site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   34418 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022

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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For any of you who's familiar with New York Times's Wirecutter, which publishes products reviews and lists hot deals:

As of right now, among deals on toys, subwoofers, and mattresses, there are also two vibrators, both around $100.

As far as I can tell, there are no deals on sex toys for men (I'm ignoring vibrators' cross sex appeal here, or how men may use toys to pleasure their female partners).

I don't expect this observation by itself to generate much new insight, as it seems fairly obvious that culturally, men tend to be viewed as perverted or losers for pleasuring themselves with tools, while for women it's fun and almost virtuous (well, certainly less slutty than finding a casual partner). I can see a Wirecutter staff member publishing a review of her personal experience testing various toys, but cannot fathom a male staff member talking about how this particular lifelike doll had very full lips but that one has perkier breasts, and this third company makes ethnic dolls for your fantasies. If you Google Wirecutter and sex toys, all the articles that come up are exclusively focused on women or gay men (i.e. anal stuff).

So my question is more about a prediction for how culture may evolve along this front. By what year do you think Wirecutter will publish reviews and deals on sex toys targeted at straight men looking for thrusting fun?

The year that I'll pull out of my ass is... 2032

IMO all 12 year old boys should be issued free state-provided fleshlights (well, actually they should be issued real, eugenically-perfected loli waifus for dedicated use and servitude, but baby steps) that reasonably emulate actual vaginas (decently tight, pristine ones, maybe not in the absolute top 5% or their cocks will become too spoiled for anything else but not some roastie-tier hotdog hallways in the name of inclusion or feminism or whatever) and instructed in their use for the prevention of coital (and other interactive sexual acts) anorgasmia and premature ejaculation, common sexual afflictions in men due to inappropriate masturbatory habits generally starting in their youth.

Is there a serious value add for male sex toys? there's no anatomical analogy to a Hitachi, but a hand can curl around a dick just fine. No batteries, no plug, and I'm carrying it around anyway. The hell I need a toy for?

Find a market near you that sells large aloe vera leaves. Cut a section near the base and slice the flesh through the middle. The soft texture of the flesh and natural skin-nourishing gel lubricant are what I would consider a serious value-add. I would never use a plastic "toy" or oil-based or synthetic lube, it would probably cause a reaction as my skin is kind of sensitive.

Is there a serious value add for male sex toys?

Yes. The general problem with them is that you need to lubricate them before use and actually have to get out of bed to clean them (not an extra step if you do this anyway, but a rag won't do the job like it normally does).

but a hand can curl around a dick just fine.

Sure, but the silicone sleeves have 100% coverage and consistent pressure around the enclosed cylinder. Your hand can't do either of those things, especially if you're only focused on one part at a time; it is quite a bit better sensation-wise. It also prevents you from clamping down too hard (this may or may not be a problem for you). But it does ultimately add inconvenience where there wasn't before.

Maybe it's a circumcision thing too, if you're uncut you require no lube and can get real far focusing pressure on the frenulum.

if you're uncut you require no lube

The silicone used with these toys exhibits enough friction that it doesn't matter.

If you don't lubricate it, it is difficult to impossible to insert against, which just adds more cleanup and complication to what should in theory be a perfectly simple process.

Right but I'm under the impression that uncut folks are already using lube anyway so the jump to toys might not be as much of a pain?

Men don't regularly have these conversations among themselves. I wonder if female masturbation tradecraft is more developed because women actually talk about it whereas men for the most part figure it out like any primate can and go to town for life.

I'm under the impression that uncut folks are already using lube anyway so the jump to toys might not be as much of a pain?

If anything, it'd be the cut folks using lubricant, since they're missing the piece that automatically provides it.

I am not (and don't need it), so needing to use it is inconvenient even though the experience on offer from a toy is strictly better than simple hand motion.

Might be a difference specific to the US, since that's the place with the highest raw (heh) number of circumcisions; but then again I believe people from the US are less likely to purchase these toys for other reasons (their society is far more masculine-leaning than any of their closest competitors), so it might be a wash.

I inverted that, I meant cut folks.

If you're trying to say that there's no value to male sex toys, but there is value to female toys, then I don't follow. Can a woman not stick her fingers inside of her vagina, or rub her clit using only her hands?

I'm saying is there enough value to justify the logistical tail? A Hitachi literally plugs into the wall but it's worth it. Is there anything with that kind of value add for penis-focused guys? (I'm sure there are tons of excellent things to put in your asshole if that's your jam.)

Well, I'm no expert, but if I wanted to steelman the position that male sex toys are worth it, I'd say that the biggest difference between vaginal sex and manual masturbation is that vaginal sex is very wet. So maybe the biggest value-add is in something that lubricates.

For that matter, the only thing I ever did which was similar to buying a male sex toy was when I once bought some masturbation cream. It was advertised as that it was supposed to make your hand feel just like a vagina when the cream heats up. But I wasn't impressed, it wasn't worth it, didn't actually feel at all like vaginal sex, and had annoying cleanup.

Alright, I'll take one for the team and describe my own experience with "masturbatory aids" as they like to call them. I'm a SuperStraight™ guy with what normally is a healthy sex life (I keep a spreadsheet) but the first time I ever got these was in the middle of the first pandemic winter where NOTHING was going on. I was single then and I distinctly remember reading the news about some upcoming new variant and knew I had to brace myself for a long dry-spell. But I had pandemic relief money to burn (how ironic) and so I splurged on some purchases and bought two different kinds. One was about the size and shape of a large egg, relatively flimsy, and intended to be more-or-less disposable after a few uses. The other kind had an integrated spinning coil built inside and was intended to be reusable.

