site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28935 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 2023

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One of my friends has decided to have children with the help of a sperm donor and I have taken more than a passing interest in her search. This is actually the 2nd woman in my broader group of acquaintances who have have decided to go it alone. They are both highly educated, but lack the physical attractiveness that would make it possible to lock down the type of man they have been interested in. But while commitment from the right man can be hard to come by, sperm is incredibly cheap. We are taking elite sperm here, like entirely clean bill of health for 2 generations back, model good looks, tall, athletic, pursuing an MD or PHD in STEM, comes from a family of inventors, grandparents who lived to the age of 100 etc. Imagine someone like the Swede in Philip Roths American Pastoral. You can get a vial of this sperm for 1000 USD, and why wouldnt you as a single woman?

Im not entirely convinced that the draw backs of being a single mother in this situation cannot be off-set by the benefits of having this superior genetic material. I have sometimes during this time felt a tad bit guilty for procreating with my partner with our comparatively average genes. Yes, we will probably pass on good intelligence, but what about physical traits and health? Is there anything parental love can provide that can compare to the confidence that comes with being a 190cm athletic, but yet very intelligent young man?

All this has made me wonder if "leftover" educated women will produce the new elite of tomorrow. Surely this is a more efficient way of making superior babies than the pre-implantation embryo testing of the Collinses? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/pronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley/?

It doesn’t matter how magical the father was. Trying to work while managing a squalling, fragile, useless bundle of joy is going to be a painful experience.

I’m not saying it wouldn’t be preferable in the long run, but the long run is not the sticking point. It’s years 0-18. Even a wunderkind is going to eat a similar amount of food.

I guess if you have enough money, you can afford people to do most of the childcare.

Does this mean (some of) the rich of tomorrow will have (1/2) amazing genetics, lots of money, and zero connection to family?

Does this mean (some of) the rich of tomorrow will have (1/2) amazing genetics, lots of money, and zero connection to family?

Very, very plausible - especially with the way that social atomization is going. Don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, per se...the wealth and environment plus whatever genetic bonuses these kids have mean they probably won't turn out bad. Yeah, boys raised by single mothers might not do all that well...but there is also the idea that the variable that matters is the number of married fathers in the community. And our highly educated heroines are going to be aware of this and deliberately plan these things out.

I'm rather attached to my genes, so there's no way in hell I'd raise a kid who wasn't related to me. That's not to say that's it not good public and private policy for those who can do so and still retain a genetic lineage (easier for women than men, since barring the odd gay dude it's unheard of for men to buy an ovum, fertilize it and find a surrogate). *

It's still a much better bet than adoption, leaving aside family horror stories, by adopting, you're far more likely to end up with the kind of kid who's parents were deadbeats, and unfortunately that's genetic. I'm sure you can shop around for a kid from a good background, like from some college student who got knocked up, an orphan etc, but it's not a risk I would take, not that I'd adopt in the first place.

However, I certainly support positive eugenics of this type, if you're choosing the parents, you can do much worse than the chiseled Adonis's your friend is spoiled for choice between.

*I'm not attached to all of them, I'd be first in line to free my kids of genetic curses like myopia, acne or ADHD the first chance I get. I'd still like them to share as many genes as possible, at least until we're all post-biological.

sperm donor

From the perspective of a committed genetic determinist, I think these women are making a rational decision.

The disadvantages of single motherhood (for the children) stem mostly from being the child of the kind of man who would abandon his children (and the kind of woman who chooses such a man to father her children). If your intelligent, conscientious friend can secure the genetic material of a similarly intelligent and conscientious (as well as tall and sexy) man this seems like the better option for her than perpetual spinsterhood. Sure, she'll be disadvantaged by not having someone to help her raise the child (both the dad and his extended family) but if the mother has enough money, she can just pay for good childcare.

