site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   35726 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is not the first time I have seen the idea that HD porn obviates sex. While ceding that people have limitless access to porn these days, it still doesnt come close to the real thing!

And eating junk food is no substitute for real meals cooked with healthy ingredients. Some people eat the junk.

I don’t watch porn but masturbation alone can definitely be better than sex. When you’re by yourself you don’t have to worry about having the right chemistry, about your partner being selfish or getting tired, and if something doesn’t feel good you can just stop, slow down or try something else without being afraid of ruining the mood.

Now, good sex doesn’t compare of course and is a divine experience, but not everyone is so lucky as to be with their ideal sexual partner.

Yeah, but finding that ideal (or a pretty good one with whom you form an emotional bond or simply have some hot experiences) sexual partner is a pretty key part of the human experience. Continuing to look even while failing is too!

If memory serves your particular experience may not mirror that of the usual heterosexual dude.

I doubt I'm all that far off the heterosexual baseline, and I'd say it's a pretty reasonable description for the porn life as well. After a while it approaches wireheading. You want to feel [GOOD], and these actions allow you to turn on the [GOOD] feeling and sustain it for arbitrary amounts of time. Orgasm is nice and all, but it really isn't the point, the point is, as a book put it once, surcease. Your larger mind, your worries and anxieties, the tension and frustrations of the day, vague unknowns of the future and sharp hurts of the past, all of that flattens right out to smooth, gratified pseudo-flow-state, a delightful little mental loop through desire and satisfaction that's always there when you need it. And all it costs you is time, discipline, investment, human connection...

Thank you for the response. Just to press the point, is the worst that would happen to a hypothetical child that he or she would end up like you? Is that so bad?

Posted in the wrong place.

To be clear, I'm describing the life I used to have; I'm not living that way any more.

I don't think I could claim that it's the worst that could happen. My porn addiction was far more manageable and less destructive than, say, what I've seen of the median meth addict. There were pleasures and pursuits beyond mindless self-indulgence. But it was not a good life, and it absolutely was not getting better with time. I observed myself slowly degrading, becoming less in very tangible and concrete ways, losing my humanity and degenerating into something verging on the insectile, as bitter regret and the need to escape that regret grew more and more to define my existence through habitual loops of pointless escapism and empty stimulus-response. Lying awake in the early hours of the morning, I would remember what it felt like to have someone I loved lying next to me, and know for an absolute certainty that I would never, ever have that feeling again, and the pain of that was considerable. At the time, I joked to my family that my purpose in life was to serve as a cautionary example, but the joke wore thin the worse it got. Toward the end, I spent a lot of time fantasizing about being dead. One of my main objectives in my current life is to do what I can to help my children and nieces and nephews avoid ending up in a similar place.

...All this is to say that, in my experience, the question of whether sex is or can be better than masturbation depends on the mentality of the assessor. In my own experience, I know for a fact that masturbation appearing preferable was a consequence of profound dysfunction. I am at least somewhat confident that my own experience generalizes at least to some degree, but this is pretty obviously a question that grounds out at one's values. At a minimum, I'd endorse what you wrote here.

Wow apparently I misclicked because my question was meant for someone else, apologies.

I did wonder about the double-reply...

Oddly I spent the better part of my considerable commute time this morning reading several of your old posts debunking materialism. I saved them.

@rae if I am correct is a trans woman. Now I don't know to what degree masturbatory practice is consistent among biological males of whatever stripe, but one might assume the "ideal partner" as it was put might be considerably more difficult to locate. A good man is hard to find, etc. Or the other way round as the case may be.

I can't sit in judgment of masturbation as an act, but I would certainly caution any young man against relying on it, and chaturbate or whatever, as any sort of long term answer to the yearning for companionship. For that matter one doesn't have to look far in my part of the world to find men who seek solace in hostesses, call girls, or various other professional services, and I don't see any of them smiling broadly on a regular basis. And finally, I would suggest orgasm itself outside of some Tantric whatnot isn't particularly long-lasting, post nut tristesse is real, and, perhaps sentimentally, ultimately nothing beats (cough) the dozens of micro-interactions that are just spending time with someone you love (or are attracted to), completely outside the context of the boudoir.

