site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15hr ago (text post)   2260 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

So onlyfans owner has died of cancer.

OnlyFans owner Leonid Radvinsky dies of cancer at 43 Under his ownership, OnlyFans turned from a platform that once avoided explicit ⁠content into an adults-only phenomenon with more than 300 million users and over $1 billion in annual revenue, powered by erotic performers and celebrity influencers.

Which means that in the next 72 hours we will hear a lot of hot takes about onlyfans. Then it will be Trump all over again.

One of the things I noticed when trawling reddit was absolute lack of sympathy from anyone. The guy may have been the most exposed to culture war dude in the world - some hate him because of onlyfans, some hate him because he is jewish and aipac donor.

For onlyfans - I don't think this is boon for humanity. And I think in a way it is just Sports Betting but for women. Mild to severe ruin of your life for the slim chance to make it big. There could be such things as too many creators, too many influences, too many habibis living in Dubai and Bali.

Society seems to have lost the middle ground options between hating something + banning it and allowing it + enthusiastically supporting it.

I'm generally in favor of more things being legal, but heavily discouraged and frowned upon.

This. Absolutely this. Something can be bad and absolutely none of the government's business. The government is not smart enough or benevolent enough to take up the role of micromanaging society and all of our individual choices.

Society seems to have lost the middle ground options between hating something + banning it and allowing it + enthusiastically supporting it.

It never had it because "legal but we hate it" isn't a stable state of affairs. Sometimes something stays beneath broad notice long enough to remain legal even if those in the know consider it shameful, but if you actively try to position something as legal-but-shameful, society is inevitably going to creep toward one of the poles. Either everyone hates it enough to ban it, or people are indifferent enough that a dedicated fringe movement can work to remove the stigma. I'm not even sure it warrants pointing out the many, many examples of this at play over the last many decades.

Agreed that it is not currently a stable state of affairs, but I think that is a product of the current cultures views on the role of government and how the government chooses to behave (like whether they choose to follow the constitution).

The prohibition movement started in the 1820's, so it took them a century to build enough momentum and then eventually ban alcohol. And then the ban failed in clear ways and they reversed it.

Tobacco has been grandfathered into legality.

There are also many local laws on the books all around the country that ban "sodomy". Certainly enough to make it into a national law, but that was never done.

I think for a long time there was a very steep hill to climb to ban something at the national level, even if it was hated and reviled. You needed more like 70-80% general approval for a ban rather than just 50%+1 for a single election. Nowadays it does feel more like 50%+1 for a single election is enough to get anything banned. And overturning the ban requires something like the 70-80% general support (like Marijuana legalization).

It is reasonable and rational for any vested interests in a product/activity to get very worried when approval levels for their thing dip below 55%.

Normally rich people never get any more than a very very minor amount of sympathy when they die, not just on Reddit but anywhere, unless they are entertainers (including athletes). There are rare exceptions, for example extremely beloved politicians.

But by and large, the public simply will not have sympathy for a rich non-entertainer who dies young. This is not just a Reddit thing, it's almost universal, and not just in the US, but across the world.

So the lack of sympathy for this particular man, I think, doesn't necessarily mean much.

As for OnlyFans, it is to porn what Uber is to taxis. It cuts out the previous middleman and replaces it with a computerized middleman.

I think it's probably a good thing overall for wannabe porn actresses to be able to make porn in their bedrooms without needing pimps or producers. The people who are losing out are the pimps and producers, but I imagine that their reputation for being amoral is likely deserved, so I figure that the benefit to the girls probably outweighs the loss to the pimps and producers.

You're forgetting the margin here. Making something easier incentivizes more of it. It's not like there's some fixed percentage of women whose class is who are destined to sell porn no matter what and are either going to be treated well or poorly. There's a large demographic of mostly normal women who go to college and get jobs and, in the absence of OnlyFans, would never become porn actresses because that's kind of a big deal and that's now what they want to do with their life. But if you make it easy, if you advertise it and show them a bunch of young women like themselves getting millions of dollars, they might download the app and start selling nudes for a few hundred bucks to get some extra spending money or pay some bills.

I argue that this is bad for them. The reputational damage, especially considering the possibility of these nudes showing up and damaging their relationships, careers, or children several decades in the future, is not worth the few hundred bucks most of them make doing this. 90%+ of OnlyFans creators would be better off if the app never existed, because they never would have become porn actresses in the first place. I don't think the value gained by the career porn actresses gaining more control over their career is worth the value lost by everyone else.

It's not like there's some fixed percentage of women whose class is who are destined to sell porn no matter what

Sadly there is a correlation with women that were sexually abused as children and teens and those engaging in sex work.

That category of women is luckily not a "fixed" percentage. But I do feel that maybe it changes the calculus a bit.

I can never particularly get worked up over OF. With the proliferation of AI image and video gen, there's already a race to the bottom and drastically reduced profits (and costs). There's also a massive skew towards the top few performers raking in most of the money, and the average creator makes a trivial sum.

Not that I'd care much either way, if a woman has an OF, I would consider that a red flag that significantly reduces or eliminates my desire for a longterm relationship, but I respect their right to do it anyway. God knows nobody is likely to pay much for pictures of my bussy, and I'm not sure how much of that is attractiveness or the sheer abundance of free options. I can say I have never, ever, in a quadrillion years been tempted to pay for the stuff, most of the time the free alternatives are fine or leaks are easily available.

God knows nobody is likely to pay much for pictures of my bussy

Aren't they into that kind of thing over on rdrama?

You're telling me I could have been getting paid this whole time? BRB, I need to renegotiate for more Drama Coins. Or start a union.

I'll pay you 10000 marseycoins right now for a dick pic.

You didn't specify if it had to be my dick, so I'll point you to Google and donate the proceeds to charity. Probably a charity for autism, that's the right call.

Rare case I directly disagree with you, even though I sort of accept:

I respect their right to do it anyway.

I can't help but think that they're not really giving 'informed consent' to the activity if they can't really grasp the real odds involved (they overestimate their chances of success, nobody dissuades them of this) and the first order harmful effects, much less the second order ones, that can result.

I would never hold a gun to a woman's head to prevent her from prostituting herself (although, if it were my own daughter, I might take several less drastic but still severe measures), but I think the legality of the choice doesn't really absolve the morality of it.

Its one of a pretty long laundry list of things that I expect many women will enthusiastically hop into if enticed, yet come to regret later and be very angry that someone didn't dissuade them at the time.

