site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   20623 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 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.

It's fairly obvious from cultures where ladyboys are a thing (most notoriously, Thailand) that the men who fuck ladyboys are not gay.

the men who fuck ladyboys are not gay

Then the men who eat cowboys are not cannibals.

Meat is meat. Statement applicable to all groups involved in the above queries

Dog I don't care whether you're a vegan or not but stop telling me green eggs and ham are a vegetable.

That is not obvious to me. Are you confounding social cues with orientation or behavior? Do you consider the men who act with ladyboys not gay because they are 'straight-acting'?

Even in places famous for promoting non-heterosexuality, there's a lot more guys who like woman-and-people-who-have-boob+dick than who like men-and-people-who-have-boob+dick, even before adjusting for demographics. The former category isn't universal or even common among otherwise-straight men, but if I had to guess, there's probably more of it than there are attractive trans woman in the real world. The latter category does exist, but it's really small, and most of the examples are more on the AGP or trans side.

There's some fun argument-about-definitions going on -- the tops are still fucking XY-chromosoned people some of the time, yes -- but whatever the resulting category is called, it's somewhat interesting that it's around. If even a small fraction of this population fit the stereotype of just wanting some breasts around to keep their other attraction toward the male form deniable, you'd expect to see some outputs fitting that, and it's really just not.

(by comparison, that's absolutely a category that shows up in bi porn: Corbin Fisher's a little infamous for having their main talent literally throw the women into the background or out of the camera frame to focus on the real action.)

I think that's more in the ancient Classical world tradition of "if you're the top, it's not gay". Guys who fuck cute boys aren't gay; guys who were cute boys but aged out of that but still like man-on-man sex (particularly bottoming) are gay and repulsive (see Catullus 33).

If even a small fraction of this population fit the stereotype of just wanting some breasts around to keep their other attraction toward the male form deniable

Isn't that just because [mechanism of attraction to the male form] functions differently than [mechanism of attraction to the female form], though? Straight men are aroused by penises after all (I don't believe that 1950s-era study measured women in that way, and this is notable for being conducted in a pre-mass-issue-pornography world) so it's not that far out of left field for futanari to be the overwhelmingly dominant meme for men. /d/ is for dickgirl, after all.

By contrast, I didn't think women were aroused by the form itself and were more into a derivative of its appearance/what it ultimately represents, or the qualities those traits suggest. Strength is attractive, muscles on their own perhaps not as much (if I recall correctly, men rate that chad.jpg meme- the actual picture one, not the MS Paint one- as more attractive than women do).

Straight men are aroused by penises after all

This is an important point, and a reason why "likes dick" is not synonomous with "gay"; as a quick survey of pornography will show you, straight men love seeing big hard throbbing cocks(SFW).

men rate that chad.jpg meme- the actual picture one, not the MS Paint one- as more attractive than women do

See relevant comic 😁

The link's broken. If you link to the page the image is on and not the page directly it should work though.

Can you define what you mean by Gay?

People who have sex (verb) with people who are are the same sex (noun). Also throw in people with same-sex attraction.

Those two definitions are going to sometimes return conflicting signals. One definition is essentially the definition of a crime or a sin, a thief is someone who takes something that isn't theirs. The other is the definition of a predilection or a disease, a kleptomaniac is someone who constantly desires to steal things. Conflating the two definitions leads to communications breakdowns.

A frat boy who wakes up still drunk and drives his lifted Jeep Wrangler home and kills a moron cyclist riding his bike at 4am* is a killer, in the sense that his actions caused the death of another, and he is guilty of the appropriate crime of manslaughter. But he isn't a killer in the sense that a hitman or a gangbanger is, or even in the sense that a Navy SEAL who has never committed a crime** is a killer. We learn nothing about the frat boy's (literal) killer instinct or bloodlust from his drunk driving disaster, it has little predictive value as to the risk that he will kill again. Vehicular manslaughter, as a crime of killing, is mostly non-predictive of a tendency towards killing in other situations. Similarly, special categories exist, killing in the military is poorly predictive of killing in civilian life.

Normally these two definitions of gay will work together. If you want to have sex with a dude, your attraction algorithm probably contains other dudes. But having never been to Thailand or spoken with a ladyboy customer, idk what their attraction algorithms look like. Certainly I doubt most of the gay men I know want to have sex with a post-surgery (breasted) tranny.

*Me

**lol

So your argument is basically if they have implants its not 'gay'?

No my argument is that a guy who is attracted to a tranny prostitute with good tits is more likely to also be attracted to Sydney Sweeney than he is to be attracted to Jaxson Dart; so calling him gay would generally fail as a predictive model of the world, he isn't likely to act like the other people I call gay.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad.

I think you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. If my uncle had wheel's he'd be a bike. People who have homosexual sex can be defined as gay. I think its silly to needlessly add qualifiers. It is LGBT* except guys who top dudes with implants?