After 20 years of marriage the dynamic changes somewhat, but the thesis still holds.

It doesn't need to be better to have a devastating effect, it just needs to be 'good enough'.

I want to agree with you, but after a lifetime of feeding my animalistic brain porn and more porn, I kinda think porn may be better than sex, at least in some ways. I feel worse after porn, but it's much easier to reach similar levels of sex-high with porn then with real sex. Porn allows your idealized image of sex to dominate, vs the actual thing which is limited by real social interactions and physical sensations. I'm currently trying to ween myself off of porn, in the hopes that doing so will make sex easier and more pleasurable, but it's really hard to do. I've had mixed results so far.

Note: I'm on anti depressants, and have been for decades, which may totally blow my whole equation out of the water. They seem to make it very difficult for me to feel sexual pleasure, especially during sex as opposed to watching porn. So everything I wrote here may not apply to others.

in the hopes that doing so will make sex easier and more pleasurable

I dunno, find better partners (not like I have any advice on that front; every time I write something here it's because I'm thinking about someone I think would be fun to do this with, and have some first-hand experience with someone who was kinda bad at this)? I can believe the stories of people who don't bother to look for this because they don't find this interesting, but to me it just seems like a waste.

Then again, I suspect this is just a (literally) childish way to look at sex, and literally nobody does this because rational self-interest trumps everything, or whatever. [Which comes back to "well then, if you're going to get married to do that because the sex drive isn't symmetric across the sexes, and aren't doing it because you already have that convergence-drive-love thing going on, isn't that just prostitution with a different name?"]

Porn allows your idealized image of sex to dominate, vs the actual thing which is limited by real social interactions and physical sensations

I guess so, but I'm already pretty confident that if I had my way with who I want it with it would look pretty close to what I think about. Maybe that's why I had a hard time with people who go "ur hormones make u a slave to ur passions" or finding masturbating to random attractive-enough people particularly fulfilling (imagining masturbating them, somewhat paradoxically, yields far better results).

ween

I think nofap would be more popular if they weren't all just a bunch of weeners

C. S. Lewis wrote a bit in a letter about the appeal of fantasy over real sex which seems appropriate:

For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back: sending the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.

And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifice or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival.

Among these shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover: no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification is ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself.

Pornography asks far less of us than sex with another person does. If it displeases us we can skip to another bit of porn. We never have to think about pleasing another person, or do something that brings us little pleasure because it brings our partner great pleasure, or think of any needs but our own. Very tempting!

C.S. Lewis remains a remarkable writer of timeless trends.

limited by real social interactions

Come now, when you rig the game like this then of course porn is better than sex. I don't think that's under debate

Not sure I understand what you mean. Or maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean, like, the chance of getting laid with a new partner is slim, I haven't had to deal with that for decades either. I just meant that your sense of how hot the sex is (which to me makes a big difference in how pleasurable the sex actually is) is entirely dependent on the other person and potentially conflicting desires or awkward interactions. As opposed to how you can just find porn exactly as you want it at the click of a button.

For me, the pleasure of the sex seems dependent on if I can bench press her or not. This reality means I haven't enjoyed having sex in years. It has nothing to do with not having any sex; or with not having new partners.

I will volunteer and raise my hand and say the reality is porn is just better than my sex. This also doesn't seem like my fault.

Edit since people are taking me very literally: sex does not include bench presses, instead it is a funny euphemism to mean, "i enjoy it if she is not obese." It has the added benefit of ironically warding off accusations that I should go to the gym more. If these women were as active as I am (and I've gone through cardio and weightlifting phases) then I would be able to bench press them.

It has the added benefit of ironically warding off accusations that I should go to the gym more.