The pros are obvious to delineate: these things feel way better than your hand based solely on increased surface area contact. The spinner coil one especially felt great because it created a vacuum suction that caused the coil to tighten. You definitely didn't have to work as hard or risk as much friction with these things, that much is true.

Cons? Clean up. It was just so gross having to rinse all this with soap and water after you're done. And just washing it wouldn't be the end of it since you had to leave it out somewhere to dry for like a day.

I remember one night, once civilization started waking up again, I had brought a girl home after a date and realized I had left one of these things drying on my kitchen counter. I quickly covered it up and threw it in the garbage without her noticing. After that I realized that the downsides just were not worth it, and I wondered if maybe it discouraged me from pursuing real vaginas. So I just threw everything away and didn't think about them again. Maybe if somehow I ended up in a situation where money was plentiful but women were not (like a covid winter), I'd consider buying them again.

Beyond masturbatory aids, the only male sex toy I ever used semi-regularly was a cock ring. This was kind of a mixed bag with regards to whether it helps or not, so I eventually just threw it away. But for women, they're so sexually complicated and high-variance that you encounter no shortage of creative new devices intended to enhance their pleasure, and I'm a fan of using sex toys with my partners. The Magic Wand is so good as an all-purpose workhorse, but pretty much any woman likely also has figured out her special brand of vibrator by the time she's in her mid-20s. Butt plugs are also great (for her, not me) also leashes and nipple clamps for the freaks out there. Whatever works, especially if they're fun.

As other people have said, I do think there's problems with male sex toys that don't exist nearly to the same degree as with women's sex toys. And these frankly, are largely biological in nature and I don't expect them to be solved easily. Clean-up is a bigger problem, as an example. That said, I do think the social/cultural things are true, and male sexuality is largely seen as a very status sensitive thing, men not having sex makes you low status, but at the same time, nobody wants low status men to even acknowledge their sexuality, and think they should know their place, and that creates a lot of problems.

So I think it's a mix of these two things. Like I keep on saying, I don't think the Male Gender Role is going away anytime soon, no matter how much we might try to undermine men's ability to actually fulfil it. As such, I think for most men the focus is going to be on pleasing their partner. Just the way it is.

P.S. The Magic Wand thing is so....normal now that makes sense. But the Satisfiyer thing? From what I've been told that shit works wonders. Hell of a lot better than the toys men have access to I think.

Other commenters have covered the economic case and the underreporting of butt stuff, and you’ve mentioned the practicality for use on a partner. (N = 1, but all the sex toys I’ve ever bought were in the latter category. I want to add a third reason: the uncanny valley.

Sex dolls are unsettling as fuck. “Realistic” fleshlights, not quite as bad but still gauche. You can be a red-blooded man and never want to use one. Dildoes are a mixed bag, and I’d be willing to bet the more abstract ones get more press. Well, maybe not—if any product benefits from shock value, it’s going to be the phallus. But vibrators have much more plausible deniability.

Maybe Wirecutter will incorporate some relatively inoffensive onahole into future sales. I think they have plenty of reasons to stick with the relative subtlety of “massagers.”

Sorry, those guys aren’t straight

Fellas is it gay to have sex with a woman?

Actually yes it is, when you are having the woman dress up as a man (by donning a prosthetic penis) and pretend to be a man anally penetrating you, that pretty clearly evinces some homosexual desire

that pretty clearly evinces some homosexual desire

Is that what it evinces in you, Dr. Freud? Just curious if your N=1 or 0 here.

That's not having sex with a woman.

There's fucking, and then there's being fucked. And it's always gay to be fucked.

You seem to mean something other than 'gay is when you're attracted to men' here, "gay" in a vague sense of "feminine, submissive, powerless, sad, degenerate". Disagreeing over definitions like this is more an argument that gay in the latter sense has some moral force, and that gay in the former sense doesn't, as opposed to actually disagreeing over definitions. It's better to directly state and argue for that, as opposed to saying 'this is the word meaning'

That's something the ancient Romans understood. People like to say things like "the Roman dudes were super gay and having gay sex all the time". But there was a clear distinction between tops and bottoms where one was acceptable and the other not. And it certainly wasn't acceptable to live a homosexual lifestyle with another man as a partner. And it would have been doubly unacceptable to be pegged by your wife. Being pegged by a woman is among the least straight things that can happen to a man.

'Straight' doesn't mean 'not degenerate', familiar words + owning the libs != accuracy. If a straight guy + a woman do butt stuff ... how does that make the guy 'not straight', even if he gets off from it? The claim is iirc 'prostate stimulation is sexually pleasurable', and that doesn't have to involve enjoying the idea of being penetrated by a penis, necessarily. This is separate from 'is it good' or 'is it degenerate', just in terms of accuracy, 'it isn't straight' doesnt seem right.

If a guy enjoys his anus being penetrated by a pseudo phallus, yea, it’s safe to say he is somewhat homosexual. Oh, but he isn’t actually attracted to being anally penetrated by a man, he just likes the physical sensation.

What if he regularly engages in anal sex with men, but not because he is attracted to men per-se but just because he finds that they are more capable of stimulating him physically in certain ways? Is that not gay either?

Basically, it’s a physical simulation of sex with a man. What more need be said?

Basically, it’s a physical simulation of sex with a man. What more need be said?

I recognize that this is probably an 'arguing over definitions' sorta thing, but you've got me curious, now.

Is a strap-on tentacle gay (after all, it's not like any guys other than cthulhu have one), and if so, more or less than a phallus? If it’s a dildo not strapped to someone’s hips? What about anal beads? Where does rimming fall, from the top or the bottom? Intracrural? Would it be straight to fuck Buck Angel in the vagina, or do you have to rub his beard while doing so, least gay guys come away with insatiable lust for boobs?

