site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1313 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for July 10, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I want to date a peer, not be a babysitter.

Unfortunately for you, dating as a heterosexual man does highly resemble high stakes babysitting, for a chick will expect you to take the lead in driving the interaction forward, feeding her (“feed me and tell me I’m pretty”), protecting her, and entertaining her (“make me laugh”).

The sooner you accept and internalise that, the sooner you can git gud at it.

Those are just common gender dynamics which I am well aware of. What I mean is I want to date a woman that is intellectually compatible with me (shouldn't be a big ask) with whom I can have profound conversations with, beyond reality TV programs and social media slop.

Women are, on average, more basic than men (e.g., the consistent finding that women substantially underperform men on knowledgeability tests), which will only be exacerbated at the tails. And young attractive women are perhaps the most basic segment of women. Thus, expecting a young attractive woman to have even a fraction of your interest in Motte-adjacent topics would be setting yourself up for disappointment.

Just like when babysitting you engage the kid(s) in topics that interest them (such as their favorite toys or cartoons), when dating women you engage them with topics that interest them, such as reality TV and social media slop. You can also monologue to them Patrick Bateman-style about topics that interest you; however, that generally requires a higher level of frame and attractiveness (and lack of unattractiveness), lest they—ironically enough—find you BORING.

I've read up on this subject before. The question that arises is, can't I weed out the more basic women by attending a school with selective admissions and look within my major? I'm not expecting to talk Wittgenstein and Krauthammer with a random girl I bump into on the street, but surely within a more curated environment, I can find women who have the curiosity and intellectual hardware I'm looking for?

It really depends. As a female political science major who actually wanted to nerd out about "deep topics", my dating value skyrocketed because this was a rare find even with the department. You will probably need to accept a bit of tomboyish/masculine personality or some "neurodivergence" or both if this is something you want in your partner.

I feel like I want to underline the "probably" in what you wrote by giving an example of an exception: my first girlfriend was a very smart philosophy major whose personality, while not being exceptionally feminine, was also not masculine or tomboyish, and she didn't show any signs of neurodivergence.

(shouldn't be a big ask)

You post here. Yes, it very much is.

Even at an Ivy League school, or a school with selective admissions?

In a curated environment like that you can definitely better your odds of finding someone with interests closer to your own. But at the same time, you increase the quality of your competition. That brilliant girl with esoteric interests at Yale is also getting chatted up by the genuine genius and the bro with generational wealth.

I'm not telling you to "abandon all hope, ye who want a girl that's read Nietzsche", but much like the women who want a 6/6/6 guy you should understand that you're restricting yourself to a small portion of the pool. Especially if you also want her to be, e.g. hot and personable and not so short that your sons will resent you.

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