I can't help but think that they're not really giving 'informed consent' to the activity if they can't really grasp the real odds involved (they overestimate their chances of success, nobody dissuades them of this) and the first order harmful effects, much less the second order ones, that can result.

This is perilously close to an argument against liberalism for the general public.

Personal liberty is always awesome until the bill comes due. It's not a philosophical abstraction, it's a real concrete phenomenon. Everyone will always tell you they love the idea, except for the moments where they really have to live with it. And then of course a decade out after the event, someone will come along and tell you "the game is rigged," because new regulations prevent retail investors from exercising their full autonomy on the platform to engage in high risk trades. So then regulations get relaxed, a dozen more people shoot themselves in the head and you're back to square one again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I'll bite that bullet.

However, I'm a professor of the benefits of localism, so I'd be arguing against liberalism in the particular social order I would prefer to exist in, not strictly speaking saying it shouldn't be applied anywhere.

be very angry that someone didn't dissuade them at the time

And let them be. If you make stupid decision as an adult against all advice, then you suffer consequences. That's how you grow and become mature. And if the consequences are severe enough, there's then a tiny chance that you'll be a warning for a younger generation contemplating their own version of OF-level stupidity.

That's how you grow and become mature.

Only if the errors are recoverable from.

This has always been my approach. I've always drawn a funny contrast between freedom and freedumb. Only in a society with total personal responsibility can you have complete freedom. Anything else is freedumb. We'll never reach the state of the former though, that's why freedom will always be a joke. It's privileges people care most about. Not their personal autonomy to eat the consequences of their own actions.

yet come to regret later and be very angry that someone didn't dissuade them at the time

Ah, the famed equality between sexes in action.

Look, I think that a society that only allows people to make good choices is tyrannical, even if it's benevolent tyranny. I am not maximally libertarian, but someone selling pictures of them riding a dildo does not rise to the level of harm where I will tolerate (if not endorse) governmental intervention.

I think you have every right to personally disapprove. I do and would disapprove too, if my daughter contemplated something like that, I'd be immensely disappointed, assuming that society and cultural mores around sex stayed much the same as it currently is today. But if it was entirely normalized? I wouldn't forbid her, even if my own upbringing made me queasy. In a similar vein, I don't think there's anything wrong with working as a janitor, but I don't want my kids to become janitors.

If we apply the standard that people who aren't maximally rational and numerate can't do certain risky things, then we would very quickly find ourselves in a situation where the average person can't drink, gamble or smoke or drive large SUVs. I don't drink (much), gamble (at all) or smoke (barring vapes, which are far less harmful) but I am also opposed to a blanket ban. If they're old enough to vote and not obviously retarded, they can do what they want with their own bodies. I don't see it as my business or that of the state.

If I could sell pictures of my body for monetary gain and without repercussion?

self_made_human_nudes_uncensored_gone_wild.jpg

If hot women lined up to fuck me for money? Brother, I'd do it for free.

I already sell my body in a very real sense, since my mind is attached to it and so are my hands. That is what working for a wage means. I don't see anything qualitatively or morally wrong about sex work in a vacuum, the problem is the lack of vacuum. The kind of woman who is willing to prostitute herself is highly likely to be immensely unsuitable for me. That's just basic priors IMO. But history has no end of examples of respected courtesans or temple priestesses who were gussied up prostitutes. And society was fine with it, at the time.

Besides, I do occasionally watch porn, and I'm not a hypocrite to the degree that I would try to ban pornstars while jerking off to them.

I hope it is clear that I am willing to tolerate, if not endorse, many things that I disagree with or disapprove of. I ask only for the same charity in return. If OF caused giga-AIDs and the imminent extinction of the human race, I'd look the other way. It's not that bad.

Besides, I do occasionally watch porn, and I'm not a hypocrite to the degree that I would try to ban pornstars while jerking off to them.

I suspect that much of the incandescent rage against pornstresses in fact comes from men who are addicted to porn, and are filled with rage against the women who hold the reins on their addiction.

Quite possibly, but I pride myself on being an internally coherent and consistent person, and I definitely can't empathize with such... hypocrisy? Incoherence? I don't know.

Sure, I can understand it in an intellectual manner, but it's like intentionally seeking out fentanyl without external pressure and then shooting your dealer for selling to you. Sure, it's a bad idea, but this hypothetical (and hopefully fictional) person is being a bit silly. The dealer, at least here, didn't force them to buy it. If you hate pornstars, not jerking off is an option, and if that doesn't work, we can give your SSRIs for hypersexuality.

Look, I think that a society that only allows people to make good choices is tyrannical, even if it's benevolent tyranny. I am not maximally libertarian, but someone selling pictures of them riding a dildo does not rise to the level of harm where I will tolerate (if not endorse) governmental intervention.

Maybe I'm not someone who's hung up on labels as much as another person is but frankly, I don't give a damn whether it's a black cat or a white cat so long as it catches mice. Call it tyrannical, call it freedom, call it whatever the hell you want; I really don't care. What matters is whether you end up a better society or not. That's the real test. Not whether the government is right.

People who are incapable of understanding harm until after it's already happened to them are the ones most susceptible to being harmed and being negatively impacted. The best way to avoid getting cancer is to not lead lifestyles that are conducive to fostering it. There's nothing prejudicial about saying to someone "look if you don't want to die of lung cancer, don't smoke." If you're someone that truly wants to make good decisions and stay out of harm's way, then the first thing to 'not' do is smoke. Whatever else someone's predisposition may be. "No raindrop ever considers itself responsible for the flood." A societal attitude that says "I'm not personally for this choice, but I respect someone's right to pursue it," makes an implicit demand upon themselves and others that even if they don't partake of the activities that lead to bad outcomes, one should be obligated to permanently live at risk being surrounded by those bad influences. You're still a part of the problem. The fact that you aren't the source of it doesn't mean you aren't a contributor.

You don't need to be "maximally rational" to perform a basic risk to reward calculus. As an individual, sure, you can do whatever you want. But the state has to concern itself with the collective health and welfare of the society as a whole. And you can be as crazy and stupid as you want, but that doesn't mean you need to receive state assistance for doing so. You can collect your Darwin award for that. I've done innumerable ignorant things in my life. Never once have I done something stupid.

State lotteries directly promote vice. Can we start with ending those? How much are people supposed to tolerate transparent hypocrisy? I know, I know, hypocrisy is not the worst thing. But you don't have to make it official and ludicrously overt.