I mean -- how much do you press anyways? I wouldn't actually get anywhere near 300 these days, but certainly well into fattie territory unless you also only like really tall girls. My current spouse I could have lifted when I was like 14, and she's pretty average height and weight.

To be fair, pressing from a bed is more like a very very unstable JM press than a proper bench press.

Biomachanicaly the pecs are in a more advantageous position, since like a floor press the elbow can't cross the frontal plane. But The delts and particularly the triceps are in a substantially less advantageous position. Assuming your partner is more narrow than you it's also technically close grip. You also don't have a nice ergonomic bar to hold on to, so the wrists are in much greater extension. Finally, you don't have the advantage of a relatively firm platform or leg drive.

If the load is your typical skinny women, it's likely to be somewhat... flopy. Like an earthquake bar. If they are more muscular they can probably hold their body more rigid, but then you have more mass to move. Assuming a random women, you would have to luck out with a gymnast or competitive cheerleader who is being cooperative, in order for it to be anything like lifting straight weight.

Maybe rather than pressing them fully off of you though, it would be more prudent to follow Nelson's advice at Trafalgar and "Engage the enemy more closely." He did seem to have some taste in these things.

He does say that he doesn't actually bench press these girls, so I'm not sure the mechanics there -- I can certainly lift cooperative average-sized women (or children) off the floor by the waist (from a standing position) without using my legs much.

For a bench-press equivalent, maybe they could wear a belt with side-handles, and crouch over one's chest? It would be about like pressing a large kettle-bell, and no need for the woman to be also capable of a plank or whatever. I'm pretty confident I could lift >200 lbs this way, and I'm not as fit as I used to be -- I get the feeling this is a larger lady than he has in mind?

If the setup is something where an average sized man has to lift a moderate sized woman, and you're in a position to get the lifting joint below her center of gravity, I do think even a moderately fit man should be able to do it. I assume the original euphemism was more or less a proxy for moderately fit man is able to generally man handle, which isn't that high of a standard.

There's different levels though.

With zero training I would think most guys could lift a moderate sized woman off their feet.

At a 225# bench I would expect you could basically floor press a cooperative calisthenics/yoga woman where you have her hands in yours and she is in a sort of planche/peacock/crow pose. Seems like it would be amusing in a "I’m flying, Jack!" sort of way.

Assuming you are just by grabbing her (handleless) hips and she is not cooperatively holding a nice grasshopper pose or plank but flopping around or bratting. I wouldn't be supersized if it took the equivalent of a 300# bench to cleanly press a slightly larger than average 175# woman from laying directly on top of you. It's not really the absolute load that's limiting, the leverage is just bad. It would be worse than touching a bench press to below your navel. It's hard to find good statistics on it, but a 3 plate bench is low single digit percentage of men. Totally doable for most men, but does require serious training.

It's like the difference between getting a cooperative partner into a fireman's carry and a lifeless dummy. Pound for pound the latter feels at least twice as hard.

You should visit Japan. You could probably one-arm curl many here.

Post script for the literal-minded: I mean most women here are considerably slimmer than the average American female. Though perhaps Americans are becoming slimmer? This caveat brought to you by Ozempic TM.

PPS: Maybe Helmet is not American. Still.

For me, the pleasure of the sex seems dependent on if I can bench press her or not.

Somebody needs to spend more time at the gym! (it isn't that hard to bench press 300)

For me, the pleasure of the sex seems dependent on if I can bench press her or not.

Why? What about bench press-less sex doesn't do it?

As with many things I think the issue is not that it is a perfect replacement, but rather that it reaches some minimal level. So porn is not as good as sex, but it is easier, and because the gauge is getting filled up just enough it makes the effort needed to get sex feel less worth it.

It takes effort to get good things, but once you have them it is totally worth it. But access to very easy quick, but worse, substitutes crowds out the effort needed to get the good version. So porn substitutes for sex, video games substitute for real accomplishment, social media substitutes for actual community and friendship, etc.