I actually tried becoming a sperm donor myself, although I was turned down because my donation didn't freeze well. Apparently there is a shortage in the UK since the donation banks don't pay their donors and because they allow the kids to seek out their genetic fathers once they turn 18, which puts a lot of potential donors off. As is often the case, the free-market solution produces superior outcomes.

I'd argue the main disadvantage of single motherhood is being "raised" by a constantly stressed-out, tired, bitter broad, who usually doesn't get that much help from anyone with childrearing, plus not having a father figure at all, which is rather harmful both to boys and girls, but for different reasons.

I'd argue the main disadvantage of single motherhood is being "raised" by a constantly stressed-out, tired, bitter broad, who usually doesn't get that much help from anyone with childrearing, plus not having a father figure at all, which is rather harmful both to boys and girls, but for different reasons.

Male relatives could fill in that gap, and money can fill in a lot of gaps. I think that the children of wealthy single mothers by choice turn out very differently from those that it just...happened to. These kids are wanted and planned for, and have lots of material resources at their back. That makes a difference.

I could also see the additional issue of it turning off the guys who might otherwise actually commit to her, as rare as that may be.

Or, the possible complications of her finding an eligible guy after she has the kid and him maybe not being too enthralled about raising the kid without his genetic material, and the impact this may have on the child's development.

I don't think there's any way to fully get around the fact that the best way to get two people TRULY invested in a child's wellbeing is for the child to be the result of both their genetic contributions.

Really, the best service such a woman could perform is to start loudly warning women that they ought to consider settling down earlier if they want to do the kid thing the natural way with an eligible man.

Somehow I doubt most of them would take on that role, though.

True. But I was looking at it from the viewpoint of the child, which is obviously of central importance here. Even though I believe in HBD, I'm sure the effects of the environment cannot be ignored in this case by any means.

I have sometimes during this time felt a tad bit guilty for procreating with my partner with our comparatively average genes.

This is bizarre to me. To whom do you think your bear the responsibility of providing progeny that are better than average? The first responsibility you have is to yourself, then your family, then your neighbors, and so on in expanding concentric rings. If literal welfare queens feel no guilt at providing for their children by extracting wealth from the productive, an average man should surely not feel guilt in creating more average kids that will go on to do average, productive things.

My gut response to intentional single motherhood is revulsion and contempt. Someone that isn't capable of pair-bonding has no business having a child. They should figure out how to be a loving and loveable person before subjecting a child to their emotional incompetence.

My gut response to intentional single motherhood is revulsion and contempt. Someone that isn't capable of pair-bonding has no business having a child. They should figure out how to be a loving and loveable person before subjecting a child to their emotional incompetence.

I mean. That really, really depends. Is someone who had been burned in a house fire at the age of three now emotionally incompetent because most men are turned off by her appearance? They're somewhat bitter and cynical, but rather kind and a decent human being. In certain circumstances you are not choosing the best option, but the least bad. Every road you take kind of fucking sucks and that's just the hand you're playing.

Someone that isn't capable of pair-bonding has no business having a child.

That seems like none of your business. How about people make the decisions they think are best for themselves?

That seems like none of your business. How about people make the decisions they think are best for themselves?

Do you apply this standard to fentanyl addicts as well? It really isn't my business what they put into their bodies, and they sure are making the decisions they think are the best for themselves.

What a strange response. This is a forum. If we were to keep our opinions on the matter to ourselves, there would be no point in replying.

So either the top level post in inappropriate, in which case your ire is misdirected, or the post is fine and so is the response, in which case your ire is inappropriate.

If literal welfare queens feel no guilt at providing for their children by extracting wealth from the productive, an average man should surely not feel guilt in creating more average kids that will go on to do average, productive things.

The logic here is broken. You switched from an example of someone who doesn't feel guilt with no exploration of whether or not they should feel guilt to saying that someone else should not feel guilt.

It would be perfectly consistent to say that both the welfare queen and the man passing on mediocre gene should feel guilt and the fact that the welfare queen does not actually feel this guilt is merely a reflection of her poor moral character.

