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 -
All Entertainers are Terrifying People, and OnlyFans Models are no Exception
I watched McMahon some while ago, and it was kind of amazing. Basically tells the story about a young psychopath working his way up from being raised by a single mother in a trailer park, to building a multinational media empire and being friends with the President. All the same, he's still a psychopath. You can admire his unparallelled achievements and greatness, but he's still a terrifying individual you would never want to know personally. At a certain point in the documentary, I think before a slew of new allegations came out about McMahon but maybe not, a bunch of interview subjects are asked what they think McMahon's legacy will be. All but one of them choke on the question, knowing all the skeletons that man has in his closet, but not wanting to say anything because they aren't public (yet).
And McMahon was just one example. It was an industry built on people willing to make any sacrifice for fame and fortune. Putting aside the steroids, they worked at a pace that destroyed their bodies. Listening to the Undertaker go over the list of permanent injuries he's left with is a nightmare. And these people undoubtedly blew off steam in ways greater society would condemn. Drugs, alcohol, sexcapades, you name it.
With Hollywood, and all the high profile sex and crime rings that are being exposed with Harvey Weinstein, P Diddy and even old Epstein paint a nightmarish picture of an industry that paints itself in a very good light. The casting couch has always been infamous, but who knows how far the depravity goes. We catch glimpses every now and again. Brian Singer, the director of the first two X-Men movies was criminally outed as a gay pedophile.
And then there was Lily Phillips, who broke down crying after taking 100 cocks in a day. It's repulsive. But, as I sit with the knowledge of it for longer, most entertainment is made by repulsive people. Has Lily Phillips abused her body and broken with public morals more or less than McMahon, or P Diddy, or Harvey Weinstein? Or even the average wrestler or movie star willing to do anything to be famous? How was Chris Benoit doing during his career? How does taking thousands of cocks over a career, and the BPD and narcissism associated with such an act weight against CTE?
I guess if I have a point, it's that the Roman's were correct. Entertainers are all degenerates and you should scorn anyone who chooses to be one.
Lily Philips made a simple calculation: in exchange for fucking 100 men, she becomes a millionaire through OnlyFans. I doubt she is traumatized; women cry when they are exhausted. The joke is on all the other women: the ones who post thirst traps for nothing, who are used by famous and rich men for nothing. I respect Lily for going all the way and knowing her place. She’s not hiding anything, she’s an old fashioned prostitute. She’s not trying to be anything more!
Same here. A woman who knows her price and sells herself for it is much more respectable than the average liberal western woman who acts as a free prostitute for multiple men in her teens and twenties before "settling down" (they'll all deny that they were used as free prostitutes both at the time and later down the line, but I see that as just another ego defense mechanism). I wish Lily Philips all the best and respect her more than most XX westerners.
How, exactly, is that not a contradiction in terms‽
These women are selling their bodies (so prostituting themselves) to men they find desirable with the hope that he will stick with them long term. For a lot of these women the only thing of value they truly have to offer is their body which the man is paying nothing for. Therefore he's getting the same services as he would be if he had gotten himself a prostitute, but it's free. Hence the free prostitute.
Of course this artifice by the woman usually goes wrong and the man leaves her, after which she calls him an "asshole" to whomever will listen and within a few months moves on to the next guy where the story repeats until she becomes totally disillusioned with men/some schmuck who's willing to pay above market price keeps her long term.
If the above argument isn't convincing to you because you require that a prostitute gets paid for her trade then here is another argument for what exactly I mean here: Consider an expensive escort and a cheap whore. I'm sure you agree that both of these people fall under the umbrella of "prostitute". You can think of some smooth function which takes as argument the price you pay and returns the corresponding hooker at that price point, so if you feed it a low price you get the cheap whore and if you feed it a very high price you get, well, Aella, with a smooth gradient in between.
Now keep reducing the payment price and and take the limit as it approaches 0. Every element of this sequence is a cheaper and cheaper whore (because you're paying less and less). That final limit, even though it may not be a prostitute according to your definition (the set of prostitutes is not closed) is what I mean by a free prostitute and what I think is a decent descriptor for your average modern liberal western woman (because even the cheap whore knows her worth and doesn't sell herself for less than it while the average modern liberal western woman sells herself for free).
Note: this doesn't mean I am against women who like to have lots of sex for the sake of sex because they find it fun. I respect them a lot too because they are willing to break the mold and get what they want. They display a certain will to power which is often sorely lacking among members of their sex. Unfortunately this description does not apply to many modern liberal western women no matter how much they tell themselves it does.
I would respect a women who slept with 50 men because she genuinely wanted to experience sex with lots of other people a lot more than a woman who slept with 50 men because they were all extra attractive and she wanted (but failed) to bag one of them. And I would respect this particular women a lot more still than a women who slept with 50 men because her friends and the prevailing culture she's immersed in told her that this was the good and right thing to do which is another particular brain worm infecting the modern liberal western female mind but that's a discussion for another day.
That's called young women being naive, not being prostitutes. Yes these young women are very foolish, but seriously believing commitment is the price of sex is, literally, what separates a proper lady from a public woman.
They have always been naive, but this behavior is new.
I recall a '40s born writer in a novel describing toilet sex between people who met themselves on a trip as utterly disgusting and low class.
Now sex on first date is allegedly common.
On one hand, sure, there's probably a signal there.
On the other hand, this comment immediately reminded me of "Train Kept a Rollin", which I thought was first recorded in 1956 by Johnny Burnette: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hbw_jI4S924&pp=ygUjdHJhaW4ga2VwdCBhIHJvbGxpbiBqb2hubnkgYnVybmV0dGU%3D Upon closer investigation, the actual original was in 1951, by Tiny Bradshaw, and rather less suggestive to my ear: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ci4EQDD4CqA&pp=ygUYdHJhaW4ga2VwdCBhIHJvbGxpbiAxOTUx
The signal is a lot less informative when half of the people do it.
And christ, that Burnette version is nasty, in all kinds of ways.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is because young women have more freedom to do stupid things. This is not in their interests, of course, but 'why did naive young women not put out in 1940 when they do today' has an answer and it isn't 'there was a war on' nor is it 'because today they don't think they should get commitment for sex'.
Yeah. But we live in a liberal society that pretends we're all equal in our decision making ability.
So very noble and conveniently also allows for the exploitation of the weak minded and willed by the clever and the ruthless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, because of the sexual revolution. Whether that was or remains in women’s interest is a different question entirely.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link