This proves too much. Is having anal sex with a woman also gay, because it's also a physical simulation of sex with man? What about kissing women, considering gay men also kiss?

Gay guys drink water too, right?

Furthermore, biologically speaking, any sort of sexual stimulation at all can be considered "a physical simulation of heterosexual activity." So now everything is straight, for whatever this sort of analysis is worth. (I suspect rather little.)

Again we can separate out 'is degenerate, is disgusting, is perverted, should be condemned, mixes the meanings of sexual acts' from 'is straight'. If a guy enjoys having a domme put a vibrating toy up his ass, that doesn't seem 'not-straight' in the sense of 'wants to have sex with men'. Even if a guy enjoys the feeling of the thing, it really isn't obvious why it's "a pseudo phallus" that matters, if e.g. he isn't playing into that in the masturbation fantasy.

What if he regularly engages in anal sex with men, but not because he is attracted to men per-se but just because he finds that they are more capable of stimulating him physically in certain ways? Is that not gay either?

I mean - what does "gay" actually mean here? I'm sure there's at least one straight person in history who is as straight as anyone, and naturally uninterested in men as anyone (although it's not clear how 'natural' desire is for bisexual people, so this may be a meaningless statement), but regularly engages in gay sex for some weird idiosyncratic reason. Not that that's a meaningful fraction of people, but it is possible. So can't 'gay' mean multiple things - 'desires sex with men', 'has sex with men'? And - from this distinction, sure anal penetration is like sex with men, but - let's say lesbians 'have sex' and involve a dildo, does that make the woman straight?

Bisexuals: the real silent majority?

True, but if I'm allowed to be highly critical, your statement could be more informative. Anything taboo (such as butt stuff for straight men) and lacking in hard data (e.g., porn sites publishing statistics on search queries by region) will almost certainly be more common than you think. And any stereotype is probably overestimated, as illustrated by base rate fallacies like the librarian vs salesman example here.

So I encourage you to take a stab at quantifying your claim. What percent of straight men do you think likes butt stuff? How much more is that from popular conception? And how much more uninterested are gay men into butt stuff than people think?

So I encourage you to take a stab at quantifying your claim. What percent of straight men do you think likes butt stuff?

20%

How much more is that from popular conception?

+15 percentage points

And how much more uninterested are gay men into butt stuff than people think?

-15 percentage points

Is this an estimate of 'what percent of straight men engage in butt stuff sometimes', or an estimate of 'percent that enjoy the idea w/o engaging in it', or of 'what percent would enjoy it if they wanted to'? (although that doesn't equal 'should' - most people could enjoy most weird sex things with the right social circumstances and intention, that doesn't make it worthwhile)

Is this an estimate of 'what percent of straight men engage in butt stuff sometimes'

This one.

Before you ask: I have zero empirical foundation for any of this.

I think it is a combination of factors identified by other comments here.

On the economic front, there is a much larger market for toys that can penetrate than toys whose purpose is to be penetrated. This is because just about everyone, of whatever sex or sexuality, has an orifice that can be penetrated for sexual pleasure. Even if the toy is not for use on yourself your partner very likely has such an orifice. By contrast the use of a toy meant for being penetrated pretty much requires the user have a penis. There's also pricing to consider. One can generally get a good quality dildo/butt plug/vibrator for around $100. Fleshlights can be similar in price but full on sex dolls generally cost in excess of a thousand dollars, sometimes multiple thousands.

There's also a disproportionate gap (I think) in the relative utility of each kind of toy. That is, what is the alternative experience to using such a toy like? My impression is that the natural alternatives to a dildo or vibrator (generally one's fingers) are quite lacking. The smaller size makes them less satisfying and they have additional concerns (nails) that need to be managed. By contrast the alternative to using a fleshlight or sex doll is generally one's hand. I have never used a sex doll but have used a fleshlight. While it was better than my hand I'm not sure it was so much better that it would be worth paying money to do. There's also a significant gap in ease of use and cleanup after use. Many penetrative toys can just be thrown in the dishwasher but toys you penetrate generally require more involved and intensive cleanup.

Finally I think there is a substantial social stigma against men using sex toys. Not because of a perceived danger or disgust with male sexuality, but because our idea of what it means to be manly or masculine is closely tied with being able to have sex with women. There's a perception that the only reason a man would use a sex toy is because of an inability to find a partner to get him off, and that inability reflects a lack of status. I hope this is something that can change in the future, because I think this association does a lot of damage to men, but I'm not terribly optimistic about it.

I think these are the biggest reasons why sex toys for men are not as popular in culture as sex toys for women.

By contrast the alternative to using a fleshlight or sex doll is generally one's hand. I have never used a sex doll but have used a fleshlight. While it was better than my hand I'm not sure it was so much better that it would be worth paying money to do. There's also a significant gap in ease of use and cleanup after use. Many penetrative toys can just be thrown in the dishwasher but toys you penetrate generally require more involved and intensive cleanup.

The cleanup is what I would put as a much larger factor than one might think. I actually did pay for one and the...logistics of the whole thing has acted as a deterrent to using it.

It's bad enough when you live alone (it's like a vastly more depressing version of "post-nut clarity") but a lot of men don't and also have to factor that in.

Yep, clean-up was by far the worst problem. Having to wash everything was bad but having to leave it out somewhere to dry...horrible

The only one of these I ever owned was invertable (you could turn it inside out) which made it not too bad to clean or hide. It looked like the kind of thing you might decorate a desk with when inverted. Still it was too much work by comparison.

All great points, except--

Many penetrative toys can just be thrown in the dishwasher

That's disgusting. Just because it can be doesn't mean it should. I get it's very unlikely to spread disease this way, but I can't get past the yuck factor. Maybe it's as irrational as how spit magically becomes 10x more disgusting to swallow once you spit it out into a cup, but I call for the world to shame and shun those who clean sex toys with dishwashers.