This is bizarre to me. To whom do you think your bear the responsibility of providing progeny that are better than average? The first responsibility you have is to yourself, then your family, then your neighbors, and so on in expanding concentric rings.

What are these "responsibilities" you speak of, and from where do we get them?

If literal welfare queens feel no guilt at providing for their children by extracting wealth from the productive, an average man should surely not feel guilt in creating more average kids that will go on to do average, productive things.

Again, from where does this "should surely not feel guilt" come from?

While it may be unusual for someone to care a lot about the world that will be left behind after they and their children have passed, I don't understand what is particularly bizarre about it. And people who do aren't necessarily even thinking about it in your terms of "responsibility". It may just boil down to their personal values—what they subjectively want, i.e., it's important to them to help build a better world for future generations.

Lots of people have voluntarily given their lives in war for this very reason, even if it amounted to a dismissal of their more immediate "responsibilities"(i.e., their family) per your ethical logic. They're trying to build and leave behind a better world. This is completely understandable and not at all bizarre.

If you're sincerely concerned about the potential for the world to decay into a dystopian idiocracy, there is nothing bizarre about thinking about how we as individuals may contribute to it, and prioritizing that concern over these proximate concentric circles of so called "responsibility".

Someone that isn't capable of pair-bonding has no business having a child.

If one's first responsibility is to one's genetic legacy (as you suggest) then having any child that is biologically yours is better than having no child, at least from the point of view of your own self-interest.

The problem in this case isn't necessarily that desperate women use donor sperm for one last roll of the dice, it's that they could probably still find someone decent who is amenable to an actual family.

Correct, my perspective is not that such a person should never have a child, it's that they should fix themselves and then have a child.

There are some things that are more or less unfixable, many of which are no one's fault. Physical deformity which is mostly cosmetic is the clearest example of that. There's only so much that even the best plastic and reconstructive surgeons can do, in many cases.

deleted

Lower your standards, date large women/poor men, find someone with whom you share values and commit yourself to them.

Decide where you want the ambulances. At least if you're a dude.

What's Eating Gilbert Grape isn't all that bad. I've seen fairly well-put-together people that came out of environments like that. Past that, however...I think you are leaving aside the very real fact that maybe ten percent of people are bad fits for marriage and children. Some of that is their fault, some of it isn't. Things like paranoid schizophrenia or intellectual disability make things very hard indeed. It's like the US military...they reject around 10 percent of people for not having the cognitive or intellectual horsepower to be good janitors or cooks. On the other hand, I've known people that had parents that sucked as human beings - drug addicts, attempted murder, physical abuse - that still turned out OK, so maybe. That is a hell of a compromise to make, though, and I wouldn't blame someone for deciding to remain single rather than be with someone who's 450 pounds, has multiple health problems at 28, and walks with a cane. Or who uses lots of drugs. Or who is straight up psychotic and refuses to acknowledge that she's pregnant. Maybe you can build a life with someone like that, too, but it's playing on nightmare mode.

If you're a woman, it's a bit easier - you're likely to be with someone you're not attracted to (at least initially) but don't have to watch your kids watch someone die to entirely preventable causes. If you're OK with a short guy you can get a guy that's built like a Greek god, or one that makes six figures and is a basically decent guy, even if you're 300 pounds. You don't have to settle for abusive shitbags or drug users. Go to Silicon Valley and you might be able to find a literal millionaire.

You can get a vial of this sperm for 1000 USD, and why wouldnt you as a single woman?

Only if you can be absolutely sure this is indeed elite super sperm and not, you know, the clinic founder providing his own supply.

All this has made me wonder if "leftover" educated women will produce the new elite of tomorrow.

No. Regression to the mean, yadda yadda yadda. Maybe Dad really is all that the label claims and Mom is smart and educated, doesn't mean Junior won't drop out to pursue their passion as a rapper or whatever.