I don't get why we can't make lotteries a reward for savings (replacing half the interest or something). "Want to play the lottery? Start sticking $50 a week into this account and every so often you get a ticket. Good luck!" Mandate the interest rate at more than 1/3 of fed funds; payout ratio needs to total 1/3 of fed funds, and let entrepreneurs figure out how to pool together to get headline prizes out there.

Everyone "wins" because all the losers have their whole savings and interest after the drawings and because of that they'll get more chances next year.

Personally I have no problem banning it. It’s not like lotteries are some kind of alternative investment vehicle.

I don't give a damn whether it's a black cat or a white cat so long as it catches mice.

This position works because the government of the person who said it is not democratic. It actually does matter in America if the masses think the government is right or legitimate in what it does.

If the illusion of democracy is good enough for you then you will of course be satisfied with that answer.

Countries do what they believe makes sense in their circumstance. And if it produces the outcomes that are agreeable to the people there, who are you to tell them they're wrong (by that standard)? It's a very western centric attitude that leads people to say something like that. But man judges everything in relation to himself, so it's not uncommon. And as the US loses power overtime as all empires do, you'll see it being lowered into the grave and people will be saying "but... we're... free! This isn't supposed to be happening..." And they won't be able to come to grips with where they went wrong in their thinking.

You misunderstand. I don't care that the Chinese have a different system, I may even admire parts of it. I'm saying that the democratic/American system cannot be blase about this in the same way. Americans are very puritanical about their liberty, if nothing else.

Countries don't do things, people do. The question is whether the American people will tolerate that argument baldly put. I think there's obvious financial incentives in destroying the last guardrails of the old world, but the arguments about freedom that license it find far more purchase than they did in the past and that's because of the people.

It's self-evident to me that Islam Is Right About Women Gambling. But "this is simply a net loss for society and you're fooling yourself if you think we need to run this experiment again - humans are still as weak and stupid as they ever were" probably would have failed on many, many people and that matters.

Xi doesn't have to care. Small d-democrats do.

Americans are very puritanical about their liberty, if nothing else.

If by puritanical you mean have our head up our own ass, then I’d agree. Americans tend to fetishize the concept. We proudly go around thinking we’re the freest and most open society on Earth. And in some ways that’s accurate. But in reality America is an open society with a closed mind. Americans tend not to listen to the rest of the world.

Countries don't do things, people do.

And people are what make up countries. Families make up nations. Nations make up state’s.

Xi doesn't have to care. Small d-democrats do.

And democrats only have to pretend to care. To me bread and circuses are insufficient to have a functional democracy.

I don't particularly endorse the State subsidizing bad behavior, at least the kind that imposes significant negative externalities. At least not till the world becomes so ridiculously rich that even the US of A today looks like a ghetto, which I do think is a very real possibility.

At the same time, I am very leery of States attempting to ban or onerously restrict the activities of consenting, sane and intelligent people. I am okay with safeguards for those who do not meet that cut, children shouldn't be kicked out of home at the age of six and told to fend for themselves.

The problem with setting your metric as whatever produces a "better" society is that there is far from perfect consensus on what counts as better. There are idiots who looks at nuclear power and cheap energy with enormous material abundance and think nah, ban that shit. This is not a retreat into complete epistemic uncertainty or helplessness, most people do agree that a society that is richer, healthier and smarter is generally good. Yet I am concerned by the sheer number of people who disapprove of the idea of turning Mercury into a Dyson Swarm/Matrioshka Brain. It's free cheap real estate and a lot of negentropy for the taking. Or the idea that we should become biological immortal or genetically enhance our cognition and eliminate all disease.

The benefit of strongly valuing personal liberty is that it allows the free market for ideas to flourish. People and societies that make smart decisions win in the end, most of the time.

At least not till the world becomes so ridiculously rich that even the US of A today looks like a ghetto, which I do think is a very real possibility.

Don't know what you're talking about here. There are plenty of places in the US that resemble third world countries. I grew up in the hood myself.

The whole notion of "two consenting adults" was always a fallacy because the world itself is more than two consenting adults. What two consenting adults do on the moon is irrelevant to everyone else because there's nobody else to have an opinion about it. So only on Gilligan's island do arguments like that have any real merit.

The problem with setting your metric as whatever produces a "better" society is that there is far from perfect consensus on what counts as better. There are idiots who looks at nuclear power and cheap energy with enormous material abundance and think nah, ban that shit. This is not a retreat into complete epistemic uncertainty or helplessness, most people do agree that a society that is richer, healthier and smarter is generally good. Yet I am concerned by the sheer number of people who disapprove of the idea of turning Mercury into a Dyson Swarm/Matrioshka Brain. It's free cheap real estate and a lot of negentropy for the taking. Or the idea that we should become biological immortal or genetically enhance our cognition and eliminate all disease.

Unfortunately that doesn't absolve any society on Earth from having to take a stance on the matter. All I can tell you as one individual is what kind of society I feel most at home in and would like to live in. Compromises have to be made on all sides and nobody is going to get 100% of what they want. But if you want to take things item by item, you can always ask yourself which parties benefit and which ones lose by restricting or banning certain activities? I've never been one of those people who accepts the prevailing western ethic that says "do whatever you want, your happiness is all that matters." The notion that stress is to be avoided at all costs or that something is "bad" if it inhibits your right sacrifice the good for what makes you happy in the moment is an ethic that needs to be taken out to pasture and shot.

The benefit of strongly valuing personal liberty is that it allows the free market for ideas to flourish. People and societies that make smart decisions win in the end, most of the time.

Even among some of the most restrictive societies on Earth are not entirely against personal liberty. They just don't conceive of it the same way others do. Why don't I care about the opinion or personal choice of some rando on the other side of the world? Because he literally has 'zero' ability to affect or impact me. Why do I care about the opinion or personal choice of my community? Because I have to live here with the rest of them.

Even among some of the most restrictive societies on Earth are not entirely against personal liberty. They just don't conceive of it the same way others do.

"You think personal liberty is you doing what you want. I am not against personal liberty, I merely have a different conception of it. My conception is very similar, it is you doing what I want" -- Kim Jong Un, probably

Even among some of the most restrictive societies on Earth are not entirely against personal liberty.

— Tretiak, probably

More comments

I think you have every right to personally disapprove. I do and would disapprove too, if my daughter contemplated something like that, I'd be immensely disappointed, assuming that society and cultural mores around sex stayed much the same as it currently is today. But if it was entirely normalized? I wouldn't forbid her, even if my own upbringing made me queasy.

There's gotta be a line somewhere though, right?

