and instead act dishonestly themselves, asking for qualifications that are impossible or at least implausible, reinforcing the emerging norm that it's acceptable for the applicants to lie. And so it becomes quite difficult indeed to determine if the applicant is actually qualified for the job. The people have collectively failed. Thanks, Moloch. (There are other factors at play there, of course.)

But modern society turns this into a trap for the men in the relationship! If you ask with the tacit statement that you'll be offended by your future wife "having cheated on you before the relationship even begins, what a sinful broad", what do you think your wife going to say?

I thought I already explained this in the previous post, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm uninterested in nonvirgins as partners, but the moral offense to me comes in when someone tries to pull one over on me. My whole point here is that I'm not cursing the women who honestly filter themselves out for me, as I consider this more honorable than trying to subvert the filter. That can't mean that having a filter is itself wrong; that's an absurd modernist notion, like saying that hiring decisions shouldn't take ability to do the job into account. If you put up a sign that says "looking for qualified drivers" and you get a bunch of qualified drivers and a bunch of liars, then sure, the people who didn't show up because they weren't willing to lie about their ability to drive are far more virtuous than the liars, but that doesn't mean that you should hire them to drive; it means that you should try to figure out which of your applicants are telling the truth.

To quote a cynic tweet comment:

I’m sleeping with 100 men. Pay attention to me!
Oh I slept with 100 men, pay more attention and feel bad for me
I’m sleeping with 1000 men! Pay all the attention to me!

It is all an act and performance to advertise her OF.

If she doesn't enjoy it, she should stop. But I don't see any fundamental problem with such virtuosic feats of sex. It's a bit weird in the same sense that hot dog eating contests are weird, but if the people involved were happy about it I wouldn't see any problem.

She might be able to find a fairly normal husband if she wants to, sure, and again I don't see any problem with it as long as both people are happy. A pussy doesn't develop magical destructive powers just because 100 dicks were inside of it in one day.

Also, I don't see why a trigger warning would be necessary. We regularly discuss things like wars, genocide, rape, and capital punishment on this site, so sex is pretty far down on the list of what should really trigger anyone who enjoys this place.

If she doesn't enjoy it, she should stop. But I don't see any fundamental problem with such virtuosic feats of sex.

The fundamental problem is "should we let people do things that will likely fuck them up even if they think it won't, should we discourage them or should we preempt their attempts". Raskolnikov thought he was an overman who was above the petty morality of the masses. The he chopped down a couple of people and this fucked him up.

Sure, this Lily Philips was the only victim of her stunt and traditional liberalism strongly insists people should not be stopped if that's the outcome. But one may argue that we can minimize total harm by discouraging others from repeating her mistake, even if constantly bringing up Lily Philips as a negative example hurts her more than collectively agreeing to memory hole this incident.

but if the people involved were happy about it I wouldn't see any problem.

Is this your only criteria? It isn't. Because if it were, you would have no problem with people becoming addicted to drugs and other substances.

Furthermore, let's get into temporal preferences and shifts in self-perspective over time. Maybe this woman can convince herself that she's "happy" with it for some amount of time. I'd argue, given the clip shared, that that amount of time was, at most, the time between the end of this sexual act and when that clip was filmed. Regret may have been forestalled, and it then arrives on camera.

(Interesting aside: this has a bizarre connection to false/not-false rape allegations. Two people are "happy about it" in the moment. The next day, one of them wakes up feeling less "happy about it" and files the allegation. A complex and high stakes legal process then ensues wherein both parties try to somehow prove how they felt about what at which times).

People are often flawed at judging what is good for them and what makes them truly happy. To combat this, we try to develop systems of normative thinking to assist. Some people call this morals, ethics, virtues etc.

Show me the moral/ethical/virtue system that says "Sex with 100 strangers in an hour" is permissible. Aside from moral relativism, out and out hedonism, or nihilism, it doesn't exist.

Show me the moral/ethical/virtue system that says "Sex with 100 strangers in an hour" is permissible. Aside from moral relativism, out and out hedonism, or nihilism, it doesn't exist.

To the extent that it's a moral system in addition to a political one, it's called liberalism.

Why would liberals have to allow this? Locke, for example, absolutely thought the government could punish sexual immorality. I'm not familiar enough with his work to know whether there's any inconsistencies there, but it seems like, as a matter of fact, most liberal societies thought banning that sort of thing was fine.

They wouldn't have to. In another comment I wrote:

My one-sentence gloss of liberalism is "do whatever you want as long you aren't infringing on anyone else's rights", which quickly spirals into endless debates about distributed effects and externalities and "but how does this affect you personally" and so on.

It's perfectly consistent of Locke to think "what some other person believes about the ontological character of the communion wafer does not affect you personally, so let them do as they please; but the normalisation of sodomy, adultery and promiscuity absolutely do have distributed negative effects on society, and so should be forbidden and socially stigmatised". Whereas a more modern liberal generally takes the attitude of "people are entitled to their own opinions" and "what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of the government's business, and by extension none of society's business".

I don't have a good answer as to which interpretation of liberalism is better or more conducive to human flourishing. "As long as you aren't infringing on anyone else's rights" permits a lot of degrees of freedom to permit certain things and forbid others.

You know what, fair. Thank you.

I'll pivot and, then, say that liberalism is a fantastic moral and political system for speedrunning towards the destruction of human integrity and the destruction of individual dignity. If such a path leads to such desolation, of what use is the path?

Liberalism has been around a few centuries and hasn't led to desolation yet. I'd rather not get off the path or take doommongering too seriously.

Wouldn't the counter-argument be that, prior to the invention of liberalism, Europe was constantly tearing itself apart in holy wars? I doubt many of the people whose lives were constantly being disrupted as a result felt terribly dignified about the whole matter.

I'm not saying that "I'd rather be dead than compromise my integrity and dignity" is an incoherent or obviously ridiculous statement - there really are certain principles I hold which I would rather die than violate, or certain experiences which I find the idea of going through so humiliating that I would rather die than experience them. But I would like to be reassured that whatever you're proposing as an alternative to liberalism wouldn't immediately lead to hundreds of years of civil war and the immediate cessation of all meaningful human progress and economic development.

Wouldn't the counter-argument be that, prior to the invention of liberalism, Europe was constantly tearing itself apart in holy wars?

Other than the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), what other "holy wars" do you have in mind, such that "Europe was constantly tearing itself apart"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

So, the smaller post-Reformation conflicts leading up to the Thirty Years War?

What about the many, many centuries before the Reformation? Europe wasn't exactly "tearing itself apart in holy wars" then, now was it? It still looks to me like Europe has spent a minority of the last couple millennia in "holy wars" — certainly not enough time to deserve the term "constantly."

More comments

So out and out hedonism it is.

Ironically I do think that there are systems of ethics that have a coherent claim to not just allow this behavior but make it virtuous. But nobody actually cares about weird sex positive pagans anymore.

I don't think liberalism is interchangeable with hedonism. My one-sentence gloss of hedonism is "do whatever you find pleasurable", which quickly spirals into libertine degeneracy. My one-sentence gloss of liberalism is "do whatever you want as long you aren't infringing on anyone else's rights", which quickly spirals into endless debates about distributed effects and externalities and "but how does this affect you personally" and so on. But to a first approximation, I fail to see how this adult woman having sex with a hundred consenting adult men directly infringes on anyone else's rights.

do whatever you want as long you aren't infringing on anyone else's rights

Bounded or not by pragmatic guidelines, the ultimate goal is indeed to realize whim and desire with no examination as to whether that is proper.

What OP surely means by a "moral system" is such an examination. Ethics of any kind.

If the answer to "what is to be done" is "realize desire", then it is hedonism.

Indeed the only reason for the limitation you point to is that in violating someone's rights you are preventing them from realizing their desire also. What are we then to believe if not that this is just hedonism, if of a pragmatic nature.

I fail to see how this adult woman having sex with a hundred consenting adult men directly infringes on anyone else's rights

It does not, but that's the contention: that there is more to ethics than consent.

I am a pretty moral person. I have a strong moral code. I am generally nice to others. I try to help people. I think that things like murder and rape are fundamentally wrong in an absolute way. And I have absolutely no problem with someone having sex with 100 strangers in an hour. The idea that there would be a moral issue about it strikes me as somewhat absurd.

As for drugs, I would prefer that people not get addicted to them, but there is no moral dimension about it for me.

I am a pretty moral person. I have a strong moral code. I am generally nice to others. I try to help people. I think that things like murder and rape are fundamentally wrong in an absolute way.

A self-referential argument from authority is a hell of way to make a point.

As for drugs, I would prefer that people not get addicted to them, but there is no moral dimension about it for me.

What, then, does have a "moral dimension" for you? Are you saying that many things in life are not only inherently ammoral, but immune to morality?

Well, I already said that I think murder and rape are fundamentally wrong in an absolutely way, so certainly those have a moral dimension for me. But promiscuity doesn't.