It just depends what you want to use the word "gay" to mean. If you want to indicate a certain variety of sinner, then it's best to use the "screwing anyone with a Y chromosome even once, in any manner, regardless of context" definition. If you want to try to describe a group of people with similar attributes, then calling people attracted to Traps gay isn't really very useful, they don't share attributes with most of the rest of the group.

More comments

If we can't define what it means to be a woman, that means we don't know what gay means either.

I think we can define what a woman is. Do we define the correct human physiology by the edge cases?

I dislike discussing this because it feels to me pretty consistently that we have lost the language to describe consensus reality.

"We" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here - there's a significant portion of people who if you held their feet to the fire would be able to tell you what a woman is, but for one political or social reason or another can't define it any more than they can describe what Peace in the Middle East looks like, or the steps necessary to get to fully automated luxury gay space communism. If the political right is using "what is a woman" as a political gotcha to get their opponents twisted in knots to avoid saying what they will face consequences from their allies over, who is the we? We don't describe correct human physiology by the edge cases, mostly because doctors are a necessary health function, but we define plenty of other things by edge cases, including when it can be used as shorthand for communicating much more complex ideas.

Anyone who has ever been a teenager could tell you there are about fifty things "gay" can be appended to that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

You are correct that without sex determination, then the definition of gay is meaningless. But my point is that attraction to a same-sex for some is non-trivial. I think there is a word that describes this same-sex attraction: gay.

When I was younger, gay was the word kids used for everything lame. I remember listening to NPR (Moth radio?) where a woman gave a story where her father came out as gay and she and her mother then become advocates for gay marriage, and the storyteller said she never used the word derogatorily. I think signaling political correctness as a child? To me bullshit. It didn't pass the sniff test for me.

But as I've grown up, the word gay isn't used for lame anymore and just is a synonym for homosexual. In my teenage years the word gay seemed to be trending away from the youth slang for uncool, for political correctness purposes.

I think we can define what a woman is.

Can you really? Because I don't think you can, or rather, what you define as 'woman' is wrong.

A woman is 'one whose social role is to be the bottom in the relationship', as contrasted to men which are the designated tops. This was true up until the early 20th century, though early efforts to limit bottoming to women have existed since roughly 1000 BC (that's what the 'you must only fuck XX chromosome-havers' Abramic law does).

There are some valid reasons to do this; if you force this kind of bottoming on future designated tops (as opposed to sexually mature women only, where the technology to make this state of affairs untenable would come about around 1900 or so) they won't necessarily work properly after that. And you need your future tops willing to die to maintain your society, so if you make it so they won't, then enemy men eventually come and fuck you. So we'd expect cultures with that meme to dominate.

Now, you'll probably complain, and argue that a woman actually means 'XX chromosome-havers', but you'll need to explain to me why that state had to be imposed rather than the default state of nature for human beings. You'll also note that my definition covers all edge cases [including the men who act as women anyway, or fags for short] while you're forced by angry women/bottoms to equivocate about chromosomal abnormalities and pregnancy.

future designated tops

I see that your pure and elegant category immediately starts getting caveats. This is because the category is bad.

Are you sure you aren’t just working through some mommy issues?

A woman is 'one whose social role is to be the bottom in the relationship', as contrasted to men which are the designated tops. This was true up until the early 20th century, though early efforts to limit bottoming to women have existed since roughly 1000 BC (that's what the 'you must only fuck XX chromosome-havers' Abramic law does).

The meaning of the words conventionally translated as "woman" (primarily gyne) in ancient Greece did not include teenage boys. The universe of socially acceptable sexual bottoms did. The Romans were closer to your model, admittedly.

This is the John Mearheimer offensive- realism theory of gender. Just as that theory can describe Ukraine / Russia but fail to describe relations between Switzerland / Germany, your understanding I assume rejects all equal partnerships between two people? I do not think this is a useful way of thinking on relations between people.

I find that while your definition (and other your theories on gender and sex) might seem intuitive and elegant to you, it also appears to only be useful to you, or at least to have little use beyond a certain kind of elegance. It's like I'm looking at someone trying to code golf gender and sex relations.

The former not so much, the latter you're spot on. Definitions are motte-and-baileys of their own, to be used and discarded like weapons, as necessary. e.g. I say what I like and judge everything based on what's useful to me, words are not useful as tools of mutual understanding but more useful for signaling allies and allegiances.

We just last week had a lengthy argument in this place over the definition of "Nazi", the definition of which is self-evident to normies. It's a boo-light for political ideologies people don't like, not a meaningful description in any sense the way it's used.

I've never mentioned chromosomes. Imposed by the state? You're thinking boils down to me to be the motherfuckers and the motherfucked, don't bother getting male and female involved.

