site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   2388 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 25, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I see it consistently as privileged white woman rapes two men who are too intoxicated to consent. Mainstream society proves yet again that male sexual consent is a fiction that not even the consent-oriented progressives believe. Something similar happened to a buddy of mine in college and it still boils my blood thinking about it. I'm sure progressives are absolutely making space for us to have this conversation (sarcasm)

This whole thing got my goat pretty bad. I had to unfollow a friend on instagram who kept posting shit takes because i didn't want to rip his head off in person.

Mainstream society proves yet again that male sexual consent is a fiction that not even the consent-oriented progressives believe

Of course it's a fiction. This is how there are men with child support orders from getting an over-18 woman pregnant when they were under 18.

Child support orders are not based on who consented or not. They're based on replacing welfare given to the custodial parent.

They're based on replacing welfare given to the custodial parent.

Yet it's abundantly clear that if the woman doesn't consent, she can unilaterally and forcefully terminate all her child s[upport] whenever she chooses no matter what the other parent believes, even if they have 100% joint custody (usually called 'a marriage').

Sure, you have to argue that you were insane in front of a judge in the most extreme case, but even in that case your peers will nearly unanimously agree you have the right to end that agreement whenever you so choose because that Protects Women.

The entire problem is that the double-standard that used to be viable (because it was compensated for in other areas of life by the conditions of reality) is no longer so, and the compensation traditional human instinct assumes is there... isn't. There were always other more even-handed ways of dealing with this problem but those seem to have been deliberately ignored.

But hey, US foreign policy even in nations it was supposed to be building is "permit the local aristocracy to get its boy-rape on so the women could have a future"- I guess if nothing else, it's a consistent approach.

In the rare cases where a man gets sole custody, child support is not an unusual outcome.

I wouldn't class "a man gets sole custody of a baby he committed a sex crime to father and is now extracting child support from the victim" as simply "rare". Not even if she marries her rapist.

If male sexual consent were real, then it would seem rather odd that the State would be willing to give custody of a child to a rapist and make the victim pay child support. I've certainly never heard of it happening where the male rapist gets custody of the child and then gets child support payments from the female.

Female victims also have the ability to get an abortion and avoid the whole problem, which a male victim does not.

One of the few infohazards that gets even me.

I remember the Ur-case for this being somewhat older, mid 2010s. I’ve been disconnected from news on it but one would hope in this past decade of people waking up the disparity of the social fictions we suffer. That such injustices would have at least withered from increased scrutiny?

I occasionally have power fantasies of my own when I read stories like this, reminiscent of how we treated consent back when we were teenagers.

I’m not sure i follow?

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