Also, I'm not trying to argue from authority, I'm just pointing out that I'm not a moral relativist or a nihilist, and I may or may not be a hedonist depending on how you define hedonism, yet I don't see any moral issue with promiscuity.

I'm not trying to speak for 100Proof by replying, just my opinion here.

  1. Moral systems exist in part to guide people to optimal choices as people are often poor judges of what makes themselves and others happiest.
  2. It is possible to morally wrong yourself (as the primary victim). This is wrong like it would be a moral wrong to allow yourself to weigh 600 pounds.

Allowing oneself to weigh 600 pounds undoubtedly hurts one. Having sex with 100 people in a day does not undoubtedly hurt one.

That's debatable. But your comment makes me wonder if there were any sort of screening of these men for STIs, beyond simply "Hey do you have any?" I somehow doubt it.

Why doubt that? Requiring a ticket to ride is pretty standard procedure.

For whom? I feel like a girl advertising for sex wanting only a photo of your face and you holding up an email address (or whatever it was) is not particularly cautious. I could be wrong, of course.

More comments

Because if it were, you would have no problem with people becoming addicted to drugs and other substances.

I have no problem with people becoming addicted to drugs and other substances. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I have no problem with it because it's none of my business how they choose to live their lives.

I think this response is beautiful. This was the standard response of the laissez-faire economist and the social liberal pre-2024. It has dominated western politics and was basically the default position of anyone who drank water, breathed air, and wanted to not be fucked with. Leave well enough alone, what I do is my business. You don't have a right to tell me what to do, and I don't have a right to tell anyone what to do.

I also think that this response is very dated. Partly as a result of the way the internet systematically crushed the vast majority of social barriers to information, partly because of the wilful detonation of social structures and institutions (What if people are excluded? Well, then everyone needs to be excluded! Wait, why'd they let that in? Screw this, I'm outta here!).

There is a fantasy of man as an island that has never gone away.

It is still possible, for some, to a limited extent. For the rest of us, who don't hunt, kill and butcher our own meat, make our own clothing, craft our own domiciles and generate our own electrical power, we have to engage with society in some way. But that breaks the fantasy. We wish to think of ourselves as alone, fully in control of our own destinies, that society loses more from us not participating in it than we lose by not participating in society.

I think we're past that. Isolated as we are, we are all easy pickings for those who've managed to coordinate meanness. I think that's also why people have such poor reactions to this poor creature who has sold her body to a crowd for attention. They are concerned with great ideas, like the collapse of pair bonding, stable male-female relationships, and what this signals for both sides of the fence, as well as the governments that rule them. Maybe some of them are concerned for her mental well-being, who knows. It's a tug of war between those who see society as something to be preserved, shaped in a way that benefits them, or at least in a way that doesn't make their lives actively worse, and those who couldn't give a hundred fucks about society.

We do not care for the crackhead. What he does with crack is his business. But we do not live near him either.

because it's none of my business how they choose to live their lives.

Please meet Daniel Penny, another person who didn't care how others choose to live their lives until he really, really cared.

I mean this is such a naive response. Of course no one should care how another person lives their own private life. But we live in a society. We interact with one another. If your horribly addicted to drugs, you might choose to "involve" yourself in my life in a drastic way.

Perhaps you'll say, "oh, sure, you can beat the crap out of an addict if they accost you" - but the median position in society is that we shouldn't let people become addicted (to at least the illegal substances) so that we can avoid the far more costly "beat up the zombies" method of social regulation.

Blind/naive libertarianism is just such a poor way of even approach the world. Complex system interact with one another. Unintended consequences are real. People's quality of life extends beyond the walls of their apartments.

A person becoming addicted to drugs to the point that he starts to be violent to people or overuse the healthcare system is a social problem because, well, he starts to be violent to people or overuse the healthcare system. A person choosing to have sex with 100 men in one day in a safe manner causes no harm to others that I can think of. I guess you can put forward complicated theories that boil down to some kind of magically contagious social rot, but I neither find having sex with 100 people in a day to be rotten nor am I convinced that its contagious nature is much of a problem.

A person choosing to have sex with 100 men in one day in a safe manner causes no harm to others that I can think of.

It causes harm to the self. That's the whole point. This was a bad decision by the lady in question and it was a bad decision that should be easy to avoid.

Again, utilitarianism and/or libertarianism congratulate themselves by saying "we have a hard line up against harming others" conveniently leaving out that all "others" are "selves" depending on reference point. While I definitely don't think the power of the State should be employed to inhibit people from doing things that may or may not be harmful to themselves, I do believe that a useful moral system must necessarily state that there are some actions and motivations that are harmful to the self (and do not offset this with noble and/or virtuous self-sacrifice ) and ought to be avoided for moral reasons ... not just in service of a self-preservation instinct.

It causes harm to the self if you're the kind of person who is harmed by having sex with 100 people in a day, in which case you shouldn't do it. If you're the kind of person who isn't harmed by it, your argument doesn't apply.

Would you say it's immoral for someone to intentionally burn themselves so they could get a cool scar? What about smashing their own (non shared) things in a fit of rage?

What about smashing their own (non shared) things in a fit of rage?

Do they correctly dispose of the smashed bits afterwards? Did they do the smashing when I don't have to see or hear them and they aren't inconveniencing anyone?

Would you say it's immoral for someone to intentionally burn themselves so they could get a cool scar?

Is the scar in a visible part of the body? Will it be deleterious to their health now or in the future?

What if they took a drug that caused 100% of users to violently assault the next person they see? What about 50% or 10%?

Because other people using drugs does actually affect you in most cases. Whether it's something relatively small like having to step around hobo puke on the sidewalk, or something more direct like a junkie biting your face off because they're high on bath salts.

Does it seem to you that her lack of enjoyment surprised her?

Does her apparent lack of enjoyment surprise you?

It surprises me that people put so much weight on her lack of enjoyment. If you asked me ahead of time if even the most sex positive person would enjoy a continuous eight hour marathon sex session, I'd say of course not, based on how physically demanding it would be if nothing else. It's also not unusual for people who are physically exhausted to become emotional.

Lots of people also have unrealistic fantasies that they derive more pleasure from the thought of than the practice. Presumably people are actually enjoying the sense of thrill when contemplating something taboo. It's also typical for people to be unaware of their own psychology in this way.

If you watch the documentary she's pretty clear her lack of enjoyment at the end is because she feels bad that some of the guys didn't have a good time, not any regret about the act itself.

I haven't watched it yet, but this sounds like weapons-grade copium.

Put yourself in her position for a second. Actually, forget about putting yourself in her position, imagine doing the same thing as a man. If you have to have sex with a hundred women, it becomes nothing but a feat of physical endurance no matter how hot they are, and no matter whether or not you thought it was a sexy fantasy beforehand. I'll have a hard time believing you'll have any concern for anyone past participant #5, let alone for them having a good time. If you break down crying and cite your concern for others as the reason, the chances of me believing you are zero.

EDIT: I have now watched the documentary, and can confirm that it was total weapons-grade copium.

Well, that's why I said "if she doesn't enjoy it". Surely some people do. Aella for example.

That doesn't really answer either of the questions. Sure, I can imagine that some people genuinely would enjoy it, for some definitions of "enjoy".

The Rationalists had a phrase I admired, "I notice I am confused". They realized confusion was useful, and an opportunity to seek deeper understanding. For those who hold that sex is harmless entertainment, this seems like it ought to be confusing. Why did she expect to enjoy doing this, and why didn't she enjoy it?

And this is the thing, really. Back in the 90s, the sexual revolution was unassailable, because those of us arguing against it were killjoy puritan tyrants who just wanted to spoil everyone's fun. So we were pushed out of the way, and it was declared that anything went. And that's well and good, but it turns out that there do indeed appear to be consequences, and those consequences do indeed appear to be woeful in at least some cases, and the side that won the fight has no room for either the consequences or their woefulness in its model. The license they argued for is observably making people wretched, and the only move available to them appears to be to play dumb.

@Primaprimaprima - I never had time for replies to the art discussion, but IIRC your position was that art cuts, takes away from you, is incisive, yes? Was this art, in your view? Do you think her choices have made her life better?

Was this art, in your view?

There's nothing intrinsic to the content or the surrounding circumstances that prevents it from being art.

I don't really have a strict criteria for separating art from non-art. It's not a problem that I consider to be very important. Probably some criteria of intentionality would be useful (so one can distinguish between say, a random urinal at your office and Duchamp's Fountain) and I don't know if the requisite intentionality was present in Philips's case. Neither the content of her act itself nor her reaction to it afterwards really help or hurt the case for it being art.

Do you think her choices have made her life better?

Depends on how much and what kind of attention she's getting. In the short term, I wouldn't be surprised if it was better, because the news coverage will drive traffic to her OF.

In the long term, she may have to deal with reputational damage if she tries to go into something other than porn. But I don't view that as particularly just, so it feels weird to describe it as "her choices making her life worse". That feels akin to the woke mob canceling someone for wrongthink and then asking them "do you think your choice to engage in wrongthink made your life better or worse". The "consequences" of the original choice would have been perfectly manageable if not for the wilful external interference.