If your child is reaching towards boiling water on the hot stovetop, you'd probably grab their hand to stop them, even though they might not be too badly burned, its not something you want them to risk, and a bad injury will very likely vastly diminish their quality of life in ways they can't easily predict.

So if you see your freshly 18-year-old daughter reaching towards the high-quality webcam and setting up an Amazon wishlist, especially if you notice a skeevy dude with tattoos and a pornstache whispering in her ear, you might feel some obligation to snatch her metaphorical hand away before she takes a step that is likely to diminish her quality of life in ways she can't easily predict.

SEE ALSO: STUDENT LOAN DEBT

If we apply the standard that people who aren't maximally rational and numerate can't do certain risky things, then we would very quickly find ourselves in a situation where the average person can't drink, gamble or smoke or drive large SUVs.

I'm coming around to a social order that's like this. Ties into my musings on 'age of consent' discourse.

I don't think we need to prevent all harms everywhere. But if we're not going to go full Darwinian and let God sort things out, then the guardrails we do set up could be contoured much more wisely than they currently are, ESPECIALLY if we want to try and optimize around humanity's long term survival and (a value I have) expansion into space.

I hope it is clear that I am willing to tolerate, if not endorse, many things that I disagree with or disapprove of.

Same.

I just have lived long enough now to see that certain decisions people make can cause irreversible harm, and it would genuinely be a net good to divert them from those decisions long enough for them to actually become productive and self-assured before they actually accept the full risk of the behavior.

And I'm a radical individualist and anti-federalist! I'm not asking for there to be some big central bureau intervening in everyone's individual decisions! That has its own major problems.

Just a system that insures against the fat-tailed harms as best we can.

IF NOTHING ELSE, we need to be internalizing the externalities so the costs fall specifically on those who create the harms or indulge the vices, rather than the rest of us. Cue my other favorite rant.

So if you see your freshly 18-year-old daughter reaching towards the high-quality webcam and setting up an Amazon wishlist, especially if you notice a skeevy dude with tattoos and a pornstache whispering in her ear, you might feel some obligation to snatch her metaphorical hand away before she takes a step that is likely to diminish her quality of life in ways she can't easily predict.

But is that the role of the state? It's the role of her parents, sure. But the state and the parents are different creatures with different relationships to the individual.

I don't think so, but under current laws and norms, if the parents intervene, particularly in a physical way, to try to reign in their daughter THEY will be punished for restricting her autonomy. One one side you can say the state's role is to protect her autonomy. But to the extent she's susceptible to influence of others, on the other side, the state's role is to protect a malign influence from her parents.

The maximum irony is that a guy who spends months 'grooming' a young girl (as long as he doesn't actually solicit sex or touch her) then helps her set up an Onlyfans and publish explicit content the very day she turns 18 is legally protected from any kind of reprisal from the family if they find out. He has done nothing that the law can punish, and if he doesn't care about social judgment, he escapes Scott-free.

And I'd suggest that current technology makes the groomer's job way easier than the parent trying to keep the daughter out of sex work.

Everyone gets that its absolutely creepy and predatory behavior but the law as written will make it impossible to actually do anything to prevent it other than try your best to monitor the kid's comms.

And I'm a radical individualist and anti-federalist! I'm not asking for there to be some big central bureau intervening in everyone's individual decisions! That has its own major problems.

But that's not the dilemma. Either you believe the state has a serious role to play in harm reduction, or it doesn't. All societies solve this problem differently and these things exist in some balance. A lot of people engage in high risk activity because 1) they don't think it'll happen to them or 2) someone else will foot the cost of their bad decisions. Adults especially are fully aware of consequences when they forecast their bad decisions. When the COVID lockdowns were in effect, I remember getting into a conversation with a guy who didn't want to take the jab. But he of course was perfectly fine with going to the hospital for whatever else he needed to get checked. Now on an individual level, if someone doesn't want to get the vaccine, that's perfectly fine with me. But you do have to die out on the street when you get sick.

Either you believe the state has a serious role to play in harm reduction, or it doesn't.

Through direct intervention, I think it doesn't.

Through maintaining general social order, perhaps it might.

See, neither of us disagree that there is scope for guard-rails or restrictions, we just disagree on where to put them. If we lived in a more enlightened and intelligent society, I would let my inner libertarian flag fly, and say that yes, society should allow every free sophont to own personal nuclear bombs or sell themselves into slavery.

Sadly, we live in a deeply imperfect world, with a lot of stupid people around who would not only screw themselves over (hey, it's their prerogative) but also impose substantial externalities. I don't mind second hand or indoor smoking being banned, but I do oppose a ban on cigarettes even if I don't use them. I am mostly okay with cigarettes being heavily taxed, which compensates for the externalities and has had meaningful and substantial reductions in popularity, at least in the UK.

The issue with the toddler analogy is that well, they're a toddler. I'm not sure even Von Neumann or Einstein were operating at the level of the average adult at 2 years old. Safeguards in place make sense. Adults/parents being able to override their autonomy is desirable.

But my 18 year old daughter? I would impose as much punishment as is legal, say threatening to cut her off from college funds or leave her life. But I wouldn't ask the government to make sex work illegal, that is going too far. At least some people, like Aella, do it while being far from stupid or poorly informed. Good for them, even if I don't particularly approve. I would sleep with Aella, I absolutely wouldn't marry her. But there are people willing to marry her (Bay Area autists for the most part), so it's not ruining her life. I don't want to ruin her life. I will sigh and look the other way.

See, neither of us disagree that there is scope for guard-rails or restrictions, we just disagree on where to put them.

Yep.

But my 18 year old daughter? I would impose as much punishment as is legal, say threatening to cut her off from college funds or leave her life. But I wouldn't ask the government to make sex work illegal, that is going too far.

Right.

But should it be legal to, e.g. physically fight off the male interlopers who are pulling her into porn? Online grooming/blackmail gangs are a real thing. (That link is quite SFW but the implications are stomach-churning, fair warning) Maybe you can physically detain her for a period of time so she can't hang with the porno guys. That has legal precedent, after all. Maybe require her to wear a tracking bracelet outside the house. Of course, I'm told that's basically what parents do with their phones anyway.

I just find it interesting that you happily suggest using incentives to nudge her behavior around, but might balk at the idea of using even basic physical intervention. I am in agreement that creating a law that reins her in is too far.

Overall, I'm okay with "do your best to train your kid to use all common sense and restraint and to do the better thing, then let them go their own way."

I'm just not sold on the idea that 18 years of age is the correct checkpoint for many kids, and if we say its okay to use certain tactics to control their behavior before age 18, it runs into the same issue, why is it suddenly impermissible after they're 18? Your interest in their wellbeing hasn't shifted!