Surely this is a more efficient way of making superior babies than the pre-implantation embryo testing of the Collinses?

Best way of making babies is still the old-fashioned one; don't mess your health up during pregnancy; don't beat, starve, or abuse your kids. God and Nature take care of the rest 😀

doesn't mean Junior won't drop out to pursue their passion as a rapper or whatever.

And dads tend to be much better at talking junior out of such stupid things than moms are, all else being equal.

Yeah, sperm banks's assertions about donor quality seem dubious.

Yeah, sperm banks's assertions about donor quality seem dubious.

To put it mildly. There is more scrutiny of someone applying for minimum wage job than of prospective sperm donor claiming to be 160IQ professional athlete university graduate descended from athletes and geniuses.

Man donates sperms under fake names for free gifts; has fathered 60 children so far

I have sometimes during this time felt a tad bit guilty for procreating with my partner with our comparatively average genes. Yes, we will probably pass on good intelligence, but what about physical traits and health? Is there anything parental love can provide that can compare to the confidence that comes with being a 190cm athletic, but yet very intelligent young man?

Why do you feel guilty?

It's true, some people are absolutely superior to others, and this superiority has a genetic basis. But the tall athletic Harvard PhD isn't that much better than you and your offspring, all things considered. Most of them too, just like the "general population", will be consigned to the dustbin of history immediately after their deaths, remembered in a few generations as nothing more than a node in an ancestry.com family tree, if at all. Beauty, health, and intelligence are all erased in the oblivion of death. This is not in any way a call to nihilism; merely a call to put things in perspective.

At any rate, the idea that we can simply know in advance how to design the ubermensch, and that it is straightforwardly desirable to populate the earth with such ubermenschen, is at best questionable. Life is too complex for that; there are too many unexpected things that flower in unexpected places:

Ennoblement through degeneration. - [...] The danger facing these strong communities founded on similarly constituted, firm-charactered individuals is that of the gradually increasing inherited stupidity such as haunts all stability like its shadow. It is the more unfettered, uncertain and morally weaker individuals upon whom spiritual progress depends in such communities: it is the men who attempt new things and, in general, many things. Countless numbers of this kind perish on account of their weakness without producing any very visible effect; but in general, and especially when they leave posterity, they effect a loosening up and from time to time inflict an injury on the stable element of a community. It is precisely at this injured and weakened spot that the whole body is as it were inoculated with something new; its strength must, however, be as a whole sufficient to receive this new thing into its blood and to assimilate it. Degenerate natures are of the highest significance wherever progress is to be effected. Every progress of the whole has to be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures preserve the type, the weaker help it to evolve.

-- Human, All Too Human, §224

I philosophically 100% on board with this.

However, when I step out of the philosophical realm and into the practical world, and when I forget about the rest of humanity, and just focus on my own little family, I think its obvious that some outcomes are a little bit better. All else being equal it is better to be taller and with a lower risk of diabetes and heart disease. This is true even if none of those things will change the course of history.

Yes, it’s certainly natural to want to minimize physical suffering. But unless you or your wife has a major congenital disorder that you know will be passed onto your children, I wouldn’t worry about it. I wouldn’t lose sleep over a 2% greater lifetime risk of diabetes.

Im not entirely convinced that the draw backs of being a single mother

The entire outcome discrepancy for kids of single parents is due to shitty genes. Kids of widowers do just fine. Not that they don't miss their parent, but re: crime, income, education they're not at a disadvantage.

  1. shitty genes

  2. shitty environment. Dad getting hit by a drunk driver was a different (and probably better) father before he died than the guy who left for a pack of cigarettes and didn't come back.

The entire outcome discrepancy for kids of single parents is due to shitty genes.

Or being poor b/c you're in a one income household, the lack of attention when young, the lack of a positive role model, growing up in a more dangerous environment (see being poorer), ...

Do you really think it all boils down to just one thing (that you happen to be big on)?