Let's assume videogames and porn do not satisfy the reportable (conscious) mind as well as sex does, such that everyone agrees sex is much, much better. Could it still be that they satisfy the mechanistic actuating drive (chemicals and what not) just as well, so that it is still right to say porn and videogames obviate the need for sex?

"The real thing" is a more complex concept than many people appreciate, and a lot of it happens inside the skull and is heavily mediated by that skull's other contents. It is definitely possible to get to a place where "the fake thing" appears to be strictly superior; general gooner behavior is more or less a superhighway directly to this state. Further, this general pattern generalizes to most of the other pleasures of human existence.

The greatest source of joy in my life by far is my eldest child. Interacting with them, reading to them, the joy they radiate whenever they see me in the morning or when waking from a nap, cuddling with them and singing them to sleep at night are profoundly wonderful experiences that I would not trade for anything. But I remember quite well being quite determined to never have children, because they obviously interfered with all the "fun" I wanted to have playing video games and pursuing various hobbies. I do not think there are words present-Me could say to past-Me to convince them of their error; they thought the way they did because their mind was shaped by their circumstances and experiences, and only a change in circumstances and experiences could deliver a change of mind.

One thought I've had is for alcoholics or drug addicts or really anyone, is there a convincing rationalist answer for why people should quit or not use destructive drugs? Without a higher power, why not abuse substances? If you live your life in isolation and are so inclined, I don't think there is a rationalist reason not to be selfish and NEET? Some times I wonder if belief and faith has a way of finding those who need it most.

"Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy." Paul VI in GAUDETE IN DOMINO.

a convincing rationalist answer for why people should quit or not use destructive drugs?

Tautologicallly because they're destructive, but ulimately because the thing they destroy is the benefits offered by the drug. Users end up dependent on drugs simply to return to where they began.

convincing rationalist answer for why people should quit or not use destructive drugs

No rationalist or hedonist of even middling intelligence would ever recommend doing destructive drugs unless on your deathbed.

The downsides are obviously much worse than the upsides, drugs will break your body and mind trying to chase the dragon, and you'll likely ruin all your relationships and die early.

I don't think there is a rationalist reason not to be selfish and NEET

Well, that's the point of this post, isn't it? If being selfish and NEET is what society incentivizes, then eventually that's what you'll get. I have a deep respect for the faithful, but clearly religion is no longer a scalable solution for society at large.

Perhaps in a hundred years all us atheists will be dead and we'll be back to Christianity and Islam battling it out for dominance of the planet.

for alcohol or drug addicts

https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/modern-freedom-means-being-a-slave-to-impulses/

If you cannot imagine a life more fulfilling than drugs, then maybe it's really not worth quitting.

I think of the survivor who jumped from the Golden Gate bridge- all their problems suddenly seemed very solvable. What I see in friends and colleagues is a lack of faith (organized religion) that is coupled or leads to a lack of optimism in the world; and I think poor planning for their future (you're saving how much for retirement!). But I guess a Marxist interpretation would be the false lies distort a workers' view to accept their station in life. I guess my point is a strict reasoning and rationalist approach to life can be more harmful given certain personal characteristics and the human capacity of self delusion.

Destructive how? Presumably methamphetamine destroys the body, or is gross, so I should not do it. I suppose if someone is in a social circle with enough social pressure then it might be worth the tradeoff to partake though (see also alcohol).

Being selfish and NEET on the other hand doesn't seem as obviously destructive. Maybe the kids would think so if they replaced the anti-drugs PSAs with anti-Fortnite ones.

Time is a terrible thing to waste. The question to be asked of younger folk not using their time employed or in education is "How are you going to fund your retirement?" Working hard and making money in your 20s / 30s I think definitely beats working as an old person. Banking on the AI miracle seems too low probability to me. The adage I think of is the job you are doing now often leads to what you do in the future. And short unemployment begets long-term unemployment.

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