And no, I'm not limiting this to females. It might be useful to also prevent dudes from doing reckless and stupid stuff too. Its just that physically restraining a fully grown guy from doing a thing is a riskier proposition, for obvious reasons.

If there's an online grooming gang involved (and is it even grooming when we're talking about a legal adult?), then I would call the cops and ask them to take care of it, presuming that the activity was illegal.

I think physical restraint is, usually, a drastic escalation and violation of autonomy. My friends and family can pull me out of the way of a truck, but I'd yell at them if they stopped me from going out on a date with someone they don't like.

If my daughter told me she was going to attempt suicide, or do fentanyl, then I think I would do quite a few things that are clearly illegal, and damn the consequences. Starting an OF or doing sex work is not ideal, but not nearly as bad.

I have done plenty of things that my parents didn't approve of at that age. Some of those things went well for me, others... the opposite. A part of becoming an adult is realizing that the typical parent (mine and hopefully yours) is actually quite wise and knows what's good for you, even if they aren't omniscient.

I have my own issues with using age as the (primary) standard for capacity. I know 15 year old I'd trust to run a business, and 35 year olds who shouldn't operate a lemonade stand. I am too tired to go into exhaustive detail regarding the specifics of my views, but you can imagine something like a citizenship/adulthood/competence exam that anyone is allowed to try at any age. Nothing overly onerous, but enough to eliminate the idiots. You can pass it at 16 and legally emancipate yourself, or you might not make it till you're dying of old age if you're legitimately stupid. Then perhaps more demanding and specific tests for things that are quite clearly bad for you. Think Yudkowsky's Shop That Sells Banned Products.

You want to get surgery done by someone who isn't a licensed professional? Sure, pass this test of literacy and demonstrate an understanding of the principles of the Scientific Method and why med school is a good idea (you don't have to agree, you just have to understand), sign a few waivers, wait a week, and you're good to go. That includes waiving liability or the ability to seek compensation from the State.

If you break your spine while driving drunk, or lose your dick while fucking a blender, then I don't see why society should have to foot the bill. Maybe drug addicts who are violent, criminally inclined and disruptive and entirely unwilling to accept help shouldn't be eligible for housing or most welfare. If they're doing coke on weekends and making a million dollars a year as a quant, why the hell should I care?

Incredibly enjoying this discussion since its one of the few times I'm seeing major daylight between our respective positions, despite coming from almost identical premises, it seems.

If you break your spine while driving drunk, or lose your dick while fucking a blender, then I don't see why society should have to foot the bill. Maybe drug addicts who are violent, criminally inclined and disruptive and entirely unwilling to accept help shouldn't be eligible for housing or most welfare. If they're doing coke on weekends and making a million dollars a year as a quant, why the hell should I care?

I'm gathering that you're ultimately fine with full on Social and Natural Darwinism for deciding punishments and outcomes for risky behavior... but there's a certain amount of nuance when it comes to your own progeny.

If my daughter told me she was going to attempt suicide, or do fentanyl, then I think I would do quite a few things that are clearly illegal, and damn the consequences. Starting an OF or doing sex work is not ideal, but not nearly as bad.

Well let me drill down on that a bit. If you believed that her doing sex work was more likely than not (i.e. 51%) to make it so that she'd be unable to marry a reliable, respectable, supportive husband and thus grievously impact her financial future, her odds of being a mother, her overall mental health, are you still going to stand on the 'autonomy' position, even if she's getting some malicious actor whispering in her ear (but, importantly NOT coercing her)? Yes, I would hope she'd listen to her loving father over the Casanova trying to pimp her out, but if she slips up this one time that might be all it takes.

The position I'm arguing is that there are things that can create lifelong misery and consequences that are nonetheless NOT as serious as death or dismemberment, but have outsized negative impact compared to their benefits. Yes, people should be able to pursue such things. But if your own child, in their youthful indiscretion, is about to go jump off a metaphorical cliff into the water below,

Wouldn't you be willing to take some serious measures to avert that?

but I'd yell at them if they stopped me from going out on a date with someone they don't like.

I mean, depends a bit on what "they don't like" actually means. "This woman is riddled with STDs and has a history of violent outbursts" might justify trying to stop you. But yes, that's a fair distinction.

More comments

IMO OnlyFans is to women what video game lootboxes / sportsbetting are to men. Deep in male nature is the desire to seek fortune through competition / warring, and deep in female nature is the desire to present themselves for sex and obtain resources from the wealthy. These are primitive drives, millions of years old, predating modern human evolution. In both instances it triggers an urge that can overpower rational risk-reward calculation in many people. These things should be banned just like cocaine is banned. They are physiologically the same as cocaine. Cocaine is an endogenous dopamine hack, OF / gambling are exogenous dopamine hacks.

One of the things I noticed when trawling reddit was absolute lack of sympathy from anyone. The guy may have been the most exposed to culture war dude in the world…

It’s hard to have sympathy for anyone involved in these industries. It’s something that generalizes. When the MGM cyberattack happened a number of years ago and they got extorted out of millions, I don’t remember seeing a single person shed a tear for the casinos. People were cheering on the criminals.

Women also have loot boxes these days. Blind boxes for general fashion/labubuesque merch have conquered all fields of consumerism

It's an unfair comparison. <1% of America's women have Onlyfans. Pre-Onlyfans, ChatGPT (high thinking) estimates that around 0.4% of women were engaged in sex-adjacent work (prostitutes, bikini models, strippers, porn).

Today, the number remains inside that 0.1-1% order of magnitude.

deep in female nature is the desire to present themselves for sex

Evidence points to a <1% base rate of type of woman. That's still ~3 million American women, a large absolute number.

For comparison, around 50% of American men played computer games as a primary hobby at some point in their life. (controlled for those born after the 90s because computers games weren't accessible before then). Among U.S. teens today, 97% of boys say they play video games, and about 6 in 10 teen boys play daily.

Very different numbers.

That “only” a small percentage of women are on OnlyFans does not mean that the behavior is not rooted in a biological drive. Only a small amount of men become addicted to lootbox gambling, and yet addiction to gambling is a 100% real thing that is a result of both genetic factors and biology generally. The women not on OnlyFans may simply be raised well, have higher intelligence, are more cautious related to privacy, or are married or in a relationship. Yet OnlyFans is still exploiting the biology of some genetically at-risk women, just as lootbox gambling exploits the biology of at-risk men. (Similarly, some people are predisposed to alcoholism; my 23andme says I likely drink a lot of coffee, and it is right.)

