site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 11, 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.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The specialization of [parasocial] romantic/sexual partnership

(More than a shower thought, less than a fully formulated theory.)

While the median person in the US is still in a romantic relationship, singlehood is on the rise, with some claiming a prevalence of 30%.

It is very apparent that the median man and the median woman have quite different ideas about what they seek in a romantic or sexual relationship, with men being more interested in casual sex and women being more interested in long-term relationships.

(
This seems plausible from a kitchen table evo psych point of view: in the ancestral environment, all things being equal, the man who jumped at a chance to have no-strings-attached sex had a greater inclusive genetic fitness than the man who did not. Realistically, quite a lot of the opportunities for no-strings-attached sex in the ancestral environment were probably wartime rapes, but there were likely opportunities for consensual casual sex as well.

For women, it was likely more complicated. There was a selection for pair bonding to secure paternal investment -- because that increased the reproductive chances of the kids. If one had paternal investment, one would have preferred someone had has the status or ability to provide well for ones family.

On the other hand, one also wanted to select for genetic fitness to boost the reproductive chances of one's offspring. For a lot of traits, this coincided with being a good provider: being a great hunter is partly genetic, so there were both immediate and genetic reasons to prefer such a mate. While being the victim of wartime rape was quite bad also from a genetic point of view (zero paternal investment!), having a partner who was genetically inclined to wartime rape was preferable. One also wanted a partner who was winning the Keynesian hotness contest in your society, because that will bode well for the reproductive success of one's sons. If all the other women of the society thought that men with blue eyes were icky, marrying a blue-eyed man was a very bad reproductive strategy!

In short, from kitchen table evo psych, the ideal man was someone who had a lot of sexual success who was also willing to enter a committed long term relationship.
)

In my world-model, the median single woman going on a successful tinder date is going to meet a man who is great at getting tinder dates and convince them to have sex with him. This is a highly specialized skill. Women pass 95% of the suggestions. Together with a 2:1 gender imbalance towards men, this means that the average man who gets a match probably had to outcompete 30-40 other men to get there. However, being found hot by one woman is strongly correlated with being found hot by another woman. Of course, part of being found "hot" here is "being willing to breadcrumb women into thinking that there is a long term potential".

There are probably men who are moderately successful at dating which use apps for a while, find true love in their fifth match and live happily ever after, but those are also unlikely to stay on the apps (and if they are, will likely state outright that they are in a happy primary relationship, which will likely lower their appeal significantly).

While most of the men using online dating are trying to get laid with little success, I think that for the few men who are able and willing to sacrifice time, money, and ethics to get really good at tinder (or the offline equivalent: being a PUA), stringing along three or four women seems achievable.

While the link in the last paragraph bemoans the fate of these women, I think that it is fair to say that their revealed preference is to pay with sex for the illusion that a hot promiscuous guy is going to go exclusive (or primary) with them any day now. There is a difference between being the hottest unconquered available woman within driving distance on some cloudy Wednesday and being the woman who will make him forget about all other women, forever, though. Relatedly, if a real Nigerian royal had trouble getting money out of the country, chances are they would contact specialized firms on the Cayman Islands, not random owners of email addresses. (That does not change the fact that scamming or lying to get laid is evil, though.)

(Of course, this is not only an online thing. For most offline social situations, the workplace rules are more or less in effect. You have to know what your relative status and SMV is and what you can get away with. Also, flirting is all about deniability and avoiding establishment of common knowledge. I would argue that the possibility to commit a social faux-pas is intentional, being willing to do something which would be transgressive if you had read the signs wrong is a costly signal to send and generally appreciated if you are right. In the real world (at least outside Aella's RMN parties), people do not wear wristbands indicating what they are comfortable with, so engaging with women is left to those men who either are good at reading the cues or who do not care if they come across as sex pests to any women who are uninterested. Dark triad and all that. For spectrum-dwellers like myself, the main advantage of online dating is that women there can be safely (if mostly futilely) approached: as long as you do not use crass sexual language or send unsolicited dick picks, you will be considered background noise, not a sex pest.)

--

On the flip side, catering to the sexual and romantic needs of single men is also a trade which greatly benefits from specialization. Para-social relationships allow for economics of scale far beyond what the fuckbois can achieve. With straightforward porn, there is little malicious deception going on (stepsibling status aside), but I think that there is a niche of softer content (e.g. without guy participation) where romantic attachment from the audience is actively encouraged, and the relevant persona's foster an air of singleness despite being in a happy relationship or married.

--

This symmetry is not perfect, of course. The fuckbois are motivated by their sex drive or some obsession, while the women selling sex to men online are mostly motivated by cash.

Given that this is the CW thread, I should probably show some links to the culture war.

  • The dynamic where willing to deceive about long term prospects gets men more sex is probably responsible for a lot of hate women have for men generally.
  • I think that the broader feminist culture considers the 'man-centered' woman to be a victim of patriarchy, while they would consider someone guy who pays 300$ a month to some boob-flashing video game streamer an icky incel (who may or may not victimize the streamer, depending on the brand of feminism).