Kids of widows and wealthy, successful divorcees do worse in the aftermath of their mother's death or parents' divorce. It's not just genetics, even controlled for ancestry, class, wealth, parental background in every respect, children of single mothers do worse. For single fathers it's a mixed bag, but data on children raised solely by a dad (let alone a widower) is very limited and in many of these cases (every single one I've heard of personally) there's a female relative who steps in quickly as a maternal figure, whether it's a grandmother or aunt or sister. Often she moves in or the kids move to her. The same isn't necessarily true for father figures for kids who lose (or never have) a dad. Kids being raised without at least one central female figure in their childhood is highly uncommon.

... I mean, divorces don't come out of nowhere. There's usually something wrong with either parent that it happens.

The true test would be finding a country with a lot of widowed parents and looking at outcomes of their children.

It's not just genetics, even controlled for ancestry, class, wealth, parental background in every respect, children of single mothers do worse

Do you remember what paper found that ?

Yeah, it seems to be quite a bit easier for widowers to remarry, and they are more motivated to remarry than widows. My best friend and I both lost our mothers when we were young and our dads quickly remarried—I think because they wanted someone to take care of the kids. I'd be surprised if single fathers are even really a thing.

I've long believed that women find it easier to transfer maternal instinct to non-biological children than men find it to transfer paternal instinct to them (although it's certainly possible in both cases). My just-so evopsych explanation is that women traditionally looked after children collectively whereas men taking more of an active role in child-rearing from a young age is more recent and largely coincides with the slow emergence of the nuclear family. I also think older men have less experience keeping a home, and so often face social pressure (from siblings, children, even friends) to remarry so they can keep their lives together and don't have to rely so much on family.

This option is hardly new. You can get free sperm from a hot guy for free at a bar. As long as she isn't absolutely hideous a women should be able to sleep with a top 1% man. Maybe not on the first Friday night, but with a bit of effort, most women should be able to get pregnant with a real hunk.

The real step father is the government who protects, provides and parents the child. This isn't stable, as the people paying the taxes aren't getting the benefits. She wants men to pay taxes but not have any obligations as a wife. The state is a terrible husband. Children to single mothers (mothers married to the state) preform worse on all most all metrics. I find it mindblowing that there are people who have such faith in the system that they believe that the state will provide for them for decades to come. The welfare state is a ponzi scheme funded by debt that clearly isn't meeting its expectations already.

As for good genes this won't work as well either. Good genes is less about having some super mutation and more about not having negative mutations. A person with few harmful mutations and no unusually beneficial ones will be far better off than someone with a mix of stellar and subpar genes. With a rather aesthetically displeasing mother it is likely the child will inherit some unfortunate mutations.

welfare state

I don't exactly think that the single mothers by choice we're talking about plan to take government benefits...they're well out of that income bracket.

I think OP is going for the Murphy Brown model of single motherhood (woman can afford to pay $1,000 per vial of sperm) rather than the ordinary single parenting we see for the majority.

Apart from that, I agree that there aren't going to be super babies born out of this.

Unless you can afford a nanny that sounds like a hard life. Taking care of a newborn is tough enough with two people.

I went to university in norther Europe and in my 6 years of being there I can only remember one guys who had the combo of very nice facial aesthetics, stem PHD level of intelligence, athleticism and above 190 height, and he had an alcoholic father who drank himself to death. I think you are overestimating how many men who are actually this attractive and the ease by which a plain 35 yo woman can have unprotected sex with them.

These women have well paying jobs and often extended family who will help and support them. Im not so sure they will need more government assistance than many other "average" families. Granted we are in Europe where the social safety net is wide and parental leave policies are generous and daycare cheap. But again, this is something that all families benefit from.

"With a rather aesthetically displeasing mother it is likely the child will inherit some unfortunate mutations." Well, by this reasoning they would be much worse off if they would have procreated with their "looksmatch" and the children would have inherited twice the amount of unfortunate mutations.