Regarding the numbers, a 2024 filing showed 4.6 million creator accounts, of which a majority are naturally women, and nearly all of these women will be 18-30. This does not tell us how many had created an account and then deleted it; it is unlikely that the average creators sticks around very long. And this is not among American women only. So the percent of women 18-30 on OnlyFans is not certain.

I am very confident that most women on OnlyFans are not motivated to be there by instinct any more than an office worker is motivated by instinct to go to the office in the morning.

How on earth are these anywhere close to the same thing?

For lootboxes and sports betting, the money is coming from desperate men.

For onlyfans, the money is also coming from desperate men!

I am this close to nominating you for an AAQC.

It's like The Room, so bad it's actually approaching good from the other side.

You are tearing me apart Lisa!

On the reward circuitry level there is no difference between obtaining cash from variable posting of nudity and obtaining in-game rewards (often tradeable to cash) from variable shooting of an opponent or clicking of a treasure chest

I kinda agree with you, but I like the upcummies too much, pwning noobs and taking names assess

I don’t think that’s a great comparison. Lootboxes hit on the neural correlates for in the moment quick fixes and feed on addiction. Women aren’t addicted to taking their clothes off, whores are. The only takeaway from that is to come to understand that either there are millions of the latter, or we waste hundreds of millions of dollars every year on the department of education since educating people out of stupid decisions is effectively burning money. In any event, one should thank the lot of them for the permanent sacrifices to their worth and reputation for the satisfaction of millions of young men everywhere.

OnlyFans is structured to hit on those same neural correlates, as likes and payments and praise come immediately after a sexual display or act. Women may truly be “addicted” within this specific context which minimizes reputational checks and where they receive compliments and coins concomitant to the primitive sexual display behavioral loop. Mainstream social media use among young women parallels this addictive loop, because they receive points and adulation for dancing and less overt displays of their body like the wearing of revealing clothes.

Do you think most Onlyfans women are recognized in real life for the sacrifices to their worth and reputation to apply?

Would they get recognized on the street, no. Would it make a sufficient impact on long-term relationship formation to present consequences, yeah probably

I thought the danger was to more concrete issues, such as not being hired for a job or accepted to a college or being allowed to lease an apartment. If the only danger is in later not being able to attract a high-quality male for marriage and procreation, I think that ship's already sailed. Many men, for better or worse, are sketchy about committing to a woman with a body count in the dozens or hundreds, which is most young women if you believe the usual sources of information (reddit, X, etc.).

Who knows. But at the very least they’re willing to risk it. It’s a poor decision either way, unless done out of necessity.

I find that the poorness of the risk is directly related to the likelihood of suffering reputational damage.

I mean, the 'issue' is that many people can use cocaine and not be addicted, not have it screw up their life, and treat it like a party drug when they're out having fun.

Likewise with sex. I honestly believe there's some subset of women who can be 'happy whores' and generally enjoy promiscuity without it dragging other aspects of their life down. A small subset.

So you have some that aren't debilitated by the 'mere' availability of the vice, and arguably their life is enhanced by using it on occasion for fun.

And then you have a larger group that would be debilitated but if there's enough friction to obtain their vice, they won't bother.

But the dishonesty is usually downplaying the impact the vice has on the second group and emphasizing the interests of the first group to promote universal availability, and at the very least enable various workarounds for the second group even if we DO try to regulate it.

My personal preference is "the vice is available but there's lots of friction/a high cost associated with obtaining it."

In practice, everything seems to trend towards universal availability UNLESS you ban and aggressively enforce rules against the vice.

Likewise with sex. I honestly believe there's some subset of women who can be 'happy whores' and generally enjoy promiscuity without it dragging other aspects of their life down. A small subset.

Women tend to age out of it, in my experience. The majority of women with high body counts usually end up snagging a man at some point, and mostly seem content to be monogamous. Look at my first ex from med school, she was well known to be... promiscuous (I don't know if she ever cheated on me, but there were rumors). She slept around with a concerning number of men (by Indian standards) and had a kink for East Asian-looking dudes (Nepali, Assamese etc, India is diverse). Yet my Instagram feed was cursed by images of her recent engagement to another doctor. I chortled at how butt ugly he is, and how much weight she's gained, but hey, he's a surgical resident and seems wealthy enough. I'm most surprised by the fact that she didn't marry someone who looks like her type.

(Her mom was a gyno, and had a reputation of her own)

In general, the costs of early promiscuity in women are overrated. It's quite easy to hide or suppress body counts, unless you're on record as a prostitute or pornstar. And even then, there are men who are desperate enough to marry you, though they might be a little far from ideal.

Dated a girl when I first moved to my current town who made money on the side as a professional domme.

Showed me her website and everything.

I immediately determined that I wouldn't be marrying her, but being new in town and her being fun to hang out with meant I kept having her around. She also was a REALLY talented singer. Had a hilarious 'date' where I took her to a Country Karaoke bar, and she couldn't resist getting up there and belting out some classic show tunes, to the audience's confusion.

She moved away about a year later, then did end up marrying a dude. Then they divorced about 2-3 years ago. It appeared amicable.

From what I know of her I think she's genuinely enjoying life, and the traditional path was never going to play out for her anyway.

I think the impacts of promiscuity are unfortunately hard to predict, and will depend on exactly how 'traumatic' some of the experiences are, and each one is basically rolling the dice on sustaining permanent emotional damage. Just like how some people can be moderate smokers their whole lives and never really suffer, and others get throat cancer in their 40's.

So from the side of the male suitor, having knowledge of a woman's body count requires you to accept some level of unavoidable risk if you keep her around.

Pretty much what I argued in May last year, expanded to my second-most popular post on Substack. There are a small subset of women for whom sexual promiscuity and a career in pornography will be a net-positive to their quality of life. For the majority, it will be net-negative.

Interesting. Just followed you on SS.

Yep. And there's probably a way to filter for the women for whom its a minimally harmful diversion/hobby so that they're mainly the ones getting into the sex trades while actively dissuading any other women.

One of the most controversial ideas I've ever had is to hire genetic researchers to identify the 'slut genes' that predict, e.g. hypersexuality, high openness to new experiences, low disgust, and whatever particular brain chemistry it is that makes a woman achieve maximum bliss when she's violating social norms, so we get a profile we can use to identify these women quickly.

And once you've identified that, scour the population for such women then shuttle them away to a particular planned community with very, VERY different norms than your average town (think the exact inverse of an intentional religious community). Then charge men THROUGH THE NOSE to buy property/move there.

