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 -
Just legalize prostitution. It’s healthier than porn. A person going to see a prostitute is reinforcing all sorts of prosocial behaviors before obtaining his desired primary reinforcer: making money, scheduling, dressing up, heading to town, participating in the economy, conversing, being polite, connecting with another human, and then the nitty-gritty mechanical things. All of these are great micro-skills for when he one day has a wife. He’s reinforcing the right things. A person watching porn is usually just reinforcing scrolling, distraction, avoidance, all sorts of bad things. In my utopian head canon we would subsidize prostitution somewhat but require a prelude of flirtation before consummation. This is ideal.
Prostitution also takes the sluts out of the dating market (a plus), gives sluts a positive sense of life purpose attuned to their nature (a plus), takes away the imho excessive social privileging and monopolization of women today (a plus), eliminates entire industries of vice which ruins lives like clubbing (a plus), and reduces the number of women participating in the less-regulated pornography industry (a plus). The only bad thing I can think of is disease, but perhaps a regulated prostitution industry would actually reduce the general disease prevalence, because sluts don’t get treated regularly.
These two things can be true at the same time:
Morally, ideally, no one should see a prostitute, and it should not be promoted
Morally, practically, prostitution is better for society than porn
Retarded. Not only are they just throwing vast hapless Britbongs into the strangulating thighs of Mossad or the Central Casting Agency’s COINTELAMATEUR (good look keeping secrets Romeo), but they are going to be sending men to jail for enjoying the things that women also appear to enjoy. Just really stupid. What’s wrong with the British?
I used to believe this as well, that ladies of the night offered a convenient "dark arts" shortcut to developing the social and sexual confidence necessary for conventional relationships, but that doesn't really bear out in practice. Often times, the johns (the incel kind in the literal sense of the word) end up developing feelings for the girl, only to leave feeling more alienated, and being reminded of the intimacy they cannot experience organically. You can throw on a nice jacket, make conversation, and attempt to charm her. Or not. You're still fucking her for the same price. There is no psychological barrier attached to the social cost of insinuating that you find her goonable and wish to goon inside her.
I think if you were to make prostitution legal, you'd find that the porn-addicted incel would not participate. Too much social anxiety. That's right, not even confident enough to get sex that's being paid for, with all the removal of uncertainty that entails.
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.
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.
I think your description is true of most femcels and some male incels. However, I think the number of men with whom literally no woman in the entire world would voluntarily have sex with under any circumstances is greater than zero. I doubt a woman meeting that description exists.
Eh, I'm sure such extremes exist, but I suspect the average incel in 2026 would just be an average man in 1986. Usually, people think of this meme, but the profiles are actually closer to college educated men from stable homes with stable incomes. In the real world, your dating pool shouldn't include literally every similar-aged woman within commuting distance. Realistic standards are still standards. Why would you rationally put up with women with substance abuse problems, serious emotional baggage, neurotic personalities, destructive ego patterns and extreme disagreeability, when you would promptly cuss out a man should he display even a fraction of those things?
We're quick to mock a terminally online schizoid who's fully crashed out and conjures neurotic conspiracies about gynocratic world order gatekeeping his dick from pussy. But we're considerably more indulgent toward women whose every interaction with the world is similarly coloured by grievance, and who are only a few inferential steps away from blaming you (YOU, personally) for being an agent of the patriarchy that brought about that resentment. I would never tolerate any of that for some mid pipe. Remaining single and miserable can be preferable to entering a relationship that makes you even more miserable.
Although I do think @PutAHelmetOn 's descriptor "status dysphoria" is apt. Stealing this.
What makes you say that?
Let's try to build a profile of the "average incel" in 2026. I found this study from May of last year, which surveyed over 500 American and British incels about their beliefs, identity characteristics, socioeconomic status and so on. It found:
Do you think the "average man" in 1986 was an autist who lived with his parents and contemplated killing himself every single day?
I'll rephrase that: "physically" average. Many of those things are downstream of environmental factors, as in, things they cannot control. Put another way, they wouldn't be living with parents and battling serious depression in 1986. I earn more than the NZ median, and still live at home.
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