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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link