As a parallel comment already stated, there is not actually anything confusing about instances of people not enjoying something that they claim is enjoyable. There are people who overeat, people who are fed up with doing daily quests in live-action games, people who drive for 8 hours to go to an amusement park and spend their whole time there bored, people who align their whole lives to enter a profession and then are miserable from the realities of it, and even people who go halfways across the world to visit a city and break down from disappointment; yet, nobody generally takes those things as evidence that food/games/amusement parks/professional commitment/international travel need to be made exceptional and/or taboo again.

The Rationalists had a phrase I admired, "I notice I am confused". They realized confusion was useful, and an opportunity to seek deeper understanding. For those who hold that sex is harmless entertainment, this seems like it ought to be confusing. Why did she expect to enjoy doing this, and why didn't she enjoy it?

This sounds like you are confused (about the lack of visible confusion from "those who hold that sex is harmless entertainment"). What do you think could be possible reasons for this lack?

Every time someone goes viral having a bad experience from sex, conservatives like clockwork parachute in to run victory laps wearing their best told-you-so face, as if the case for the sexual revolution rested on an argument that nobody can ever possibly not enjoy sex. Have you ever seen this persuade someone - not in the way where someone already agreeing pretends to be persuaded, or someone who is in the process of joining your tribe taking notes on the ideological package they are supposed to download, but someone who actually isn't with you and isn't about to be performing a very specific update to their worldview regarding whether the sexual revolution was a good thing?

For those who hold that sex is harmless entertainment, this seems like it ought to be confusing. Why did she expect to enjoy doing this, and why didn't she enjoy it?

I mean, little kids think they'll enjoy eating 100 cakes, but there's quick diminishing returns for many pleasures. I would venture a guess that psychologically, having sex twice in a single day is pretty doable, and probably still enjoyable.

I don't think there's anything special about sex as a pleasure that makes doing it 100 times much more onerous by the end. It's just like trying to force yourself to drink 20 shots of vodka, or smoking 200 cigarettes in a day. Pleasures just don't scale that way.

It's just like trying to force yourself to drink 20 shots of vodka, or smoking 200 cigarettes in a day. Pleasures just don't scale that way.

I notice that your choice of examples have deleterious effects on the recipient of said "pleasure" that could range in severity up to including death.

I would venture a guess that psychologically, having sex twice in a single day is pretty doable, and probably still enjoyable.

When I was much younger, having sex several times a day -- with the same woman -- was very enjoyable for both parties. However, I think even then, 100 times would have been physically painful.

Back in the 90s, the sexual revolution was unassailable, because those of us arguing against it

Am I mixing you up with someone else, because I thought you'd always been a liberal until... 2008ish?

I was raised a Conservative Christian. I ditched the Conservativism in 2002/2003, and the Christianity around 2004, and went atheist and deep blue on pretty much everything but guns; I actually left the country for Canada under Bush because I was deep into blue tribe conspiracy theories about 9/11 and stolen elections, among other things. I came back to the states in the Obama years, but stayed deep blue. When the Feminist blast-wave hit my position in ~2013 IIRC, I was initially very concerned and highly engaged and all gung-ho for Social Justice. It took a couple months of actually paying attention for that bubble to pop.

"SOCIAL JUSTICE NOW!"

"Social Justice is vitally important, but some misguided people are doing it wrong, they need to stop that!"

"They aren't stopping, they need to be stopped, guys this isn't the way"

"Wait, why are all the people around me cheering the bad people on and shouting at me, this is crazy, what the fuck is going on"

"Either I'm going crazy, or 90% of my social class has gone abruptly crazy, and I can't tell which"

"Nope, it's them. They're betraying True Liberalism, which we must fight for."

That played out over about three or so months, and I came across Slate Star Codex while trying to figure out what the fuck was going on. I started limping my way back to Christianity around then, but still identified as deep Blue for another couple years, thinking that Social Justice was just a temporary aberration which could be rolled back or corrected. I spent a long time arguing against the Zunger thesis and in favor of Scott's niceness, community and civilization, until eventually I realized that I was losing those arguments because Scott was wrong and Zunger was straightforwardly correct. That destroyed what was left of my allegiance to Blue Tribe, and I've been moving Red ever since.

Thanks, I had no idea about the Early Life part, and only remembered your post-bush moving-to-canada stories.

You've been writing for a long time, is there any chance you still have like 2005 era blog comments? It would be really interesting to see old-you's perspective on events I hardly remember.

I guess I'm fascinated by the logistics of the whole thing. The article says that each guy got 5 minutes for the 100-man run. That's right around 8.3 hours or so of sex. Were there breaks to eat? Use the restroom? Seems like that would be essential. Or maybe you fast beforehand? For 1000 men, assuming you want to keep the same time, you're looking at 30 seconds per guy. That's not a lot of time! Makes sense to have them disrobe first but I wonder if getting/maintaining an erection will be a problem. Standing in a line of naked guys for 30 seconds of sex is probably not the most arousing thing. Wonder how you find a venue that is big enough for a purpose like this.

Lily and her friends have done similar things before but I cannot find any of it since any mention of her name brings up thousands of links about what she did this week.

For many search engines you can add something like "before:" to get results that are before a particular date. Ex. doing a search on StartPage for "Trump before:2020" gets me news articles about Trump from before the year 2020.

The cherry on this cake is that she can get married to a fairly normal guy tomorrow because Riley Reid, another adult entertainer did this too.

I feel like I'm supposed to read this as sardonic, but why? Is there something bad or wrong about the fact she could marry a normal guy?

ETA:

I watched that whole fucking documentary and I'm glad I did because if you watch the whole thing she's very clear the reason she's crying and emotional is because some of the guys tried to guilt her about not making them orgasm or not feeling they got their 5 minutes worth, not because she feels some kind of shame or remorse for having sex with so many guys.

Is there something bad or wrong about the fact she could marry a normal guy?

Of course there is. In essence she would be cheating the social contract. She would be tricking some poor sap into bailing her out of the socially agreed upon consequences of her actions. It benefits everyone to enforce harsh social penalties on promiscuous women and this would be undermining that valuable rule.

the socially agreed upon consequences

Some people fantasize that such consensus views exist. They then act cheated when someone mitigates or entirely avoids negative consequences. As though cosmic justice has been subverted.

Because those used to exist when we had a functional society, and people can't resign themselves to believe that we live in a free for all hellscape with no rules where selling your body online is a consequence free way to bypass decades of toil.

People facing up to the reality of what that means would look a lot more radical than people whining about whores on X. Historically speaking.

People facing up to the reality of what that means would look a lot more radical than people whining about whores on X. Historically speaking.

What sort of historical examples do you have in mind here?

Quite literally any pre-modern understanding of your Abrahamic religion of choice. Ask your local Muslim cleric how he feels this behavior should be condemned if you want a taste of what that means.

People would like to think that Sharia and other such traditions are some completely unnecessary barbarism when really it's a series of solutions to real problems that became obsolete when the problems stopped occurring. Reintroduce the problem and you'll reintroduce the need for solutions.

I mean, aren't there plenty of old stories about sluts getting away with it and becoming respected members of the community? The biblical prostitute Rahab got picked up as a model of "hospitality, mercy, faith, patience and repentance."

While helping the Israelites deal with their enemies is a good way to "earn" her redemption, that still sets a precedent that loose women can become part of the common fold.

There sure are, but they're all within the context of a culture that heavily shuns the behavior in the first place.

Jesus' treatment of Magdalene isn't meant to to suggest that whoring is without consequence, but rather that divine mercy is available even to such people. You still have to bear the consequences of sin in this world.

Socially agreed upon by who? I certainly don't agree. What is the benefit to me of this woman having difficulty finding a husband?

Even if the poor sap is okay with it, many men are quite dissatisfied with taking a high bc woman as a wife. They may do it anyway because they want a wife badly enough. Therefore, these men would benefit from a high bc being disincentivized.

Many men - including many of these men who desire chastity in mates - are quite dissatisfied if they cannot get laid regularly or at least rack up a reasonable body count for themselves in their youth.

"If you want to marry a virgin, you should leave a few of them around!"

You can make this argument about anything. Many men would prefer an educated wife, therefore they would benefit from society shaming women who choose not to pursue an education. Does that mean women who do not pursue an education are "cheating the social contract?"

Ok. Then those men are free to not to marry a woman who has had a lot of partners. I am confident there are a lot of normal guys who do not care how many previous partners their partner has had.

While I am confident that having had 3 previous partners instead of two does not prevent a woman from settling down, a triple digit body count is a difference of sufficient degree to constitute a difference in kind.

A hasty google disagrees with you

Although I will admit this is an internet survey with n of 188. So, probably not super robust findings.

Edit 1

More evidence saying men do penalize past promiscuity, this time using prostitutes.

This one is interesting because of their proxy mechanism.

I'm gonna need some help. What's the chain from "there's a negative correlation between time as a prostitute and earnings among Indonesian prostitutes" to "there are not a lot of normal guys who would marry Lily Phillips."