Haha, I feel the reaction. I've never actually washed mine in a dishwasher for similar reasons, even though I know I could.

My guess is when men's sex toys start selling a the rate women's sex toys sell. How many men on here own sex toys they bought strictly for themselves? I know I don't and I'm unaware of any of my IRL friends who own them. Meanwhile, almost every woman I know owns a vibrator and isn't afraid to let you know about it if the topic comes up in conversation. A bar I used to frequent hosted a sex toy party once and all the men who were regulars were asking when it was going to end so they wouldn't show up while it was going on. The bartender said that there was no need to wait because the lady hosting the thing had a few items for men they might be interested in, and everyone took this as a joke. The truth is, the reason men's sex toys don't sell has nothing to do with status, or feminism, or any other culture war topic, it's because men generally don't need help getting off. Most guys learn to rub one out in 15 minutes at the age of 12 and though it may take longer in later years, the basic technique remains the same. Women, on the other hand, don't reach orgasm as easily and it can take quite a bit of self-exploration to figure out what they like.

How many men on here own sex toys they bought strictly for themselves?

Do you want to have that answered? At least some of the disparity does exist at ground level, but there's another disparity where it's considered impolite to talk about this stuff, even in fields that are already pretty focused on discussing male sexuality.

No obvious source and these are often wrong but this claims many men own sex toys,

This is 100% your bubble. I have never met a woman that owns a sex toy or masturbates. This is media programming of masculinized blue tribe women

This is late but I haven't noticed any consistent political affiliation among any of the women who mention this. My "bubble" includes typical urban progressives, left-leaning (but not particularly political) rural outdoorsy types, and working-class Trump supporters, and all three groups are represented here. The sex toy party was at a bar in an outer-ring suburban strip mall that leaned heavily Republican and had a large number of police among its clientele.

That study supports my point. Even among WEIRD urbanites willing to sign up for a study to discuss masturbation habits (which is surely biasing the numbers way upward) only 38% of women masturbated. Now I haven’t read their study, maybe they were ambushing Amish girls and forcing them to discuss their masturbation habits at gunpoint to balance things out, but I assume not.

I’m not saying I have never brushed past a woman at the grocery store who has masturbated. I’m saying that among women that I’ve known well enough to be confident about their masturbation habits, which is around 10 women, the rate is zero.

Given that I probably have some spooky law of attraction thing going on that biases the pool of women that I know, my experience seems eminently plausible given this study.

Even among WEIRD urbanites willing to sign up for a study to discuss masturbation habits (which is surely biasing the numbers way upward) only 38% of women masturbated.

Not convinced that it would bias the numbers upward. Without further info, just as likely that those who don't masturbate are more likely to sign up for such a study (they have nothing to hide).

For any woman who doesn't masturbate, I would assume it's less due to her being non-horny, and more due to her getting enough sex that she doesn't need to go solo.

90% of women you know are into bestiality. You can’t object to this by bringing up personal experience or studies because they are clearly just ashamed about it and lying to hide it

I have never, personally, met a woman who would admit to owning a sex toy, and it doesn't shock me that some might. TBH talking about female sex toys nonstop seems like extremely blue tribe behavior to me, owning one just makes you a coomer. I mean, I see plenty of billboards for them, so clearly someone is buying them. I always just assumed that women didn't talk about masturbation in public the same way men aren't supposed to. Yes, obviously the blue tribe likes to talk about female masturbation, but I wouldn't take that as evidence that they do it more, or that non-blue tribe women don't masturbate. It's just evidence that the blue tribe has a bizarre cultural trait that I don't understand.

You've definitely met many of both (more who masturbate), it just hasn't been mentioned due to local norms

False, this is Kinsey style propaganda like how 50% of men have had homosexual relations. Pure cope from blue tribers who feel compelled to insist everyone is as sexually perverse as they are. I have lived with female roommates, lived with multiple girlfriends and am married. This tactic doesn’t work on me

edit: I’m just speaking the truth of my lived experience, please stop invalidating me

  • -14

Let's take a 30 day break from your trolling this time. Come back better, please, or just don't come back.

I’m just speaking the truth of my lived experience

No, if you were doing that, you wouldn't have said "This is 100% your bubble... This is media programming of masculinized blue tribe women".

gulps down bait

Even if/given that it is modern society-degenerate-prison brainwashing, most people still do masturbate. Most conservatives I know jerk it to porn just like the liberals do. There's no point in making stuff up about it, the libs aren't gonna lose because you claimed conservatives doesn't jerk off, it just means you have a flawed understanding of social dynamics and are less equipped to solve whatever issues there are

Why does your experience trump mine? OP said every woman he knows owns and talks about sex toys proudly. I said my experience completely contradicts this so it must be a bubble thing. Is this really so hard to imagine given he is the kind of guy who attends sex toy parties? Isn’t it a little bit likely that is evidence his bubble is somewhat skewed on this issue? I have never even heard of such a thing and neither has my wife. If you are attending sex toy parties that probably puts you in the top 5% (just pulling a number out of my ass (definitely in a totally straight way though)) in terms of progressive sexuality.

But now people in the “attends sex toy party” bubble are boldly asserting “No way, every woman you know definitely owns vibrators and masturbates secretly.” It would be equally supported for me to claim “No way, all those women claiming to own vibrators are just lying to you for feminist cred”

For some reason blue tribers have some obsession with claiming that definitely everyone is sexually degenerate/adventurous as they are and any claims otherwise are false/lies/social pressure/shame. Like I said, this is like Kinsey citing outrageously inflated numbers for homosexual activity in men.

