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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yes. Look at Australia, New Zealand. Fully legal. We still have incels. They can fuck a 100 prossies (RIP wallet), they'll still remain incels. And they're not even necessarily jobless losers, just no game and a crippling aversion to social risk-taking.
I would imagine that regular prostitution customers are more promiscuous with non-prostitutes, not less- because men who would like to pay hundreds of dollars for sex with a new partner are, well, disproportionately likely to have multiple partners.
Legal brothels in Australia advertise prices as low as 90 US dollars (specifically, 130 Australian dollars) for 30 minutes.
I shudder to think what USD $90 would get you in a developed country like Australia.
That's $180/hr. Which is a billing rate well in the professional services range in the US.
Adjusting that for the brothel's cut and the fact that there will be inevitable down time, I would estimate that's about $60-$80k a year. Not much different than what you would make in an office job and far less than what an attractive young woman could earn as an independent escort or sugar baby. Or even as an exotic dancer in a gentleman's club who limits herself to lap dances.
I'm not familiar with sex work, but I think it's pretty likely that the kind of woman who's willing to prostitute herself for that kind of money is not that attractive at all.
One brothel purports to reveal exactly what its cut is: for a 30-minute session, 55 US dollars (80 Australian dollars) goes to the prostitute, and 35 US dollars (50 Australian dollars) goes to the brothel. If we very naively assume 1040 hours of working per year (40 hours on call per week × 1/2 hour working per hour on call × 52 weeks per year), that's 114,000 US dollars (166,000 Australian dollars) per year. (Again, though, this estimate is very naive. All these numbers are questionable.)
The same website contains photographs of a plethora of jade-like beauties that the brothel claims to have on tap. If it hasn't been sued/prosecuted into toning those photographs down, how false can they be?
More options
Context Copy link
I would assume she's merely in the large class of people who are unsuitable for normal white collar office work or entrepreneurship due to personal unreliability, unintelligence, temperament, etc. I don't know the dynamics of sex work very well, but I assume women with other options weren't entering the field anyways and the compensation was probably 'above unskilled female labour more generally'(and general unskilled female labour is typically the most poorly paid category in any society) more than 'exceptional'.
I thought that was just called "sales".
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know about that, but even assuming it's true, if she's reasonably attractive why not work as an independent escort or sugar baby or dancer at a gentleman's club?
Some people just... need a boss. I don't know what the actual dynamics of sex work are, but I suspect not-reasonably-attractive women will be unemployed in short order- even if standards of attractive are rather low. To put it another way, I doubt a prostitute who isn't attractive enough for the average man to find desirable would remain employed.
Probably not a lot of supermodels, sure, I don't dispute that.
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
Incels are a misnomer. In many cases they are voluntarily celibate because the women actually available for them to date or sleep with are beneath them (in their eyes). The correct term for incels are "people with status dysphoria." The incel's problem isn't "not getting laid," which is why he doesn't visit a prostitute. His problem is he is a loser, he knows it, and all his acquaintances (not friends, of course) know it. No amount of business transactions are going to solve that.
As a side note, I think that there do exist men out there who are in a situation where either (1) literally zero women in the world are sexually attracted to them; or (2) any woman who potentially might be sexually attracted to them are already with other men who are more attractive to those women. That's just the basic math of the situation -- at any moment, there are significantly more men desirous of sex and relationships with women than vice versa.
To be sure, there are also men who are incels due to a mismatch between what they desire and what they can attract. And also people who are incels due to social anxiety or other mental problems.
I would guess that in most cases, it's a combination of being undesirable; having too high standards; and having mental issues.
I generally agree with this, although I think in some cases involving social anxiety, hiring sex workers might help.
More options
Context Copy link
Ironic that a business transaction is the best way to model their actions.
The market clearing price is too high for those men to be {willing, able} to afford a woman of the same station. That's it. That's all it is.
Risk aversion is defensible if there is no directly observable benefit to taking that risk. Both that and safetyism (to name the symmetric female impulse) are parasitic at their core, but they both exist for a reason. Human instinct is often maladaptive.
{Pornography, prostitution, masturbation} are basically an AI simulation of this, which is why they're rejected in the same family of 'goonslop' (and why old men would want them restricted- especially those that showcase any "cheating" of that market dynamics- as a way to lock young men out of any other alternatives and encourage them to be appealing to women).
Yet these foolish old men, who have no other intelligence outside of instinct, don't understand that this won't fix the fact there are no women who are willing or able to afford the men either. Selfish old women approve of this posture, naturally.
So with respect to the original prompt of "why are F/m, 'help me step-bro', etc. being banned?", this is the answer to that question. Social conservatives were always feminist. One notes that the cultural Enemy of the Boomers was the last cultural movement that made young men great (and actively encouraged them to be with women) and I don't believe that to be a coincidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link