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.
- 200
- 2
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
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I really don't think this is compatible with the state of law. In the sense that I don't think it's true, because otherwise the law would use 16 instead of 18. Although I suspect a chunk of men like 16 the most, such as yourself. And they tend to be more K-selected, and so are more common in places like these.
There's some evidence the real answer is age 20 because this is when fecundity is supposed to peak. So a one night stand has the highest chance of a pregnancy. There's gonna be a ton of variance though. Some men will prefer 15 if their mating strategy is investment oriented, some men might prefer 25 per chance, maybe 25 is better for cuckholdry or something like that, she will have a family who she can pass off your child to as her own. So it will vary per men and in turn each man not only has a favorite age but also an attraction interval which is arguably more important than his exact favorite age.
The majority of U.S. states and European countries DO use 16 as the age of consent. There are often some caveats and exceptions regarding power dynamics like teachers and students, but broadly speaking most places acknowledge that teenagers are sexually mature, want to have sex, others want to have sex with them, and thus they can consent. Other places disagree with the legal/moral position and set the age higher (or lower, though not in the U.S.), but 16 is roughly the median for a lot of places.
It is important to note though that peak biological age is distinct from the functionally optimal age in modern society. Higher levels of technology and civilization require more education than in the past. Even if a 16 year old can get pregnant and have children, it's going to mess up their education, career, and general life prospects. And in a world where people are free to choose their own partners rather than having arranged marriages, 16 year olds are not likely to pick the best partners to have sex with. Therefore the legally optimal age of consent does not need to line up with the biologically optimal age of fecundity in the first place.
Your point about variation is valid though.
Yes but if it were the most attractive age to most people it would be all, like 18 (meaning all places let 18 be legal). And there would be very little taboo, kind of like dating a 19 year old when you're 45, which seems to go barely commented on. If she were 16 there would be an outrage in a lot of the west. Which leads me to my next point. In most of these places 16 year olds are only partially legal. They can apparently consent to sex even with an older man, unless he's their teacher, but they can't consent to some combination of sexting, getting married, or traveling together.
I think the fact that they are often at least substantially legal means a large minority of men find them very attractive. But not everybody. Not even most men. It's probably something like 30% to 45% of men are «ephebophiles».
Since when has "people want to do thing" ever been a guarantee of "thing is legal?" People want to steal stuff, stealing stuff is illegal. People want to be violent, violence is illegal. People want to do cocaine, cocaine is illegal.
We make things illegal because they have negative externalities and harm people, not because people don't want to do them.
Not a majority of people...
When you live in a democracy, if 51% of people want something to be legal it will be legal.
Ah. So you think the majority of men might be «guilty ephebophiles». The problem is the age of consent is centered around Hamiltonian spite and not harms since being in a consensual relationship does not actually harm a teenager.
In fact I'll provide you with some example:
Stealing but the majority of voters want it: legal in the form of taxation and wealth redistribution.
Violence but the majority of voters want it: spanking children, state violence.
Harmful drug but the majority of voters want it: alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, amphetamine for children.
Harmful sex but the majority of voters want it: adultery, gay butt sex.
Did you just forget that adult women also get a vote, or what?
No, that seems consistent with my point? Unless you don't think women are people or a part of society.
Your whole point seems to be "men clearly don't generally want this that much, or it would be legal". But even at this facile level of reasoning about how social norms and democracy work, women are in fact half of society and the electorate.
Good point. So your model is what exactly? All or almost all men are ephebophiles, and all or almost all women oppose this? What percent do you think? I just haven't seen strong evidence of sex polarization on this topic, in data, so I wasn't thinking of a massive gender effect size when reasoning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link