I can believe none of them talk about it around you/men in public generally, but they certainly do it. ref - "I have never met a woman that owns a sex toy or masturbates"

No way, every woman you know definitely owns vibrators and masturbates secretly

nobody claimed this, and everyone who was told they claimed it clearly stated it wasn't true. But certainly some of those women have sex toys, and many of them masturbate!

For some reason blue tribers have some obsession with claiming that definitely everyone is sexually degenerate/adventurous as they are and any claims otherwise are false/lies/social pressure/shame

I'm not really a 'blue triber', and acknowledging the sexual degeneracy of even the 'conservatives' is important even in the case one opposes sexual degeneracy, so you can understand the situation. If you want to stop sexual degeneracy, believing conservatives are more or less pristine of it will make it virtually impossible to understand anything or take any useful action!

I don't necessarily think every woman masturbates or has a vibrator. I do know for a fact that there are genuinely non-horny women out there who do neither. But given the fact that we're programmed to want to orgasm, you'd think that there'd be a bunch of women out there who do try to reach it on their own. Many people have very strong urges that they submit to, even more so than just masturbation. I think something like 60 to 80 percent of Christian women have premarital sex, despite the fact that the general Christian line is that it's immoral. So we can see that sexual urges are quite strong, strong enough to make people take action.

IME, moderately to very horny women are not an insignificant percentage of the population, so you really are bound to have met some of them. Just because they're not personally telling you about it, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of them. And just because you have only dated women who are non-horny, or have not told you about it, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of them.

Major confound with with your premarital sex figures is that many people check a box claiming they’re part of the majority religion without knowing very much about it or intending to follow it. The better practice for studying religious people is to restrict the sample to regular church attendees. I’m not denying that a significant percentage of these people have premarital sex, but I am saying that the numbers might well be different from general population numbers in ways that self professed Christians often aren’t.

That's an interesting perspective. I would add as an addendum that I don't necessarily think men's anatomy makes more sense for how they make themselves cum (though it's possible that's the case). But I think the biggest factor is that at a certain age, men start to experience crippling, debiltating urges to cum. So they undergo the self exploration of how to make themselves orgasm by necessity, whereas for most women it's an optional thing.

So they undergo the self exploration of how to make themselves orgasm by necessity, whereas for most women it's an optional thing.

I can't believe this is the comment thread I'm hopping into, but oh well.

I think for boys around puberty, the thing that makes them go "ooh" is fairly obvious. When an erection happens, you may not know what or why it is happening, but you sure notice that it's happening. Everything is on the outside and is visible.

For girls, it's more complicated because everything is inside and you're not really supposed to be touching yourself 'down there' (caveat: it's been a looooong time since I was a teenager, things probably have changed a lot since my day). But even if you have some idea of "This is my vagina", you don't really have much idea of what to do to make things go "ooh".

Boys, to be blunt, can figure out that grabbing their dick when it's standing up like that and rubbing it makes them go "oooh". Girls may not even know where their clitoris is, or if they do, how to touch it to make things go "oooh". As for vaginal penetration - yeah, that's a minefield. From a female perspective, it's a lot easier to stroke a dick than to try sticking things like the handle of a hairbrush up inside you and see if you can move it around till it feels good.

And that's before we even get into the whole "putting things up inside your vagina is how you lose your virginity, and ideally you should be waiting till you have a boyfriend to put his cock in there, not you putting phallus-shaped objects, in order to do so".

Getting over all that and moving on to being adult men and women - I think sex toys in general have suffered from the seedy connotations of "adult stores" and all that aura of raincoated flashers and hardcore porn magazines and movies of low quality. Trying to get a better image has, I think, been easier when it comes to women's sex toys; they could escape the image of the down-market sex shop by moving first to things like lingerie shops which bridged the divide between socially acceptable 'sexy' garments (as Victoria's Secret did when it exploited that market) and more daring sex-related material, and then into discreetly marketed toys for women alongside the sexy, lacy clothing. See the history of the first British sex shop that marketed its goods to women, the Ann Summers chain which evolved from a traditional sex shop to a more up-market version (and see the fascinating obituary of its founder who was definitely a rogue).

They're a little old-fashioned now, in the same way as Playboy, having been supplanted by much raunchier and more explicitly direct competitors online, but can you imagine an equivalent shop for men that mixes sexy clothing, colognes, and toys? Very much more difficult to do, leaving men's sex shops stuck in the seedy image era (I can't speak for modern shops since I don't know any and have never been in one, so maybe they're a lot more upmarket these days).

And speaking from personal opinion only, I think it is easier to get into more technically advanced and 'artistic' kinds of toys for women. Magic Wands were personal massagers first, and I believe are still marketed as same, even though everybody recommends them as vibrators. When it's not acceptable to be open about what you are using such an item for, it's a lot easier to pass off a device as "this massages my neck muscles when they knot up" use than something for men which is clearly "I shove my cock into this". Sorry, gentlemen.

You do still get the downmarket, cheap porn movie types of dildos (warning for NSFW link - I have no idea why anybody would want anything like this, but as they say YKINMK ) but you can also get 'could leave it out on your bedside table without too much embarrassment if somebody else saw it' types of devices as well.

Like this or this or this.

Women's sex toys are not confined to "insert inside you" so it's easier to move on to more abstract forms. What would be the male equivalent of this, for instance?

This which, while a lot more discreet, are still relatable to its function as "insert penis here". Or this, which looks more like an implement of torture.

There does seem to be much more development on insertables like prostate massagers, which can more easily go the upmarket design route like women's toys, but I think we've seen enough comments above about "that's gay" for the problem to persist.

You can write enthusiastic reviews about this sort of product, but this one looks more like "recommendations for serial killer lust-murderers". Try putting that up on the NYT recommendations page!