Wait, is that just Las Vegas?

I don't think genetic profiling is necessary: these women tend to make themselves known via dyed hair and tattoos.

Nah, too easy to fake or mistake that signal.

I've known more than a handful of women who are UTTERLY NORMAL LOOKING (or maybe just small, discreet signals), and hold down professional careers... and are ridiculously down to clown in some fairly depraved ways when the social context is right. Then clean themselves up and get back to work the next day.

I know there's more of them amongst us who probably haven't been given the opportunity to act out and would leap at it given the chance. But you can't just go around asking them at random, can you. Dating apps might have made it more efficient for them to find outlets, if nothing else.

One sign that does pop up a lot... dead dads. But I think that only interacts with genetic effects.

Do you have their phone numbers?

Yes.

Wait - so that the community would have lots of free sex, or so that all the social-norms-violating women would be reverse psychologized into becoming tradwives?

I'd expect it would be a lot of free sex, swinging, actual harems, and probably some dudes getting killed by other dudes over romantic beefs.

But its either going to succeed on its own merits and help quarantine the hypersexuals from the larger population, or it becomes a helpful cautionary tale you can point out to the 'normal' women.

Imagine taking freshly graduated 18 year old girls on a guided safari through the streets of Orgyville (in an armored bus, mind) to 'scare them straight' about the realities of unrestrained male and female sexuality before sending them off to college.

And for those girls who find the experience appealing, have them spit in a cup and after the test results come back, send them their invite in the mail 2 weeks later.

Yes, I'm proposing recreating the towns of Soddom and Gommorah from the classic Biblical cautionary tale "God smites the sin-riddled towns of Soddom and Gommorah."

I don't know about God, but I could think of a whole bunch of men who would want to smite this town, for pricing them out of happy whores they could have otherwise dated organically.

You could have a lottery to move in, then a whole range of premuim passes to stuff into lootboxes for those who want to purchase extra chances. If you're exploiting primal drives, might as well exploit them to the max.

You know, sure. Why NOT add in a gambling addiction as a requirement to enter.

Likewise, airdrop pallets of uncut cocaine in on a weekly basis.

Then once a year have a 'purge night' which is broadcast to the rest of the country on PPV.

This'll help clear space for more dudes to move in.

My personal preference is "the vice is available but there's lots of friction/a high cost associated with obtaining it."

But isn't this "friction" what causes the vice to be be debilitating in the first place? There would be nothing problematic about widespread promiscuity and sex work (certainly not about cyberpornography with zero risk of STDs etc.) if it carried no social stigma that makes it more difficult to settle down later in life or get a good job, etc. It's not the actual sex that directly ruins women's lives in the way that doing too much cocaine will physically kill you, it's the very same negative consequences which, yes, also serve the prosocial function of warning most away from that lifestyle.

if it carried no social stigma that makes it more difficult to settle down later in life or get a good job, etc.

I disagree. I think the stigma is the effect, not the cause, and the cause is biological, not social, in nature.

The stigma exists for a reason, it didn't just emerge from the ether.

There would be nothing problematic about widespread promiscuity and sex work (certainly not about cyberpornography with zero risk of STDs etc.) if it carried no social stigma

Hard disagree. Most men (most "male people", if we're still doing the trans-inclusive thing) see a boost to their self-esteem the morning after a one-night stand, while most women see a decrease to theirs. Claim that this is purely the result of social stigma, internalised misogyny, internalised slut-shaming etc. all you like: from an evolutionary perspective, I don't think it's hard to understand why the sex which does the impregnating would feel good after carrying out the act which is a reliable evolutionary proxy for impregnating, while the sex getting impregnated would feel bad after doing that act without extracting commitment from the impregnater.

But we're not talking about one-night stands; we're talking about nude pics and camgirls. Even taking the innateness of the feeling you describe for granted it's nonobvious that the evo-psych dynamic would translate to that kind of thing - indeed someone upthread argued the opposite, that being camgirls makes women feel good about themselves for atavistic reasons because it activates the "I am successfully wooing high-status males" circuits rather than the "I've just had sex" circuits.

Well we're talking about two different things which are loosely correlated, and I'm basically just summarising an argument I made elsewhere.

When it comes to promiscuity, I think the proportion of women for whom it is a net-positive is very small. Most women will feel sad the morning after a one-night stand. Stigma and internalised slut-shaming may play some role in this, but I'd hazard a guess the same is true even in free love communes.

When it comes to pornography, among circles of friends, it's generally seen as poor form for a woman to directly tell one of her female friends that she isn't very good-looking: deranged yasslighting seems to be the rule rather than the exception. As a consequence of this, many women end up with an inflated perception of how physically attractive they are, and some decide to open an OnlyFans account on that basis: after all, if you're a 10/10 bad bitch, you're sure to make bank. But they're in for a rude awakening when, after a few months, their account is pulling down somewhere near the median of the OnlyFans income distribution, thousands of dollars below the US minimum wage, and potentially for far more hours worked. No matter how much we end the "social stigma" associated with sex work, if a woman joins a platform in which her expected revenue is heavily correlated with her physical attractiveness, and then she doesn't end up making much money, that's bound to be a disheartening experience. (I think this is what @coffee_enjoyer's comment upthread was arguing: that OnlyFans sells woman a fantasy of being able to use their sex appeal to extract money from wealthy men, but most of these women, by virtue of being insufficiently attractive, are being sold a bill of goods.) It will be an even more disheartening experience if the only way she can make ends meet is by appealing to the fetishes of perverts: I can't imagine anyone feels that good about themselves after a long hard day of producing golden shower videos. And we can talk about "ending the stigma" til the cows come home, but short of a nudist colony, every employer will look a little askance at someone (male or female) if they Google their name and the first result is a photo of their rectum.

I mean more directly. If you can't just order up drugs from an app for immediate delivery, but have to go to a sketchy part of town, with cash, know the right passphrases and handshakes, and STILL risk getting ripped off on occasion. If you can only find prostitutes in the red light district, where its highly shameful to go... these are things that will divert or discourage the average person.

The friction on the back end, that makes it hard to leave the vice, yes, that's also a factor. But we've successfully made it almost frictionless for people to indulge vices, whilst all the standard difficulties of leaving the hole once you've dug it remain, which is probably why things seem sharply WORSE than in previous years.

Same for betting. Getting onto a PPH back in the day required some modicum of effort/connections, plus way more friction with the cash.

