site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10hr ago (text post)   1410 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 2026

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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're thinking too much into this and putting forth overcomplicated examples that don't have much to do with the way regular people think about these things. It has nothing to do with contemporary politics. It's that any time there's a large age difference there's a presumption that the guy is in it for the sex and the woman is in it for the money. Most of our social relationships are among our peers, and romantic relationships are just an extension of our social relationships. If a girl in her early 20s invited me to hang out with her friends and they were all in their 60s and 70s, I would certainly think it odd. Since we find these kind of relationships implausible in general, we jump to the conclusion that their must be an ulterior motive, especially since the ones we hear about all seem to involve wealthy men and unusually attractive women. The most pushback I ever got against this idea was incidentally from a rather left-leaning podcast that was discussing Anna Nicole Smith's marriage to Texas oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall. Smith was 26 and Marshall was 89 at the time of the marriage, and he died 14 months later, leading to a probate battle that took years to resolve. They argues that the media focused too much on the money and didn't pay any attention to their personal lives, which made it clear that it wasn't a sham relationship.

Beyond that there are practical considerations. A friend of mine, who is about 50, recently got married to a girl 20 years his junior. There doesn't really seem to be an age difference now, but when she's 65 and at the age when most people are looking to enjoy their retirement, he's going to be at the age when most people are looking at assisted living.

but when she's 65 and at the age when most people are looking to enjoy their retirement, he's going to be at the age when most people are looking at assisted living.

This thread also made me think about just this.

I wonder if we won't see some sort of "divorce of love" memetic concept develop. That, in age-gap relationship, the elder partner, once they hit say 80 or so, permits the other partner to date freely again in order to spare them of unintentional hospice nurse status.

It's that any time there's a large age difference there's a presumption that the guy is in it for the sex and the woman is in it for the money.

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose there's a skinny male computer nerd who hits it big and is a billionaire at age 30. He marries a 30 year old woman who is very attractive, objectively much better looking than him. To the point where it's pretty obvious she never would have been interested in him if he weren't such a big success.

How will society react? I expect much less negatively than if the same man were 60. If you agree with me, then you presumably agree that there is more to the story than just a relationship which is overly transactional.

Interesting question. I'd say you are probably right but I also wonder how much of that is just because age can be talked about objectively whereas there's no shared way to quantity objectively how far "out of his league" she is.

They argues that the media focused too much on the money and didn't pay any attention to their personal lives, which made it clear that it wasn't a sham relationship.

But the story about the money was so much more interesting that even Anna Nicole Smith's tits. 25 years of litigation, continuing after the deaths of both parties and a judge, seven courts in three jurisdictions, two trips to SCOTUS (with amicus briefs by two different SGs), and meaty issues around conflict of jurisdictions and separation of powers.

It's that any time there's a large age difference there's a presumption that the guy is in it for the sex and the woman is in it for the money.

This is a big part of it. Consider also that an older, wealthy man is typically going to have existing children/heirs who are expecting his resources and attention, which is now being taken by a young floozy.

which is now being taken by a young floozy.

My research into step-children on various adult oriented documentary websites suggests this outcome is often welcomed by the male heirs.

My research into step-children on various adult oriented documentary websites suggests this outcome is often welcomed by the male heirs.

Now that you mention it, I remember that this issue was played for laughs in the 80s movie "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure." The two main characters (Bill & Ted) were high school students and the father of one of them got married to a woman who Bill & Ted had known as a hottie in their high school who was a few years ahead of them.

I wonder if a movie with a gag like this would get green-lighted in 2026. I tend to doubt it.

I was laughing about that to myself the other day in the FFT, when @FtttG said that men have fallen out of lust with lesbians because they saw actual lesbians and they weren't that hot, and then I thought of the average stepmom...

I can't imagine the average stepmom is especially attractive, but how many stepmoms can you name off the top of your head? It's not a highly visible identity in the way that "lesbian" or "black" is: no woman introduces herself by stating that she's a stepmom. Probably the only time we hear about women raising the children of her husband from a previous marriage/relationship, it's a celebrity, who are selected for being attractive. Hell, even searching the term "stepmom" (specialised websites excepted) would probably just bring you to the movie Stepmom (starring a young Julia Roberts). Most of the time you hear the word "stepmom" used in the media, it's in reference to an unusually attractive woman!

(Funnily enough, the primary context in which I heard the word "stepmother" growing up was the "wicked stepmother" archetype in Grimm's fairy tales: that being an evil, sexy woman who seduces a hapless man and persuades him to abandon or kill his children. I wonder to what extent porn studios are consciously playing on this archetype. Certainly the "stepmom" in porn videos is a wicked, conniving seducer.)

Personally, the incest/faux-incest trend in porn never appealed to me – I just find it creepy and off-putting, and downright paedophilic when it comes to the "stepdaughter" stuff.

but how many stepmoms can you name off the top of your head?

...I feel like I can name five or six that I know closely pretty easily? I'm not even sure how to process this question. Do you not know divorced people?

If he's 50 and she's 20 years younger, then she's 30. That's a woman, not a girl. Yeah, I know it's nit-picking, but it does infantilise women. Would you refer to your friend as a boy if you were talking about him in terms of "I know a boy who is dating a younger woman"?

Would you refer to your friend as a boy if you were talking about him in terms of "I know a boy who is dating a younger woman"?

Have you never heard the term "boy toy"?

FWIW, girl has been so normalized as a generic casual word for young-ish woman that it doesn't really register to me the same way as "boy". Boy is pre-puberty; Girl can be anything below ... 40 or so? It functions more like "guy" nowadays, woman would sound stilted to me.

It flows back to societally valuing youth in women and age/experience in men (common idea in this thread), doesn't it? "Boy" is almost insulting to an of-age male in various instances (some related to racism), while "girl" is acceptable because it's considered flattering.

Not endorsing, just observing linguistic implications.

FWIW, girl has been so normalized as a generic casual word for young-ish woman that it doesn't really register to me the same way as "boy".

As a side note, I agree. But I think when age-gap relationships are being discussed, it's important to use the words "woman" and "man" so it's clear that we are discussing relationships where neither partner is underage. But yeah, in common parlance, a 25 year old woman is a "girl" and a 25-year old man is a "guy."

I feel like "in it for the money" is a bad cultural concept in this context, which conflates the natural class interests that go into marriage, especially for a woman, with prostitution. The problem with "gold diggers" isn’t that they find wealth a critically important quality in a man, it's that they simply plan to extract it and leave.

Exactly, if a woman marries me for my money, extends me love and attention, raises my kids, watches me die of natural causes and then goes to the Bahamas to cry on a cruise ship, I'm not really seeing the issue here.

There are very few women who don't care about money at all. I ask the married male Mottizens here to consider what would happen if they suddenly gave away all their money, quit their jobs and then told their wives that. "But don't you love me for who I am?", you'll have to cry plaintively as she files papers and takes the kids.

goes to the Bahamas to cry on a cruise ship

Don't get a Bahamas mourning wife, get you a St. Barts mourning wife.

Got a few million? / start chasin a billion.

Aim higher, king.

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