I'm going to agree with most of the other commenters here and say that I don't expect that male sex toys are ever going to be considered widely acceptable, due to the facts that not having sex with real women is considered to be low status, and that since male sexuality is considered to be dangerous or gross people don't want it to be in the public spotlight.

However I will say that with the invention of the fleshlight, I think the tide almost turned. I remember back 10 or 15 years ago, whenever it came out, there was a brief window where it seemed to me like it was going to be the socially acceptable toy for men. Maybe they just ran a great ad campaign, who knows. But then a few years later, the fleshlight and all those who would ever consider using one became just a punchline.

Particularly sex toys intended to be penetrated by a man during sex? Probably never.

Vibrators and presentative toys might, de facto, be primarily used solo by women/gay men; but they're also a very common part of partnered sex. Her vibrator enhances my pleasure, enables certain acts that would be impossible otherwise, allows for angles that wouldn't work otherwise, etc. They're not just something women purchase for themselves or cheekily buy for single friends, I've purchased every sex toy my wife's ever owned as gifts, and she'll joke it's a gift for me more than her. When we have a guest, toys get packed up and brought along. They're an essential item, like I have a sawzall even though I could do that by hand with a hacksaw.

It's tough for me to see where the sex doll fits into partnered sex and enhances her pleasure, though maybe that's just lack of imagination, after all a lot of the same impossible angles and combinations things could work in reverse, so maybe some women would feel the same way. I just don't see what I could do with that which I couldn't do with a partner or by myself.

like I have a sawzall

Thought you were going somewhere else with this for a second.

There are toys out there marketed for the purpose, ranging from rings with built-in vibrators to 'extension' sleeves to pumps, some of which are only functional for penetrative sex or intended solely to assist with penetrative sex. The furry fandom variants like Primal Hardwere seem more successful, but in general they've got a pretty mixed reputation: even for gay couples not every bottom is a size queen, and while 'rabbit'-style internal vibration works great for some women it's actively offputting for others. And a lot of guys don't like the feeling for the ones that are good for solo play as well, since front-side vibration is very much a personal taste thing.

Good points. I have experience with none of those things, the closest being I guess a cock ring I never quite figured out how to use. I think the difference is that male toys are either solo (doll or Fleshlight) or partnered (sleeve extender, vibrating ring). Neither is, to my knowledge, dual purpose.

But come to think of it, when we're talking about the equivalent male item, keeping in mind that many women can't really orgasm without a vibe, we have a commercial product that allows men to have more orgasms, it's super common, it's just not mechanical, it's chemical. Viagra and Cialis are widely advertised, sold, acknowledged, joked about pleasantly, used medically and recreationally. And they serve the same net purpose, increasing the number and quality of orgasms.

keeping in mind that many women can't really orgasm without a vibe,

I question how true this would be in the absence of pervasive vibrators. Just as overuse of masturbation reduces men's sensitivity, it does the same to women. I've known a few women who absolutely can have orgasms without any mechanical assistance, but only if they give up the vibrator for the prior week.

Given that only 50-70% of women achieve orgasm at all, and you seem to agree that the vibe makes it easier, so I think we have to assume that some portion of those women who don't orgasm at all might with a vibe (and presumably haven't been desensitized by vibes), and some portion of those who can with a vibe don't without.

Although I probably overstated it. Communism, for example increased frequency of female orgasm, so it really is possible we're just doing it all wrong.

I agree that on net vibrators cause more orgasms than they prevent. The same is true of porn, however it is far from clear that coomers are better off than chads in spite of having more orgasms. My general thesis is that a non-trivial fraction of women have, thanks to the social acceptability of vibes, become a female analog of coomers. To be clear, the analogue is not exact - women are different than men. Female achievement is not the product of sublimated sexual desire as it is with men. A female coomer will be more functional than a male one.

And I very much have no idea on the net benefit/loss.

I'll also suggest that centering female sexual satisfaction on orgasms is a mistake. One personal experience: went on vacation with someone and due to a luggage snafu she didn't have her vibrator. After about a week she told me sex was better without it in spite of orgasming only a fraction of the time, and she certainly wanted it more. Some years later I ran into her again and she related that the experience prompted her to give up vibrators when in a relationship. Almost a female version of the coomer gives up porn and finds a girlfriend story.

I think the difference is that male toys are either solo (doll or Fleshlight) or partnered (sleeve extender, vibrating ring). Neither is, to my knowledge, dual purpose.

There's a handful of dual-masturbator sleeve/sleeve extender (girthener?), though all that I'm aware of are very furry-themed. Dunno that I'd recommend any for het couples. But, yeah, most dual-purpose sex toys are either outre (mostly bdsm-related) or not-traditional (eg, butt stuff).

Viagra and Cialis are widely advertised, sold, acknowledged, joked about pleasantly, used medically and recreationally. And they serve the same net purpose, increasing the number and quality of orgasms.

To an extent, though at least in the United States they remain prescription-only and pretty stigmatized. I think they're kinda stigmatized even in countries where you can get them OTC, as well, though I'll admit I can't speak from personal experience there. You can kinda get mainstream coverage, but mostly in the sense of a press release-mux-ad campaign.

I, uh, have seen footage of a het couple using what I assume is one of those girthener things, so N of 1, at least.

They're only nominally prescription in the USA. Roman, and a dozen lower class competitors, will prescribe them to you online after asking you questions that amount to "do you want some boner pills?" Or "are you allergic to boner pills?" and no physical testing.

Maybe it's more stigmatized than I realize, but it's not uncommon to hear about it used recreationally among some circles.

My prior is that our culture is shaped according to the preferences and interests of professional upper-middle and upper-class women. Sex toys for men becoming widely accepted would lower women's value in the sexual marketplace in the same fashion that a UBI puts upwards pressure on the lowest wage.