I am confident there are a lot of normal guys who do not care how many previous partners their partner has had.

That's what you said.

Both of my sources cast quite a bit of doubt on your assertion.

More comments

Didn't Chuck Palahniuk write about that?

In case you wanted my opinion on this, I don't even consider this sex anymore. I don't know what you call it. Comparing this to being a slut is like comparing the hot dog speed eating contest to an occasional cheat day at McDonalds.

I don’t think there’s a huge moral difference between having sex with 100 men in a day (which is admittedly unusual) and 100 men in a year (which is comparatively common). In both cases you’re treating sex as a trivial thing.

The number of people one sleeps with has no moral dimension as far as I can tell. A doctor who saves people's lives and sleeps with dozens of people a month is morally better than a celibate or monogamous murderer.

That works only as long as 10 righteous people are still left in Sodom.

Note that Genesis does not specify exactly what sins the people of Sodom had committed.

However, the book of Ezekiel, chapter 16, verse 49, describes it as:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

The Talmud further expands on Sodom's mis-deeds; they generally involve either callousness towards the poor or hostility to foreigners.

This is a really strange take, since in Genesis the men of Sodom immediately try to rape the angels that are sent to Lot to warn him to get out. Genesis hardly leaves you wandering what could have been so bad about these people that they were condemned.

No, this take is entirely consistent with the actual context of the time. The emphasis on the crime being due to homosexuality is the more modern reinterpretation.

Other ancient texts such as the Talmud and the Midrash go into significantly more detail about the sins of Sodom, and they revolve entirely around lack of hospitality, cruelty, and miserliness.

The biblical story of Sodom makes sense in this context when you understand that threats of rape were commonly used to ward off intruders. As just one example, in Roman culture the god Priapus (also depicted with an enormously exaggerated phallus) was frequently used as a 'no-entry' symbol at the entrance to properties, with the implied (or in many cases with humorous inscriptions) that any trespassers would be subject to sexual violence.

It's actually a great case study in how easy it is to misinterpret stories out of other cultures - something that as you say can seem entirely obvious can have very different meanings to the people and cultures of the time.

Either I am misunderstanding Blueberry's comment which started this digression, or you and Celestial-body-NOS are. Neither Blueberry nor I at any point said that homosexuality was the sole reason for the sinfulness attributed to the people of Sodom.

I fully agree that lack of hospitality was a major component. What I disagreed with was this statement:

Note that Genesis does not specify exactly what sins the people of Sodom had committed.

I claim this gives a false impression of the account in Genesis which includes a striking account of the wickedness of that people.

Side note: the case for homosexuality not being a major component of Sodom's wickedness is pretty weak. First: homosexuality is only spoken of in the Old Testament in this and one other similar narrative passage (Judges 20) describing exceptionally wicked peoples, and in prohibitions which call it an abomination.

Second: The Ezekiel passage does indeed ascribe miserliness and idleness to the Sodomites in verse 49, but it also continues in verse 50:

And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.

Third: The New Testament in Jude summarizes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as "giving themselves over to sexual immorality".

the men of Sodom immediately try to rape the angels

Because the angels were foreigners. The men of Sodom were not motivated by desire for the angels; they sought to degrade them, for having the temerity to exist as foreigners. (Some interpretations speculate that the mob wanted to interrogate the angels, 'knowing' them in a more literal sense.)

Lot's offer of his daughters was not a contrast between same-sex and opposite-sex attraction, but an attempt to protect his guests by whatever means he could think of. (Sacred hospitality was considered very important in the Ancient Mediterranean; cf. the Classical myth of Philemon and Baucis, in which Jupiter and Mercury visit a village incognito and are turned away by everyone except the titular couple, who invite them into their small home, resulting in the village being turned into a pond and the inhabitants into fish, the house of Philemon and Baucis being turned into an ornate temple, and the granting of their request that they would die at the same time as each other, at which time they were turned into trees [an oak and a linden].)

which is comparatively common

Citation needed.

No citation needed. Sleeping with 100 people in a year is a strict superset of sleeping with 100 people in a day. Also… common sense.

Well, duh. I got the impression that doglatine was making a stronger claim than that though.

despite breaking down on camera?

What, you even think that reaction is genuine?

I don't; I think that's trying to cover oneself with the female privilege to be hurt by sex ("dissociation") for the camera when prompted/given the opportunity (and a good number of women will, as that's their social role). She is well-practiced in acting, obviously. It's just sex, and discovering you're putting swine before pearls and feeling terrible about it isn't unique to professional women- this has probably happened at least once to every human being.

But it sure does gets the expected reaction from a bunch of white-knighting simps, the glory of which those brain-dead Christian men are falling over themselves trying to cover themselves with- they're doing literally the same thing she just did, for the same reasons. (Ever wonder what the straight spear counterpart to 'cumslut' is? Well, now you know.)

The cherry on this cake is that she can get married to a fairly normal guy tomorrow because Riley Reid, another adult entertainer did this too.

Fuck 1000 guys, or have a fake poor-me mental breakdown? I'd consider the latter much more difficult to accept, where the former is more just a health risk (I don't want cold sores, sorry).

I think she's 100 percent honest there. Women get emotional post sex and the acts she was involved in are brutal. I've seen prostitutes irl and it's not a pretty site, which is how she felt by the end. Perhaps I'm naive and haven't seen enough women which is fair to say.

Fuck 1000 guys, or have a fake poor-me mental breakdown?

No marry a normie and pretend she never sucked dick in camera. Any guy willingly marrying her has issues.

I think she's 100 percent honest there.

Then why be actively planning to still have it both ways? Brain damage from (what is described as) the ionizing cancer-causing XXX-rays those sex acts emitted?

Being used as just a piece of stupid meat/treated as if I’m only in it for myself existentially annoys me, in my experience, but it’s more that than it is any particulars doing the damage.

(Of course, if you know you’ll need straight marriage and sell your meal ticket to it…)

Do religious people actually genuinely believe that those who willingly perform such stunts are capable of having all their sins washed away?

I'm copying this from other comments because you removed it. I don't think this was in bad faith at all, it's a very good question.

And yes. But the form of Christianity I believe in also holds that, while God forgives all things because of genuine repentance, he doesn't remove the natural consequences of sin, and he doesn't remove the requirement for intense, even painful, spiritual growth and purification after partaking in sin. In this sense, yes, some sins are worse than others, and more sins are worse than fewer sins.

The closest person to Lily in the Christian tradition is probably St. Mary of Egypt, who was a prostitute who often refused payment for her services because she just loved sex, and even went on a pilgrimage to try and bang pilgrims. According to the hagiography, she tried to enter a church and could not, and was struck with remorse, pledging to become an aescetic if God would forgive her. After receiving absolution, she fled into the desert and lived as a hermit.

I don't see it in your comment -- did this woman repent? Did she publicly say that she's ashamed of her actions and she believes God has given her grace to overcome them? Has she been baptized? If not, will she?

If yes, my response to her is the same as to Russell Brand: I trust in God to judge you spiritually, but to earn my temporal respect you must prove your amendment over a long period of time, and that starts with shutting up.

Stop trying to be a celebrity. Don't go on shows to talk about how great your conversion is and how much of a degenerate you were and how much of a good Christian you are now -- just stop. Go into the desert. Become an aescetic. For someone whose sins are so public and attention-seeking, repentance must inevitably involve privacy and humility. And that path may be painful, involving great sacrifice -- it may indeed include religious vows someday. But no one said the Christian life was easy, least of all the man nailed to the cross.

When St. Paul became a Christian, he did not immediately set out to preach to the world, but fled to Arabia for three years. If your goal is truly to make yourself right with God, and not to win the favor of men, you should treasure this opportunity as a pearl of great price. Christianity is not a get-out-of-consequences-free-card, but the Way that leads to life.

But if your goal is merely to resurrect your temporal reputation and not to resurrect your soul, then you will be numbered among the goats and there can be no redemption for you.

She just cried and the Christians online including Tristan Tate, Andrew's brother are trying to get their followers to convert her over. She is probably completely unaware of what's going on and wants to be a harlot forever.

The girl I linked to in my post, the Christian one conveniently wants anyone with identitarian views to rot forever but finds great forgiveness for a harlot who makes even coomers repulsed by porn. Even though identitarians are mostly Christians in the west and this girl doesn't want to be religious or normal or settle down.

My question was in good faith, if a guy nukes the world and asks for forgiveness, if there any place for him. I'm a Hindu this is vague even here, I believe in second chances, I'm just not sure what kind of people would be honest about them and the redemption of their own soul.

I’m a Hindu

Do Hindus even believe in the concept of forgiveness at all? Isn’t your whole thing that souls get reincarnated forever and get a better or worse deal based on how evil they were in a previous life?

Christians believe that if you are genuinely repentant that you are forgiven. In fact perhaps the only unforgivable sin is believing that you couldn’t be forgiven.

and get a better or worse deal based on how evil they were in a previous life?