I remember when OF became a 'thing' right around Covid times when even the sex workers had to figure out how to work from home.

I recall that there was a brief-ish period where the benefit was that Onlyfans WASN'T a sex worker site, so there was just enough plausible deniability that a woman could create one without admitting she was going to post nudes. And they would start with standard racy photos before getting the hardcore stuff.

Hell, I can recall that VERY brief period where a certain type of guy could 'get away' with pushing a girl to 'start an Onlyfans' because 'you can make so much money' and pretend to hide behind nonprurient interest.

The thing I do wonder is about a few counterfactuals:

A) Covid lockdowns don't happen (big one, I know), do we see a noticeable rise in online prostitution at all?

B) If Onlyfans cracked down early, or was cracked down on early, does that function get replaced by a different site, or do things stay mostly decentralized and small. There were still sites for online whores, of course, but they were mostly sketchy and disparate and didn't have a fig leaf of respectability.

Instagram was still used for thirst-trapping, but monetizing that was more challenging, I think.

C) What if OF still arose for this purpose but we didn't have certain creators hit it huge (Amouranth and a few others I recall being the biggest profiteers early on), thus creating the illusion that huge wealth was up for grabs if you were willing to sacrifice your dignity. Does it draw in as many young women? I think a particular strain of female streamer becoming popular was a prerequisite to OF rising.

D) And thus, in all of this, do we possibly never gain a central 'attractor' for women to dip their toe into sex work, and perhaps as a side effect less blatant and wanton online simping, since it would remain more relegated to the shady side of the internet.

In a sense I think the rise of a site LIKE OF was inevitable. We had feminists doing SlutWalks and pushing "Sex work is work!" well before then, and paywalled content was an established trend by then through Patreon et al., NSFW artists were already doing quite well.

So it seems unavoidable that some site would navigate the cultural, economic, and regulatory labyrinth to become the first 'mainstream' online whore store. And this one managed to hide behind the "its empowering the women, they get to choose exactly how and what they post, its really good for them" shield long enough to get entrenched.

On the other, a lot of surprising stuff happened in the last 10 years that was probably a coin flip at best towards going 'the other way' (Trump 1, for sure) so who knows.

B) is the most surprising, in my opinion. I guess they pulled it off by buying out an established SFW business, switching it over to NSFW, then hoping that they could become "too big to fail" before the credit card companies and app stores caught on. They did eventually get banned from app stores, but amazingly they still apparently use Stripe for credit card processing.

What's crazy is that for YEARS they kept up the facade of "any popular figure can be on here for completely innocuous reasons, with completely normal fans giving them money!"

As if people were genuinely signing up in droves to watch cooking videos put out by a B-list football player or some wannabe pop singer talking while she put on makeup. As if there wasn't literally ONE and ONLY ONE thing that a guy would immediately plunk down money to get from an attractive woman on the internet.

I guess they HAD to keep that up so they could let their payment processors keep looking the other way.

And in a way, the payment processors might prefer that OF be the central spot they have to deal with, rather than playing increasingly elaborate games with smaller companies ('Modeling' agencies, Cam sites, various file upload sites, for instance).

Another possible factor in all this was Backpage dissolving circa 2018.

Given how heavy the scrutiny against Craigslist and Backpage actually was, it IS rather amazing that OF has avoided serious inquiry, since it enables functionally the exact same practices.

As somebody working in online gambling at the time there was a roughly 3x volume spike from the COVID lockdown era, and it managed to trigger a bunch of shifts like getting the broader public into cryptocurrency and causing a changing of the guard in the biggest operators partly due to crypto + differences in media consumption.

Wouldn't shock me if Onlyfans had a similar impact on pornography.

One prereq for the gambling rise was SCOTUS striking down the Federal Ban in 2018.

Might have been easier to keep a lid on it otherwise.

Not sure what the comparable prereq was for online prostitution, although I mentioned in my other comment that backpage was shut down around the same time, 2018.

One of the things I noticed when trawling reddit was absolute lack of sympathy from anyone.

Not even from his native Ukraine? Which he donated large sums to during the war?

Either way, I think any modern society is well-advised to at least try drawing lines in the sand and establish clear rules regarding all the gooners, simps, e-thots, porners, "incels" and whores in its midst. We can all go on pretending that these seismic social changes have not actually happened, but what good does that do us? We need to acknowledge a bunch of unpleasant facts: enormous segments of both men and women will never marry and never breed. Calhoun's mice/rat utopia experiment has been put into practice in the human world. Not only is the Christian patriarchy dead; anyone who has ever had even indirect social experience of it is already dead. Should it ever return, it will definitely not be Christian. We need to decide what our attitudes should be towards women whose sole aim in life is to whore themselves out, and towards the faceless mass of males financing them.

Umm. His net worth was sub 5b. He couldn't donate large sums even if he wanted to. Relative to what Ukraine needs.

For the rest of post - we may stumble into unpleasantly Puritan era or we summon Slaanesh. No middle road.

Not even from his native Ukraine? Which he donated large sums to during the war?

Even Greg Scarpa was nice to his mother. Whatever else he may have done, he’s also contributed massively to the ruination of society. The fact that he donated money to Ukraine doesn’t make him moral IMO. Just makes life full of irony.

Not surprising at all. The guy embodies a whole bunch of negative stereotypes - a Jewish pornographer and AIPAC donor who became a multi-billionaire thanks to somehow maintaining access to mainstream credit card processors. Then there's all the ongoing issues with alleged minors on OF, or teens doing releases on their 18th birthday... It's like a perfect storm of Zionism, porn, and finance. Maybe he could have had a Bill Gates style redemption arc if he had lived another 30 years and donated a bunch of money to charity, but it would have taken a long time and a lot of work to rehabilitate his image.

Bill gates is still very unpopular, economically illiterate pop socialists hate him for being rich, generic populists hate him for going to a certain island, conservatives hate him for being a liberal who supports population control, pro-business democrats like him but there’s not very many of them.

because he is jewish and aipac donor

You forgot a degenerate pornographer luring young women into sex work. And jewish. And the single biggest AIPAC donor in 2024.

Because of course he was.

ETA: Vaxxed? Turbocancer claims another 40-something.

You forgot a degenerate pornographer luring young women into sex work.

Progressives don't like the idea of any law that might get in the way of the liberation of women, or their sexuality, or their freedom to show their pussies for money. When the downstream consequences of their choices happen, they'll shift the blame toward the Radvinsky types because it allows them to maintain their absurd power to accountability ratio. All the benefits are claimed, all the blame is outsourced.

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