Not sure about that, because the men those women want don't masturbate, watch porn, or think sexually about other women. Hence, if a guy would use a sex toy, he's not desirable anyway.

Not sure about that, because the men those women want don't masturbate, watch porn, or think sexually about other women. Hence, if a guy would use a sex toy, he's not desirable anyway.

They may not want companionship or sex with those men, but they do desire things from them--notably "pro-social" behaviors that maintain those women's privileges. They want those men to be starving for sexual attention so they can exploit that starvation. It's nothing more than the conservative argument against welfare applied to sexuality.

I don't see it as being the opposite at all--I predict that men having more options for dealing with their sexual desires that aren't gated by women makes them "less of a simp in attitude", whether that is indulging in masturbation or making a conscious effort to focus on other things instead.

Right, but if those men were using sex toys rather than masturbating, they'd still be starving for sexual attention. Sex is primarily attractive to them as an indicator of approval and as a connection with a human being. Neither of those is offered by a fleshlight.

Neither of those is offered by a fleshlight, but neither of them are necessarily offered by those women either. Sex toys (and porn and non-pornographic sexualized media more generally) raise the bar for the amount of effort those women have to put in to exploit the desires of those men. It doesn't raise it very high, but high enough I think to have an impact.

I'm not convinced. I think that the main reason that most men care so much about sex (to the point of incel culture in some extreme cases) is as a proxy for approval from women, which in turn they choose (generally without thinking much about it) to make a condition for their self-esteem. Hence, the possibility of masturbation, porn etc. does not seem to have stopped men from being exploitable in this way. In fact, I know of no balance of evidence that men are less pussywhipped in the modern world in the past, nor that masturbation, porn, sexualized movies etc. are countervailing influences against this tendency.

As long as men link sex closely to their self-esteem, then they will always be vulnerable to exploitation, except insofar as they are rich/attractive/talented enough to have sex on tap. And even then, a man can put themselves in chains by insisting that THIS woman or this TYPE of women or this MANY women or this SEX ACT by woman is necessary or else that "I'm a piece of shit/I ain't got it no more/I am worthless etc." I once read Mike Tyson's autobiography and it was fascinating how a man who could have sex any time he wanted still ended up obsessed with the approval of women, because he was insisting that female approval (and even a female orgasm, of all things...) was a condition of his self-worth.

These are deep philosophical flaws that lead many men into misery, and no amount of social approval for a Fleshlight 3000 is going to help. On the other hand (pardon the phrase) if men were all persuaded tomorrow that they don't need to depress themselves if they can't get laid, then that would be a great step towards both men's happiness and the reduction of their exploitability. Ironically, I think it would help a lot of men get sex and love, because low self-esteem is both intrinsically unattractive to good-hearted women and extrinsically useful for almost all the things (working out, making money, dressing well, smiling, and yes, showering) that can make men more attractive.

I think that the main reason that most men care so much about sex (to the point of incel culture in some extreme cases) is as a proxy for approval from women, which in turn they choose (generally without thinking much about it) to make a condition for their self-esteem.

Men care so much about sex because they have much stronger sex drives and more of a desire for novelty and they have this because they're the more disposable sex: if they aren't motivated to make significant effort they may fall through the evolutionary net into genetic oblivion, like so many men historically did.

Nothing about this was chosen.

Now, obviously, there's a social element in that: if you are totally unfuckable that likely creates anxiety about your social status (particularly in "sex-positive" societies). But the species is also programmed to deeply care about social standing!

I don't even disagree that said men will still get exploited. But the reason for that is not that men collectively took a turn and made a bad decision about valuing female opinion: it's cause real sex and women are still preferable to any substitute like masturbation, even with a (relatively crude) aide and desperate men will risk being exploited (or go in with full certainty that they're being exploited) for the chance at one.

I think we can both think of an evolutionary reason this would be the case.

These are deep philosophical flaws that lead many men into misery, and no amount of social approval for a Fleshlight 3000 is going to help. On the other hand (pardon the phrase) if men were all persuaded tomorrow that they don't need to depress themselves if they can't get laid,

That won't help because it's not a philosophical problem. That just seems evolutionarily naive to me at best. Or, at worst, treating men like defective women who must have simply not gotten the memo on the right way to act and think. This line worked for feminists, I don't think it'd work for men.

I get that that theory is attractive because none of the solutions that accept that men are naturally this way seem good (I remember the huge backlash against "enforced monogamy") but c'est la vie.

Ironically, I think it would help a lot of men get sex and love, because low self-esteem is both intrinsically unattractive

I actually agree with this, but we are the species we are.

It's true that most men have a strong desire to have sex with women and that this has an evolutionary origin. It's also quite plausible that seeking approval from women also has an evolutionary origin, and it's conceivable that using women's approval as a condition of one's self-esteem has an evolutionary origin.

However, while the strong desires for sex and female approval are more or less unchangeable (though they can be integrated better or worse into one's life) I don't think that using women's approval as a condition of one's self-esteem is unchangeable, because it's a set of philosophical beliefs ("I am a loser if I am not approved of by women" "I am a piece of shit if I am not approved by the RIGHT women" "I am worthless if I am not approved of by THIS particular women out of billions" etc.) that seem to be as changeable by reason and experience as any others.

It's biologically possible that an individual gives up these beliefs, but retains the strong desire. (This is true for status/approval anxiety in general.) The desire is one thing, the linking of self-esteem to the approval of women (and usually the "right" women or "this" woman if you want to really mess up your life) is another. An unsatisfied desire can have many emotional effects, but not a sense of worthlessness, except insofar as it occurs alongside the philosophical belief linking the satisfaction of that desire to one's self-esteem.