The dynamic where willing to deceive about long term prospects gets men more sex is probably responsible for a lot of hate women have for men generally.

Its probably fair to say that the bottom 50% of men, in terms of attractiveness, are functionally invisible to the average woman.

Which is to say, they don't actually count those men in their own personal calculation of what "men" are like. If you tell these women that a huge portion of men are actually not able to get matches on tinder, or can't successfully approach women, and thus are unable to find a relationship despite honest best efforts, these women will simply disbelieve you. Availability Heuristic and all that.

So from their perspective, the men that they notice and pursue, i.e. the ones that actually 'exist' for them, are doing just fine. In fact they're doing TOO well, its not fair that he can just pump and dump her because she's one of 5 or 6 others he has on tap!

I'd say that most of the intersex animosity is because women see the top, call it 20% of men as "men" and the bottom 50% as nonentities that don't enter their thought processes at all. And then there's that awkward 30% of men who are in a superposition of 'man' and 'not man' unless and until a woman decides to pay them attention.

If they only compare themselves to the upper 20% of guys, and ignore the bottom 50%, then mentally yeah it feels like SHE is the disadvantaged one in this situation. They can ignore things like the male suicide rate, the fact that most of the crappiest jobs are male-dominated, and that men are generally disfavored by the law because they only see the top 20% of dudes, who ARE in fact doing really well, and assume that's representative. And boom, there's your patriarchy.

Meanwhile, the other 80% of men are painfully aware of their own status, and are finding that every woman they attempt to approach is in fact pursuing those top 20% of guys, and, as noted, is un-self-aware of this factor, and disregards the experience of the vast majority of men when judging them.

So women are mad at 'men' because the only men they care about are rejecting them in the end, refusing commitment but taking sex.

Men are mad at 'women' because when women get mad at those top men, they put ALL men on blast, and that catches a lot of guys in the crossfire who have not done a damn thing to deserve it. They're being treated like villains ON TOP of being rejected by women en masse because those top men are gleefully exploiting their position, and women are incapable of regulating their own marketplace so are getting increasingly distressed and lashing out.

And uh, it looks like said men are getting very, very fed up with this.

And no, this is NOT explained solely by manosphere influencers. Even men who are successfully dating seem to believe less in gender equality. Because those top 20% of guys probably have come to understand women from the other side.

One possible solution I've been considering recently is forcibly marrying and then if that doesn't work, castrating these men. Of course I would like women to shape up too, but that seems like a tall ask.

The thing is, the top 20% of these men that don't get married are frankly throwing a lot of their life and use to society out the window by continuing to live the lifestyle of a Lothario. Not only does stringing 2-4 women a long at a time embitter those women and make it more difficult for them to stably pair bond, the sheer amount of time that it takes to juggle these relationships impacts your ability to do work, have friends, take care of yourself, and generally contribute to society. These men are also ruining their own ability to pair bond by engaging in this lifestyle. Consider two examples. One of my current roommates, let's call him James, has lived like a Lothario almost the entire time I've known him. Long term "girlfriend" back in California who he constantly cheats on with a rotation of 2-3 women here in Baltimore. Some of my resentment towards him is certainly jealousy (he has recently been fucking a girl I went on a date with and mildly liked), but it's hard not to see how this behavior is ruining his life. When I first met this guy he was deeply interested in history and biology and in pretty good shape. Now he doesn't do anything except scroll on instagram, watch retarded kids TV shows, and have sex with these women. He also recently got his PhD, but with ZERO publications, despite being in a computational biology lab where the expectation is 3-4 papers by graduation. This guy is smart and should be contributing to society, but instead is mooching off the NIH tit and ruining women. The other example is my friend Saul, who used to live this kind of lifestyle, until he started dating this girl Deborah. They got married last year, and since then his efforts around the house, at work, with friends, and with his art projects have skyrocketed because all that time he was spending at bars and on tinder is now going into his actual life.

Pair bonding is not a thing for guys. It's the fault of men, but not the ones getting laid, the fault lies in female emancipation, as long as that exists, we will have these outcomes.

Also guys who get laid a lot are not the ones you would want killed, they have better abilities to ensure cooperation among men. Unless you want Africa, better to work on getting workarounds for emancipation.

I was cucked live here on this forum in 2021, I was able to do a total 180, people on a personal leave acn be redeemed dating wise, very easily. Being jealous is why you'll never do well with girls, true abundance is not caring. Get a good pua resource, I recommend the book of yareally. People are laughing at you because the posts subcomms simply reek insecurity, your entire issue is you not getting laid, fix that instead of blaming the world.

There are people who waste time with girls but then there are those who do the same by being online or writing on forums or making substacks. I like meeting new women, it's a fun activity and I'll never let it eat away at my life.