My only point is that only the sex (noun) of the person you have sex (verb) with can determine whether one is gay. The word gay I, and I think most other people, define as synonymous with homosexual. Maybe you and others are getting on baggage with word gay, to me its neutral.

You're thinking boils down to me to be the motherfuckers and the motherfucked, don't bother getting male and female involved.

Yes. There's really no other reason to do otherwise.

You can only talk about the third category, those beyond that dichotomy, if this foundation exists.

Pretending that top-gays and bottom-gays are the same actively confuses the issue, but we've been pretending top-straights and bottom-straights are the same orientation for a while now so it's only natural we'd use that language/model for everyone else too.

As for "but most other people use these categories", well, most people do what I've described instinctually [whatever they are] and most of the other definitions are intellectual navel-gazing. They don't need to think about it, they just do it.

More comments

Can you really? Because I don't think you can, or rather, what you define as 'woman' is wrong.

A woman is 'one whose social role is to be the bottom in the relationship', as contrasted to men which are the designated tops.

I'm sorry... and you're telling him he's the one with the wrong definition of 'woman'?

Now, you'll probably complain, and argue that a woman actually means 'XX chromosome-havers', but you'll need to explain to me why that state had to be imposed rather than the default state of nature for human beings.

I think I can just say "no, it didn't".

I think I can just say "no, it didn't".

if it didn't you wouldn't need a law telling people not to do it

More comments

I have a confession: because apparently I'm still 12, I mentally answer to every sentence on this forum that ends with a question mark, with "YOUR MOM!", and then giggle at the occasional critical hit. Though this still isn't as good as the dude that asked "what's your favorite smell?" that one time.

"He who is penetrated is gay" is obvious to humanity in the general case.

You do see where the folks penetrating fellows can also be called gay?

Not so simple; again, see Catullus 56 where bisexuality, at the least, is not something shameful so long as you are the older, dominant, male:

O, Cato, what an absurdly funny thing,
worthy for you to hear and laugh at!
Laugh, as much as you love Catullus, Cato.
The thing is too absurd and funny.
I just found a young boy having sex with a girl:
May it please Diona, I attacked him
with my rigid thing, using it as a spear.

I fail to see what relevance a definition of 'shame' is to my definition of 'gay'.

Because “gay” doesn’t really mean “male who fucks males”, but rather “male who is fucked by males”. For further reference, compare the coordinate terms poof, sissy, and faggot.

Leviticus and Romans disagree with you, and most of the civilized world is downstream of that.

"Just say no to pederasty" is fundamental to the value proposition of Abrahamic religion.

The condemnation of active homosexual behavior is fundamentally removed from contempt towards gayness, as defined in my reply to @AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic above. The charge placed against the erastes isn't that he is personally weak or incapable, but that he defiles and corrupts the vulnerable; he may be a predator, but he's not a bitch.

You're assuming a lot here. Do you have any sources from this century? Wikipedia has gay is synonymous with homosexual.

I'm not talking about the technical, sterile definition of the word "gay", but rather the broader memetic associations that the word carries which everyone intuitively understands.

Consider this scenario: your sports team played against their rivals in the big game and utterly crushed them. In your celebration, you might say that your team fucked them, or blew them out, or made them your bitch. When one refers to a male as a "faggot", or by other coordinate terms, it degrades by asserting effeminacy—a proclamation that they are beneath you.

Per this association, mere homosexual behavior, or even a corresponding aversion to heterosexual behavior, is not "gay" per se. Gayness/faggotry, as a phenomenon with the above associations, is thus a particular subset of homosexual behavior which reflects a typically feminine constitution, including weakness and passivity unbecoming of a more capable type.

More comments

Unless being gay is considered shameful, there's no reason to differentiate between "fucking girls and young women" and "fucking boys still young enough to not have adult male characteristics". If they're pretty enough and in an inferior enough position (younger, lower social class, slave, foreigner) then so long as it's you sticking your dick into an orifice, you're still fully masculine and male by the standards of your society, not a repulsive cinaedus/pathicus.

Are you serious? Heterosexual sex can lead to pregnancy. And if there is no shame, why not call dudes who penetrate dudes also gay? Why the gatekeeping on the word gay? The year is 2025, I'm providing a definition for gay, I do not understand what relevance your descriptions of ancient Roman pedastry have here.

In a modern context that had to come up with a way to divorce identity from action to convince the [US] Christian-leaning folks of the time to let them do it because their culture was more receptive to claims it was an in-built identity rather than just something you do? Yes, tautologically.

However, outside of that very specific context, I don't feel that's a good use of the term, no. There's a very good reason the medical field says 'men who have sex with men', not 'gay'; it's a tacit admission that the category is bad since if it were any better it would have been adopted universally.

There’s a lot of truth there, historically;

“The penetrated” are practically always Gay™;

“The penetrators” can often get a lot more leeway than a strict gender/sex binarist might expect.

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