As for it being a choice, I think it's an unthinking choice, like fat people buying junk food. Do they have a biological desire for high calorie food? Yes. Do they think consciously about the choice? No, not in general. Can they retain the desire but give up the beliefs like "I must always satisfy my desire?" Yes, at least if they're fat rather than obese. (Obesity seems to require, at a minimum, surgical interventions in almost all cases.) The same is true for approval addiction, from women, or your parents, or your colleagues, or a homeless guy in the street.

I know these things, because I have had times when I've been fat or addicted to approval, then changed my beliefs and behaviour. The best single thing was giving up on rating myself at all (negatively or positively) which really opened up most of the good things in life to me (sex, money, and rock 'n' roll).

Anyway, this is all a tangent, since I think we both agree - for different reasons - that sex toys are not substitutes for sex with women, and hence there is no particular rational reason why women would be afraid of them being normalized. Of course, there are women who have the irrational belief that they need to use sex to gain men's affection, but that's because they don't realise that their fundamental offer to men in relationships are things like approval and a disposition to care, for which sex is mainly a proxy.

More comments

Would male sex toys being widely used be a problem for that?

But why would that happen?

But are they on the same axis? I talk more about this in a post above. I don't think that men chase after women to have orgasms. I think that men mostly chase after women for several reasons:

(1) Desire for women's bodies and companionship.

(2) Using women's approval as a condition for their self-acceptance.

(3) As status symbols.

(4) As entertainment, because relationships are preoccupying and often interesting.

I don't think that better masturbation, technologically enhanced or not, is an inferior good for any of those things. An intelligent sex bot could be a substitute for (4), and there are AIs that already serve this purpose to some extent (Dating Sims are relatively popular examples).

My preference is that men stop doing (2) and at least de-emphasise (3) if they regard the approval of other men/women as crucial for not rejecting themselves. That would leave (1) and (4), since pursuing these is often both good for the individual man (making him happy and giving meaning in his life) and the human race (inspiring the man to good deeds, courage, creativity, compassion, fatherhood etc.).

More comments

On the other hand, the kind of man who only is interested in women for sex dropping out of the dating market might be an improvement. That would hypothetically leave men who were interested in long-term and/or committed relationships, up to marriage and having children, be the ones engaging in dating and pursuing women.

The men who only want to bang chicks and have no other interest in them, not even friendship, would be sieved out and the problem of "I got a hundred replies to my dating profile on this app, how do I sort out the ones that are time-wasters?" for women would be simplified.

More comments
More comments

Sex toys for men becoming widely accepted would lower women's value in the sexual marketplace in the same fashion that a UBI puts upwards pressure on the lowest wage.

I'm not convinced. Some men will drop out due to ever better substitutes. But those are the already unsuccessful/deeply unattractive ones that women wouldn't want anyway.

Men with options or even a chance aren't going to stop pursuing women.

As evidence, I put forward the rather common bragplaining about having to reject the advances of sub-par men.

They can do the other thing women do and bragplain that there are no quality (at her standards) men.

Yes, but better substitutes prevent such women from exploiting the sexual desires of 'unsuccessful/deeply unattractive ones' to their own benefit.

EDIT: Grammar.

I suspect most such men would float cartoon-style to any woman that threw any attention to them.

They can still be exploited. (It's already being done on Onlyfans)

Sex toys for men becoming widely accepted would lower women's value in the sexual marketplace in the same fashion that a UBI puts upwards pressure on the lowest wage.

They might also placate a lot of low value men to the point where women are grateful for the drop in attention, it wouldn't be the type of attention they're trying to win after all.

But if most of the offers are coming from undesirable men, why would they take them up?

Would you go on a date with an ugly, boring woman simply because she responded to your Tinder profile?

Contrariwise, if all you get are refusals or being ignored, why would you continue to be on the platform?

It seems that dating apps are the way people meet romantic partners, be that for quick casual sex or something more. So giving up dating apps is shutting yourself out of the major avenue of finding a partner.

If such reasoning was accepted as valid, complaints about women in media, even media aimed at men, being too attractive wouldn't be as common.

I'm not convinced it's about danger. Rather, it seems more about how not fucking (real) women is seen as the lowest of low-status for men. It's fascinating to me how widespread this revulsion is, even among purportedly progressive crowds. Chasing pussy is almost seen as an essential purpose for men to have, because that's how we get military conquests, scientific discoveries, and commercial enterprises. A man who can fully satisfy themselves sexually with a toy has a closed feedback loop. He can then confidently shut the castle gates on a dizzying array of extra-curricular endeavors because...why bother? A man who checks out of that race just outed themselves on a visceral level as demonstrably useless to society and the impulse to shun them is strong.

To add to this, a man is far better off socially if he’s publicly revealed to use a sock (a clean sock, recently laundered and soon to be laundered, mind) than a purpose-bought wanktube.

The former appears improvised, which reveals ingenuity or at least panicked thinking, but the latter was purchased, assembled, prepared for use, and with cleaning supplies purchased for afterward.

The former is evidence of strong masculine urges and temporary need, the latter either of permanent surrender or decadence and self-absorption.

Notice that I did not mention reproduction.

Yeah, seems pretty obvious to me that while practical class interest applies for individual groups, it does not apply for the interests of broader societies.

Individual subgroups in society work for their individual interests, but nobody is worrying about society's structuring to support a cohesive whole. In the specific example, feminists are worried about the interests of urban, career oriented, educated women, not about making society in general a better place.

I don't think anything's changed in that regard. The hierarchy still remains as ever:

  • high status men

  • high status women

  • low status women

  • low status men

The old spinster of former times had it easy compared to the conscript whose life was thrown away during some lord's war of conquest.

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