Where is your source that pair bonding is not a thing in men?

I don't know man. Most Lotharios I know would be better off out of the gene pool. There are many men in the top 10% of attractiveness who do not behave like James. I'm not saying we need a world filled with beta office drones, but society would be better if we had more men who could "think of England".

Yes that's why marriage is an option before castration. If Lothario stops behaving like Lothario there is no problem. Have you really pulled a 180 dude? You kind of seem to be in the exact same situation (unsatisified with your academic performance, lusting after women but not actually closing the deal).

Look there's nothing wrong with meeting and talking to women. I'll even grant that there's nothing wrong with sleeping around (a stretch in my book), as long as you are honest with your intentions. The problem is creating an impression of commitment when you have not intention of doing so. This is lying and manipulation and is bad. Now the girl is usually not innocent here either: she usually is lying to herself and very easily could clarify the position of the man in question.

My guy, I come from a line where every man before my grandad, thousands, had harems with hundreds of girls, and I intend to at least have a soft one going asap, once my sabbatical is finished and I move out due to good monetary remuneration.

Also women, and this is gonna blow your mind, deep down, they know the truth. Julian from RSD was one of the best puas ever, his calling card was drama, he would start fights with girls, make them cry, make them angry, and then make them laugh, it works like Crack.

Yes that's why marriage is an option before castration. If Lothario stops behaving like Lothario there is no problem. Have you really pulled a 180 dude? You kind of seem to be in the exact same situation (unsatisified with your academic performance, lusting after women but not actually closing the deal

I have had sex since then and had pretty fun stories when I was in Thailand, these were euro tourists, some were fairly attractive. Yes I'm dissatisfied but I'm doing much better, I can actually write code that's not basic loops, I finally finished math that had scared me shirtless for a decade and had spiritual experiences that I wouldn't have believed could be possible had they not happened. For context, I was a virgin when I mad that post and had never even held hands. I was specifically talking about female issues with the 180, though I'm doing better otherwise.

I lost my oneitis because I went out, a lot. I remember meeting this English girl who sat on my face during a forest rave and asked me to eat her out in the rice paddy after we did nitrous. She saw some thai married lady touching me inappropriately (with full permission of her cuck husband) and swooped in. Me in 2021 was obsessed with a now slightly chubby functional patty drug connoisseur who I hadn't met and still have not met, though that's because I stopped talking.

My life is far from ideal, I had fucked up a lot and am still paying for it, but waking up to a bad situation and fixing it is the first step. Women are easy for me now, I don't post about them because they don't bother me. Being temporarily celibate was my idea since I don't find the girls in my hometown attractive. Though I can get my dick wet in 20 minutes. Did I fuck all the women I met, or approached, no, but am I the same guy, certainly not.

Where is your source that pair bonding is not a thing in men?

Zero of my ancestors or any I know ever felt "love" for their courtesans. Romantic love is a bs trope of modernity anyway, doesn't mean that we don't have feelings.

but society would be better if we had more men who could "think of England".

This is noble and correct, I agree but I'll play devils advocate, why should anyone who can despite the hellhole modern life, modern English life for a normie white guy is, care for England? There's zero support for such people, here's a fun game about it https://nicksim.alexcj.co.uk/

My ancestors cared deeply about the civilization they were a part of, I exist for that reason. Take this as personal advice, not being a dick, you should pickup the book of yareally and git gud. You're obviously a smart enough guy, it's not right for you to suffer this way.

Women select men who are reproductively fit, we should not ever want them offed, there are other metrics besides iq that have served us well. Get off of dating apps, hit the nearest nightclub and if you succeed, you'll sound the way me or @faceh or those who did way more with way hotter girls than any of us.

I think we have different ideas of romantic success. Hook ups are not appealing to me. I'm happy that you've managed to overcome whatever sexual hang ups you had in 2021, but going out to clubs and fucking random tourists far from home is not appealing to me and does not constitute my idea of success. I'm sure I could learn a lesson or two from doing it and from your experience, you're probably not wrong.

I'm off the dating apps as of a few weeks ago. Nightclubs aren't really an option: my training schedule means I'm often running 20+ early on weekend mornings. Perhaps I really shouldn't be complaining, as I've kind of put myself into a box of the kind of life I want to live, but nightclub girls ain't it for me.

if you succeed, you'll sound the way me or @faceh or those who did way more with way hotter girls than any of us.

That's not very appealing. As highlighted in comments such as this, even you yourself don't sound happy with it.

Get off of dating apps, hit the nearest nightclub and if you succeed, you'll sound the way me or @faceh or those who did way more with way hotter girls than any of us.

Personally I'd say skip the nightclub and hit the best Martial Arts gym you can find in a 10 mile radius.

No, do both lol. Mma did not help me at all, still an amazing hobby, being unfuckwithable helps a ton.

Don't send a guy into a nightclub without either knowing how to dance or knowing how to throw down if someone pushes him around. Preferably both.