I thought that was a recent Western invention and Hindus don't actually think that you are earning Good Boy points and Bad Lad demerits and being rewarded or punished suitably in the next incarnation.

Edit: Don't trust whitey, at least not about Hinduism.

There are various sects but the unwritten laws and societal structures are largely same for all unless you dive deep into the texts for various texts.

I'm someone who leans more towards the vedas which are far more war focused than the puranas which are the latest and the ones with most made up stuff.

Also germanics had similar values and an understanding of the world not too far from Hindus. Survivethejive and Arya Akasha are two good sources for this from a western pov and the puri Shankracharya from an Indian pov.

"recent" is relative, but from the Upanishads:

'He's made of this. He's made of that.' What a man turns out to be depends on how he acts and on how he conducts himself. If his actions are good, he will turn into something good. If his actions are bad, he will turn into something bad. A man turns into something good by good action and into something bad by bad action. And so people say: 'A person here consists simply of desire.' A man resolves in accordance with his desire, acts in accordance with his resolve, and turns out to be in accordance with his action.

I've heard college educated white Americans confidently assert my above-mentioned statement.

Turns out they were wrong.

Hinduism in its purest forms is very reactionary and extremely complex since it's a in umbrella term for a whole lot of sects. The common view among most is that you do good deeds and are given a life based on them, those who attain salvation escape life and death.

Now there are absolutely sects that don't believe in re incarnation at all. Remember, Hindus in India follow a more Puranic faith which is the complete opposite of the vedas. Brahmins hard-coded a lot of things to keep society sane as the hbd kept getting worse as the Aryan stock went down and so you go from having hymns in vedas about indra destroying forts of dasyus to prohibition of onion and garlic and some dharmashastras stating that a woman is a virgin after each period.

People in India joke about how every good indologist has to visit Germany since that field I dead here. The actual unadulterated Aryan faith cannot work now, the people back then were different. Vedas for instance are actually compatible with things like evolution, the earth being round and asking people to go out and fight.

For scholars I can vouch for, I'd say Goldman is really good, his ramayana translation is the best out there if you wish to read it in a literary form. @sarker is right btw, though many boomers here definitely don't believe in free will intellectualy, at least the religious ones.

Are Christians morally obligated to forgive someone if God has forgiven them? Like, let's say this woman appears to convert to Christianity and repent meaningfully and by all appearances it seems 100% genuine. Am I supposed to treat her like she's a completely fresh, clean bowl of cheerios? Would it be wrong of me to refuse to marry/date her because of her past?

Would it be wrong of me to refuse to marry/date her because of her past?

No. But it also wouldn't be wrong for you to choose to marry her. You wouldn't be sinning in marrying her. Which is already an important distinction, and an important advancement over most other views of morality historically and presently.

My own personal view, is that deal breakers, while tempting, are bad to have too many of, and really bad to try to enforce on others. Because finding a good partner is hard enough as it is. I know good Christian girls who married their sweetheart from Liberty University, or married a girl they only courted with chaperones, who wound up in miserable, failed, dangerous, or otherwise terrible marriages. Given the importance of finding a good spouse, and the difficulty of doing so, it would seem foolish to throw someone away if you genuinely thought they'd make you happy over one thing.

This, of course, is all big talk on my part, as I already married the perfect woman.

Are Christians morally obligated to forgive someone if God has forgiven them?

What would I forgive her for? She has done me no wrong. She may have sinned against God and her own body; she can forgive her own conscience and God can forgive her sins. I cannot forgive her sins even if I wanted to.

Yes, Christian’s are obligated to forgive this woman. No, Christian’s are not obligated to be willing to marry this woman post conversion.

Would you marry/date a bowl of corn flakes? Or fruit loops, I don't mean to assume.

It would be wrong of you, according to the Christianity I was raised with, to insist upon that decision even in the face of genuine remorse. If you got to know this woman and had long deeply spiritual conversations with her and came to the conclusion that she was genuinely sorry for it and still refused to date her for that reason, that would not be Christian.

But like @urquan says, only God can truly judge you, because only God and you know what is truly in your heart. On top of that, no one will be judged before judgement day and no one knows when that will be. In our predicament we can only evaluate the evidence - has she stopped doing it, does she visibly feel bad about it, and so on. It would be acceptable if you didn't believe she was truly sorry after getting to know her, although it would still be necessary to be polite to her.

To roll in what @mrvanillasky asked about the guy nuking the planet and then repenting, yes God would forgive that guy, because he would know that guy was legit, because he can see his thoughts and because it was part of his plan. The idea of nuking the planet and then being truly remorseful about it seems strictly impossible to me though - how do you even conceptualise the death and suffering of 10 billion people?

It would be wrong of you, according to the Christianity I was raised with, to insist upon that decision even in the face of genuine remorse. If you got to know this woman and had long deeply spiritual conversations with her and came to the conclusion that she was genuinely sorry for it and still refused to date her for that reason, that would not be Christian.

Repentance is not the same as healing. If she's so psychologically scarred that she'll never be able to function as a wife there's no reason I'd consider marrying her in the first place, whether she's 'really' sorry or not. We're not expected to marry a woman unless she occurs to us as good to marry. There are many reasons that someone with her history is less likely to be a good wife.

whether she's 'really' sorry or not.

Can I ask what you mean by quoting really there? Because I'll tell you what I assume - you don't believe she's really sorry* and there actually isn't anything short of the clouds opening up and a ray of sunshine beaming "no dude she is totes for real" into your head that would change your mind. It is that thought pattern that is unchristian as I understand the faith. I didn't say you were expected to marry her, I said if you maintained the belief that she was a soiled bowl of cheerios you point blank refuse to date after getting to know her and embracing the concept of forgiveness you would be in the wrong.

One of the first steps in embracing the concept of forgiveness is accepting how much of a fuck up you are. It changes your worldview, as does getting to know someone, especially on a spiritual level. Still, only God can judge, if after all those deep and meaningfuls and tears and sleepless nights you still believed she wasn't really remorseful, it would be acceptable to refuse to date her. (But I would bet some people in your community would believe you didn't 'really' forgive her.)

Deciding up front that a woman is a roastie who could never truly accept Jesus because she's banged too many dudes you see, is a similar sin to banging a hundred dudes then saying sorry because then you have to be forgiven. You are trying to put one over on God. God doesn't expect you to get everything right, or even anything right, but he expects you to try and to think it through.

*For clarity, I don't think this Lily is genuinely remorseful, it sounds like she's getting ready to bang another thousand guys? She would have a very high bar to vault to convince me she was sincere. I would talk to her and give her a chance to change my mind though.

Can I ask what you mean by quoting really there? Because I'll tell you what I assume - you don't believe she's really sorry* and there actually isn't anything short of the clouds opening up and a ray of sunshine beaming "no dude she is totes for real" into your head that would change your mind. It is that thought pattern that is unchristian as I understand the faith.

I mean there's a solid chance she's not really sorry, yes. This is how people work. Hopefully we both understand this? Seems like you do.

But the part where you've apparently randomly concluded that I've already decided she's lying and it would be nearly impossible to change my mind is kind of crazy. No idea where you're getting that.

Yes I understand how people work. That's why, when someone angrily implies I'm being a naive simp for suggesting forgiving this woman to the point that you can view her as another person deserving of love, reads an obligation to marry her in a post that explicitly says the opposite and adds a pre-arranged excuse to get him out of viewing her as marriage material, I assume he has already made up his mind.

Maybe you just meant to signal your strong disbelief currently and you would be happy to marry her if you got to know her and discovered she wasn't too psychologically scarred? I apologise if that is the case. Where would you get married? How many kids would you have together and what would you name the first one if it was a girl?

You know, rather than respond point by point I'll just let you know that I wasn't angry in the slightest, but it's also true that I'm not interested in the conversation any more.

More comments

Are Christians morally obligated to forgive someone if God has forgiven them? ... Would it be wrong of me to refuse to marry/date her because of her past?

You would have to forgive her her sins. That doesn't entail pretending that her past experiences won't impact her future relationships. So the answer depends on your motives, but generally no, it's not wrong.

Are Christians morally obligated to forgive someone if God has forgiven them?

One must, it is true, forgive one's enemies-- but not before they have been hanged

Am I supposed to treat her like she's a completely fresh, clean bowl of cheerios?

Depends, are you getting straight-married or gay-married to her?

Because she seems the type to still want (or rather, need) a straight marriage, and at this point I think she’d have a hard time with both, because the betrayal in a straight marriage is not being a virgin, but the betrayal in a gay marriage is not being fucking trustworthy enough not to want to fall back into needing those straight marriage privileges for the relationship to be viable (because she can’t provide them now as well as she used to).

There was a short thread discussing this issue while ago.

The short version is that Christians are obligated to act with charity and love to all people. However, that does not mean Christians shouldn't condemn the sins people have committed and treat them out harshly out of love (love is willing the good of the other - the good of the other may require some 'tough love'). This includes accepting there may be temporal consequences for sin (penance is built around this concept, but also consequences outside of penance). Additionally, there is a significant degree of prudential judgement Christians should excerise when it comes to determining genuine conversion or not. After all, Jesus warns against 'wolves in sheep's clothing' and false prophets more than once. False prophets easily extends to those who claim to have had an encounter with Christ (i.e. a conversion).

Are Christians morally obligated to forgive someone if God has forgiven them?

For one thing, it's hard to know if God has forgiven them when all you've got is a public claim of religious conversion. But the second part is that there's nothing for you to forgive here: the sin was against herself, and against the men she involved in it, and against God, not against you.

But if someone has directly sinned against you and comes to you with deep remorse combined with restorative action, then the number of times you should forgive them is seventy times seven.

Am I supposed to treat her like she's a completely fresh, clean bowl of cheerios? Would it be wrong of me to refuse to marry/date her because of her past?

No, not at all.

Like I said, forgiveness is different from the natural consequences of your actions. If someone along these lines expresses genuine remorse and is part of, say, your local church community, while showing evidence of repentance (which involves actions as well as words), then you should treat them with the respect owed to someone in the community. That means not spreading gossip or being harsh or critical, it means loving them as you love yourself. (Some acts rise to the level of crimes, of course, and that's a different situation: Christian repentance doesn't erase the consequences of sin, like prison sentences.) But this is dependent upon true absolution and penitence, which in ancient Christianity could sometimes involve years of formal ostracization (i.e. temporary excommunication). This is a "be nice until you can coordinate meanness" situation. It's God, through the ordained ministry, that gets to make these decisions, not you or me.

But that doesn't mean you can't make a judgment about their behavior in terms of your temporal choices or choices that entangle you with them, like choosing not to marry them because you believe their particular inclinations might make them a poor spouse. You're under no obligation to marry anyone in particular, and choosing not to date/marry someone is not equivalent to social ostracization (one of my disagreements with trans activists). The natural consequence of poor sexual behavior is poor sexual prospects, and God doesn't remove those unless he has a particular plan for you -- which, of course, he might.

Christians are called to be innocent as doves but wise as serpents, to forgive and have compassion but also to be judicious and not naive.

The cherry on this cake is that she can get married to a fairly normal guy tomorrow because Riley Reid, another adult entertainer did this too.

Fairly high status men marry whores all the time. Nancy Reagan, Miranda Kerr, Meghan Markle. Even Melania was an Eastern European model in NYC in the late ‘90s lol, and that was a pretty sordid business. Men say they care, and in a vacuum they do, but in real life I think less than they’re willing to admit.

Fairly high status men marry whores all the time. Nancy Reagan, Miranda Kerr, Meghan Markle. Even Melania

How many of them were central examples of whores? How many of them have acknowledged that they regularly had had sex with people that weren't their romantic partners for money?

There were enough rumors about all of them in society circles that the men in question (and their friends) presumably knew exactly what the record was.

Yeah, online trad redpill mra types always pretend that high status people marry whores regularly. Supermodels and actresses marry guys who are higher status than them.

Purity spiraling seems to be a much more internet driven phenomenon.

online trad redpill mra types always pretend that high status people marry whores regularly.

? No they don't. They say 'betas' marry them after high status 'alphas' 'pumped' them. Through the transitive property of the woman, this makes the 'beta' the 'alpha's bitch (imagine the woman in a sandwich where they all face the same way), reinforcing the sexual hierarchy they obsess over.

I think he forgot a “don’t”, otherwise the sentence doesn’t make sense.

Status and deniability matter. It theoretically makes no difference but "supermodel" reads differently than "Onlyfans model".

Did Miranda Kerr get into something tawdry with a fat Malaysian scammer for what could only be the financial benefits? Maybe. But it's not on tape, she denies it and the guy was apparently a weird introvert who apparently really did do things like pay for women to flaunt and then wouldn't even talk to them. Harry...I think is legitimately dumb enough to not believe anything but video until it was too late.

I think a man like Kerr's is not in this woman's future but she probably will get married to a fairly normal guy (assuming she has some creepsense and filters out people who like this stuff). She made it as hard as possible for that guy though.

Female promiscuity is completely harmless, as this stunt again proves. If you assume a linear no-threshold model of harm and she does fine after hundreds of men, likely ending up married to some banker or politician, then obviously sleeping with only a football team can’t possibly be harmful at all, the equivalent of one banana of radioactivity.

Female promiscuity is harmful because it rewards only the very high status and thus others can't have families. Such a society would fall immediately and be very unstable. The US today or any place that's not under extremely strict Islam has seen a rise of incels due to it.

Our society, religion and psychological outlooks to it have a lot to do with this.

It’s extremely difficult to prove causation even if there was correlation here.

It could be modernity, or the million other things that have changed, it could even be the other way around: in the 60s, 70s and 80s promiscuity was celebrated and people had more sex, now with these sexual hangups, we see the rise in sexlessness.

Personally I think the lack of sex is more due to quality porn and entertainment and general ‘lack of needing others’. Men don’t need women to fulfill their sexual urges, women don’t need men to provide for them anymore, it’s way less boring to stay alone in your room than it used to be, and so on.

The Rise of The Incels sounds like a fantasy, whatever instability there is in the west does not come from incels, who seem more pacified with each porn-induced orgasm, a well-known soporific. By contrast, you imply the islamic world’s sexual restrictiveness has made it stable? I would dispute that.

Everything else aside, I just don’t like infringing on individual liberties, consenting adults and all that. I don’t think there was someone I forgot to ask.

I humbly disagree, if you can get sex as a woman from a guy you like and that's going to be the small minority of guys, without social structures then no one will want to marry. Most dudes are unattractive to be begin with which is why we have more female ancestors than male. On top of that bioleninism puts status in the hand of others besides males.

Porn undoubtedly is a reason though. I personally am not a total degen but also not a total religious nut in terms of promiscuity though I'd lean towards a society with more restrictions.

Islam wasn't alone, women didn't get emancipation anywhere in the world, I'm not arguing for rollbacks of it here but Islamic faith doesn't take it seriously. We can't go back to it even if I were arguing for it which I'm not. Promiscuity being public enrages normal guys even more because they clearly see women they could have married years ago getting sex and being happy whilst they cope with consumerism.

Most dudes are unattractive to be begin with which is why we have more female ancestors than male.

That's really not the reason, it's the massacre of patrilineal groups through the ages. The vast majority of men reproduced. But if it was true, I guess we'd all be Ken's sons while women would be descended from hags, so we'd win the intersexual beauty contest easy (but who would be the judges?).

You seem to be saying most men are so ugly we need to force women to date them, which is funny, and a little insulting. Those poor women lol. I’d be merciful and let her choose celibacy if it came to that.

ugly does not equal unattractive, besides mass massacres, we have seen the effects of hypergamy in front of our own guys. A man's attractiveness is mostly his status and then his attributes, you simply both directly and indirectly and women are way better than guys at picking this stuff up. A society where anyone can have sex with anyone will lead to even more skewed outcomes where geroge clooney bangs 1000s whilst many FAANG engineers end up surfing looksmaxx.org, incorrectly thinking that they are going to succeed if they fix their looks.

I am basing this on my own personal experience as a guy who has surfed these forums but also cold approached a few hundred girls, cold approached not slept with. The average guy is more fun to hangout with but genders rate attractiveness differently innately.

Any Faang engineer can get married, given effort and low standards. Actually, that goes for almost anyone.

The Redpill view of attractiveness is imo very confused. Let’s say that women only cared about status, and men about looks. That still leaves two hierarchies of people with corresponding attractiveness, and nothing fundamentally different in the attractiveness model of the sexes. You say women can sense men’s status, but men can rank women on looks just as easily. And men all prefer a better-looking girlfriend, does that make them hypergamous? If half the men are too low status to be attractive, then half the women are too ugly to be attractive.

The main difference you identify is that most men would accept an offer of casual sex from most women anytime, while women only accept the offer from george clooney sometimes. This says more about the sexes relative enjoyment of casual sex than attractiveness.

I think desire for marriage is a lot more balanced between the sexes. You brought up that indian ‘divorce rape’ case (btw, I know the manosphere uses it, but it’s a terrible name. It comes off as a cheap attempt to ‘equalize’(‘you rape us we rape you’ – but of course most men don’t rape anyone so they don’t deserve this ‘retaliation’, plus rape is illegal, while this uses the legal system to fuck men over, so it’s more like the opposite, etc), and on that subject we agree.

Which leads to my question: let’s say promoting female chastity really does increase marriages … Why do men want the kind of headache that lead to that guy’s suicide anyway? I suggest that before we think of stopping our female overlords from fucking george Clooney, we stop giving them the legal right to steal all their husbands money and send them to prison.

More comments

Promiscuity is probably harmful psychologically, but just as there are plenty of alcoholic men who can nevertheless find an attractive wife, there are plenty of very promiscuous women who - despite having engaged in activity that is probably harmful to their mental health - marry well, as those examples show.

A man would rather a virgin than a harlot, but the beautiful promiscuous woman rarely has issue finding suitable men, if she wants.

But can those alcoholics down a hundred bottles in a night? Any harm from promiscuity, if it exists, is comparatively tiny, harder to find and subject to more ifs.

But can those alcoholics down a hundred bottles in a night?

A hundred bottles in a night, and a hundred men in a day, are extremes for both. But apparently André the Giant could drink that much yes.

I think men care a bit less about whether a woman is a whore when he marries her, but more if she will end up whoring out after the marriage, and maybe more importantly if she carries the reputation of a whore or has been able to keep things discreet.

I feel like you are implying two different questions. There is the religious question of does this person deserve forgiveness, and I donno. Not my call.

Sort of entrapped in that question is, does this person deserve to pretend they never did these things and live a "normal" life. To which I'd have to say any man that tries to wife her is out of his damned mind. But she could easily just not tell guys she was competing to be the UK's biggest attention seeking whore. Some guys might know, some might not. Were she to turn over a new leaf and find a church, she'd probably just run roughshod over some poor schmuck there.

Not an expert, but in a religious context, she belongs in a nunnery, and not out there ruining some poor man's life, along with whatever children they have. The BPD and narcissism inherent in that sort of attention seeking is incurable, even if the "sins" are absolved.

Since ‘nunnery’ was an Elizabethan euphemism for ’brothel’, you couldn’t be more right.

I can understand people having a brief dalliance with extreme behavior and learning a sharp lesson. But...when you get to the point where you're competing with Aella in how terms of how many people came in the fluffer you must have had multiple hints that you aren't built like that?

And if you want to do the crying wojak thing instead of pulling back I have little sympathy.

Do religious people actually genuinely believe that those who willingly perform such stunts are capable of having all their sins washed away?

My reading of my society's trad Muslim faith* is that we formally leave room for the notion that this person is redeemable. Allah only knows who's in heaven and all.

But the sort of credulity shown by online simps who immediately welcome any convert who even touches Christianity would not be acceptable. No one sane would assume that they could just reach her with one verse, nor trust her if she just said she converted. She would simply have to suffer a bit of a social death. Being visibly observant (easier to tell than with other faiths) while suffering social opprobrium seems like a minimal requirement to signal true commitment.

* I guess we can say "conservative". I don't want to imagine the really trad sharia punishment.

Edited for meme accuracy.

Islam has quite a bit of influence from Christianity so I don't expect it to be a very different answer. I'm just disgusted by her act, how can a family support this stuff.

There are at least a couple of Hadiths where a prostitute is forgiven iirc.

Do religious people actually genuinely believe that those who willingly perform such stunts are capable of having all their sins washed away?

Sure, if she repents and puts her faith in Jesus Christ. Believers' righteousness is not based in what we have done, but in what Christ has done for us. God forgives much direr sins than that.

The cherry on this cake is that she can get married to a fairly normal guy tomorrow because riley reid, another adult entertainer did this too.

Maybe. Christianity doesn't draw an automatic line from forgiven to ideal wife material, to be clear.

Do religious people actually genuinely believe that those who willingly perform such stunts are capable of having all their sins washed away?

If you have to ask, you fundamentally do not understand Christianity, or its concept of repentance or grace. You appear to be using a model where forgiveness is for lesser sins, but too much sin means that this forgiveness is overwhelmed. In the first place, there are no lesser or greater sins; all sins are alike in that they all involve rejection of God, his nature and his creation. In the second place, what prevents forgiveness from working is not the amount of sins committed, but rather the refusal of the sinner to repent, leading eventually, one way or another, to an inability to repent.

It's pretty normal in Christianity to admit of degrees of guilt. See, for example, when Jesus wishes woe upon Capernaum, saying that it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for them. See also how some kings of Israel are praised but caveated, whereas others are outright condemned, because the first class forbid pagan gods but allowed worship of God in the high places, whereas the worse kings allowed pagan worship.

You'll also see some people saying that the sin that's committed has effects on willingness to repent, but I'm not really knowledgeable of that.

If you have to ask, you fundamentally do not understand Christianity. [...] You appear to be using a model where forgiveness is for lesser sins, but too much sin means that this forgiveness is overwhelmed. In the first place, there are no lesser or greater sins

Also, from @SubstantialFrivolity: The girl who bangs 1000 dudes in one day is no worse, in God's eyes, than the sweet old grandma who snapped at her grandson in a moment of frustration.

It's hard to say uniformly "what Christians believe" about sin and hell because of denominational drift. The Catholic church certainly teaches different levels of eternal punishment exist for different degrees of unrepented sin. (And, correspondingly, different levels of virtue in life grant different amounts of glory in heaven.)

So yes, it's a mess. Even the most agreed-upon doctrines, such as that any sinner can repent and be saved; find dissent in at least a few churches, such as Calvinists with their TULIP.

(While I'm here, another denominational difference: a Catholic would say that Lily Philips loses eternal punishment for sleeping with 100 men by repenting, but the damage to her soul still requires purification, which can be accomplished in this life or after death. Eastern Orthodox Christians have a similar idea, but they have 'purification after death' rather than purgatory, and it varies in the particulars.)

As a Calvinist, it's the case that:

For everyone, if they were to repent, would be saved. Not everyone will in fact repent, but only those whom God predestines.

This isn't unique to the Calvinists, though. You'll see the same thing here among the more predestination-leaning Roman Catholics (like those following Thomas Aquinas) or Lutherans (like Luther or Walther, but not like Gerhard, if I remember correctly).

(Also, the TULIP acronym isn't ideal, especially in that the L is considerably more optional within the Reformed tradition than the other four. But it's a popular characterization, and frequently used by those within.)

You'll see the same thing here among the more predestination-leaning Roman Catholics (like those following Thomas Aquinas)

Predestination-leaning Roman Catholics are just "Roman Catholics". God perfectly foresees the free choices men make within time, and thus has perfect knowledge of who will be saved. This, in the Catholic view, does not infringe on the agency of the sinner in responding to/failing to respond to grace. Some people see this as a logical contradiction: "If God already knows I'll steal cream from the office fridge on Tuesday, how do I have a free choice?" But the teaching makes good sense to me, as God exists outside of time; an easier way to conceptualize it might be to imagine that we made choices at the beginning of time, but are now experiencing them linearly.

Which leads to the core difference:

For everyone, if they were to repent, would be saved. Not everyone will in fact repent, but only those whom God predestines.

Per Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, the very choice to repent is motivated purely by God, and the choice not to repent is likewise compelled by God. Agency does not exist. The sinner who will not repent was never free to repent, and the elect who repents was never free not to repent. The universe is a clockwork contraption devised for a glorious divine drama.

If God designed it that way, Lily Philips could never not sleep with 100 men, nor repent for sleeping with 100 men. It was all a plan, scripted by God, for God's greater glory.

I do not see the calivinist view as inherently ridiculous (or even monstrous, as people often describe it), but it is a real difference from other denominations.

Predestination-leaning Roman Catholics are just "Roman Catholics".

Sure, but there's a difference as to what extent God's will is seen as posterior vs. prior to the decision, right?

I know there were big controversies between Jesuits and Dominicans at some point, and the Franciscans had still another position, I believe.

the very choice to repent is motivated purely by God

Yes, it does depend upon God giving us a new heart, etc. etc.

and the choice not to repent is likewise compelled by God.

Well, not in the same way. It's not a direct action on the part of God; it's the inevitable result of our fallen state barring divine grace.

Agency does not exist.

Sure it does. We're just, in our fallen states, bad agents, at least in the respects relevant in these instances.

The sinner who will not repent was never free to repent, and the elect who repents was never free not to repent.

This depends pretty heavily on what you mean by free.

The universe is a clockwork contraption devised for a glorious divine drama.

Well, I'm not necessarily committed to that. I'd be fine with, for example, direct action by God in determining how quantum states collapse each time. I'm not actually endorsing that position specifically, but I have no problem with it. But sure, I have no problem with a deterministic world, and it is for God's glory. Just don't use determinism as a grounds to minimize it.

If God designed it that way, Lily Philips could never not sleep with 100 men, nor repent for sleeping with 100 men. It was all a plan, scripted by God, for God's greater glory.

Depending on what you mean by "could," sure. But surely you also would agree that conditional on God's knowing that Lily Philips would sleep with 100 men, that would necessarily happen? And not only knowledge, but as part of God's decrees in ordering the world—his will, not just his knowledge? I mean, Molinists would affirm that, not just Thomists, correct?

I do not see the calivinist view as inherently ridiculous (or even monstrous, as people often describe it), but it is a real difference from other denominations.

Are you aware of the Dominican-Jesuit debate? Do things like "physical premotion" mean anything to you? (Note that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on these myself.) Are you aware that the esteemed Thomas Aquinas is thoroughly on the more strongly predestinarian side of these himself?

Even the most agreed-upon doctrines, such as that any sinner can repent and be saved; find dissent in at least a few churches, such as Calvinists with their TULIP.

This is not really true. It's true in the same sense as it would be true to say "material determinists claim that there certain orderings of a deck of cards that can never be created." Some orderings of the cards will never be created, and since material determinism says that the entire course of the universe is already set, in a sense that's equivalent to saying that there are some orderings which "can never" be created. But for all practical purposes it would be a misleading way to phrase it.

The same applies to Calvinism. Calvinists teach that everything which will come to pass has been foreordained by God from eternity. This means that those who are foreordained not to be saved, "can never" be saved. But it's not due to anything special in the person nor susceptible to our analysis ahead of time. Certainly it is not a Calvinist doctrine that certain sinful acts allow us to know here and now someone's predestined fate.

It's true that there's a ton of denominational drift, but I don't think you can find a central example of Christianity that claims to be able to observe this specific carnal sin, and conclude that the sinner is therefore straightforwardly damned without hope of redemption. I'm pretty sure even the Calvinists would claim that it's at least theoretically possible that this girl might be one of the elect, that despite her recent behavior she'll be saved by God.

What about the sin against the holy spirit?

Hence "this specific carnal sin", ie banging a hundred dudes in one day. Interpretations of "The sin against the Holy Spirit" vary wildly, but I've never heard of a version that claims this specific obscenity would qualify.

Do religious people actually genuinely believe that those who willingly perform such stunts are capable of having all their sins washed away?

"Religious people" is a big group but I'll speak for Christians at least: yes, we do. Christian teaching is crystal clear that God will forgive any and all who repent of their sins, and that we all are equally in need of this mercy no matter what we have done. The girl who bangs 1000 dudes in one day is no worse, in God's eyes, than the sweet old grandma who snapped at her grandson in a moment of frustration.

Doesn't this strike you as bizarre?

Forget about the whore - Kony embraces God and he's alright? The thug who murders someone's whole family sincerely converts and is forgiven - but the victim goes to hell because she can't let go of her hatred for this bastard?

Real justice systems don't work this way, there is no unlimited forgiveness and for very good reason. I feel confident that the vast majority of Christians in history did not truly believe this, their threshold for unforgivable sinning was much lower.

The state may absolutely still put that thug to death, or whatever other punishment.

Yes, the hatred is sufficient to merit hell. This is not unusual or weird in Christianity. Essentially everything we do merits hell. We are only saved through Christ's work. If the victim is not united with Christ, then, sure, improperly proportioned hatred for the thug suffices to damn.

Forget about the whore - Kony embraces God and he's alright?

In the next life, if his conversion is genuine and he repents for his past sins etc. Doesn't mean he'll escape consequences (legal or otherwise) in this life.

The thug who murders someone's whole family sincerely converts and is forgiven - but the victim goes to hell because she can't let go of her hatred for this bastard?

Forgiving others (which doesn't necessarily mean trusting them or anything else like that) is one of the hardest commandments to follow, but it was given by the mouth of Christ Himself:

"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

In my specific subset of Christianity (Mormon) it's even more strict:

"Nevertheless, he has sinned; but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death. My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened. Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin."

That Christians have been imperfect and unable to consistently live up to the requirements set by Christ doesn't make it somehow not Christian doctrine. We're imperfect, which is one of the reasons the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ was required in the first place. We're going to mess these things up, over and over again, but that doesn't mean they aren't things we keep striving for.

Forget about the whore - Kony embraces God and he's alright?

Part of repentance is confession and taking responsibility for what you've done. If Kony is truly repentant, he should confess his crimes, make restitution to his victims, turn himself in to the authorities and submit to punishment willingly.

Before I try to address your post, it's important to note that some of the answers here are going to vary a lot based on denomination. The basic doctrine of "repent for sins, get forgiven" is the same across every denomination, but once you get into the details things vary. So just bear in mind that on some of the things I'm saying there isn't a monolithic Christian viewpoint. I'm giving you the Catholic viewpoint.

Forget about the whore - Kony embraces God and he's alright? The thug who murders someone's whole family sincerely converts and is forgiven - but the victim goes to hell because she can't let go of her hatred for this bastard?

There are a few misconceptions here. First, hell is not a punishment for acts we have committed. Hell is what happens when you have chosen being apart from God during this life - once you die, you get what you wanted and are separated from him in the afterlife. It is miserable not because God wishes to punish people, but because he is the source of all good things. So by separating yourself from him, you wind up in a place where you can only experience bad things. But as CS Lewis memorably put it, the gates of hell are locked from the inside.

Second, Catholics believe that after you die (if you are going to end up in heaven) you will go through a period of purgation as the stain of sins you committed is erased (through means we can only guess at, but it's generally believed it will be painful). Yes, God forgives you for your sins, but they still happened and they still have consequences for you. And based on the exact sins you committed, you will suffer a varying amount as your soul is purified.

Third, all people are equally flawed compared to God (because they are being compared to a perfect standard), but not all sins are ones which mean you will go to hell. Remember, that hell is really about choosing sin over God and not a punishment, so only some sins are so serious that they constitute a break in your relationship with God. The example Bishop Barron gives (which I found helpful) is to use the analogy of a person who does something inconsiderate toward a friend. Some things are minor and weaken the relationship, but don't destroy it. But some things are so serious that the friendship is dead afterwards because of the level of disregard shown.

So to go back to your example of a murderer and the family of one of his victims. The murderer will not be in hell, because he repented and God is merciful. But he will very likely have to suffer the consequences of his sin in purgatory. Meanwhile, the family member will probably also not go to hell, because her hatred is not a mortal sin. She will also have to suffer the consequences of that sin in purgatory, but they will probably be less than what the other person suffers because the sin was not as serious.

Real justice systems don't work this way, there is no unlimited forgiveness and for very good reason.

God is not running a justice system with the various factors that they need to take into account. Like I said, hell is about your relationship with God and not punishment for sins.

I feel confident that the vast majority of Christians in history did not truly believe this

It's official church teaching and has been since the very beginning. That doesn't mean that the actual people truly believed it, but the doctrine is very clear on this point.

This is a good answer, though I'll just add that the current view of hell you describe is very much the post Vatican II (ie from the 60s onwards) position. Prior to that there was a lot more focus on the concept of hell as punishment and torment etc.

There is also some debate amongst modern theologians about the nature of hell, as the idea that it's meant to be both eternal and due entirely to the self-rejection of God can be difficult to square, though this is certainty the current Catholic position.

Yeah, and purgatory was normally considered as involving punishment too.

My semi-educated guess as a non-Christian is that they would draw a distinction between divine forgiveness and temporal forgiveness. “Kony embraces God and he’s alright” is the wrong framing: he may be forgiven by God (though of course we humans can never truly know that), but we are under no obligation to forgive him for his heinous acts as a matter of Earthly law. At least not forgive him immediately and unconditionally.

See also: rendering unto Caesar

I don't think they truly believed this, but then again I find it hard to believe most Christians in general truly believe. It does seem, however, to be in character for a social technology that optimizes for maximum converts and maximum adherence to their practice. Come to us, literally any and all, and you will receive everything in the afterlife as long as you do what we say, no matter the past.

Irredeemable sinners would be a failure of such a system, as they have no more incentive to obey.

It's not that difficult to believe, because it's all conceptual and doesn't cash out anywhere - no-one can point to someone in heaven (or hell) that they think shouldn't be there, so there's never a challenge to the belief system.

I don't think they truly believed this, but then again I find it hard to believe most Christians in general truly believe.

Frankly, that seems to me to be a failure of imagination on your part. Most people believe their religion, regardless of what it is.

That is completely fair, All religions, even Hinduism have paths of salvation. I will edit the bit out since my point about sins might come off as incendiary to others which I did not intend to. I want to get takes on this besides just the hope for religious salvation and I do hope that she finds god soon enough. No woman should willingly go through the kind of trauma despite not being poor where your body dissociates from yourself after your 100th dick for the day.

I think merely by paying this at any sort of attention at all you are creating the market for this material.

It's the most talked about thing online. No one here subs to onlyfans, acts lil this need to be pointed and discussed honestly since they'll only get more prevalent.

No one here subs to onlyfans

Actually true. This is why the Cathedral and PMC would do anything to shut us down. This is the last refuge of Western Men that Refuse to be Broken.

Edit: Also a good idea for a question for my Motte user survey

Onlyfans is fucking pathetic, go out and fuck girls, period. Consumerist society keeps advancing to other forms of life, now even the act of reproduction is impaired.

I get downvoted for recommending guys to go and meet as many girls with good genes as they can and have sex. I learnt that here and it changed my life for the better, I'm not even good at it but way better than average.

The cathedral will shill sex as social technology and biotech alongside a centralised mommy state that interferes in everything more and more each day has retarded normal mating. I posted a few comments today, some about divorce rape another about beta buxxing and the last about this chick. Sex is controlled for various reasons but that society has lost, in time people will justify onlyfans and call it e courtesanships or something.

On a personal note, legalisation of visual pornograhic material was a total disaster. People will keep doing more extreme shit whether it's production or consumption. Stuff like scat or amputee fetish needs to be stigmatized imo.

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