I know...hmm. maybe one guy that fits this bill, in my medical school class of 150. He's no model, but he's 6'4" and above average looking. If you're willing to allow six-footers, there's another guy.

These women have well paying jobs

The cost of a three bedroom house, the taxes required for school and medical care, plus the insurance to cover if anything were to happen are astronomical. Most people can't do it on two incomes. This has to be done while raising a child, which is immensely time-consuming. Are these women so rich that they can pause their careers and take a long parental leave, or are they dumping their kid in a daycare three weeks after birth? Most people with high incomes are workaholics.

The margins of error are much smaller in a single parent household. If she gets sick, if she dies or if she loses her job there is no good backup plan. There are two grandparents instead of four. There are half as many uncles and cousins.

Granted we are in Europe where the social safety net is wide and parental leave policies are generous and daycare cheap.

Which is why we have high taxes and a dysfunctional power grid. The tax money is wasted on being an insurance company for people who make deliberately awful life choices instead of actually achieving things. A government insurance system in which more or less anyone who shows up can take benefits without demands is bound to fail. Insurance companies require people to lock their doors and hire electricians to install wires. Otherwise, they wouldn't last.

Well, by this reasoning they would be much worse off if they would have procreated with their "looksmatch" and the children would have inherited twice the amount of unfortunate mutations.

Fundamentally we have a major issue with child mortality being low allowing for extreme dysgenics.

Fundamentally we have a major issue with child mortality being low allowing for extreme dysgenics.

That is one hell of a bullet to bite there. That genie is not going to get stuffed back into the bottle, at least not to the extent it was two hundred years ago. African peasants, at least the ones we have half-decent data for, suffer much lower child mortality than kings and queens in the eighteenth century. The germ theory of disease, vaccination, and antibiotics absolutely beat the living shit out of infant and youth mortality. We might lose the second two through civilizational collapse, but even literal illiterate backwoods rednecks in America know that germs cause disease.

children to single mothers (mothers married to the state) preform worse on all most all metrics.

..because of bad genes, not single status.

Maybe not on the first Friday night, but with a bit of effort, most women should be able to get pregnant with a real hunk.

...ya think they'd agree to that?

The real step father is the government who protects, provides and parents the child. This isn't stable, as the people paying the taxes aren't getting the benefits. She wants men to pay taxes but not have any obligations as a wife. The state is a terrible husband. Children to single mothers (mothers married to the state) preform worse on all most all metrics. I find it mindblowing that there are people who have such faith in the system that they believe that the state will provide for them for decades to come. The welfare state is a ponzi scheme funded by debt that clearly isn't meeting its expectations already.

I think you underestimate this point. Even single mothers have baby fathers and even widows have their in-laws who may want to invest in their grandchild. What the OP is describing is even worse, these children are basically born without half of the family with everything that comes with that. Even on material side they will not inherit anything. Additionally, my spidey senses are tingling here, there something dark about a mother making her child as if they were a pet. She wants it, so she purchases it from catalogue.

This is another social experiment that kind of goes under the lid for some time already, and that society did not broadly agreed upon. It has similar vibes to surrogacy. We will deal with the fallout in decades.

Curious — are your thoughts different if a married couple does this if the husband is infertile?

Sure, it is something between adoption and marrying a woman with her own child. I think there are no good options for infertile men even if they do not want to have children themselves.

I think there are no good options for infertile men even if they do not want to have children themselves.

Adopt a sibling's child? Use a brother's sperm to impregnate the wife?

If you adopt sibling's child or even accept brother as a sperm donor, it may for sure create some awkward family gatherings with your brother literally being biological father of your child and possibly deciding to act on that role. Modern IVF especially combined with surrogacy serves as an endless source of philosophical questions/scenarios in real life - like this controversy where grieving mother paid surrogate to carry child of her dead son. So yes, if "single" mother can select a child from catalougue of sperm donors and we should be fine with that, why cannot let's say rich 70 years old man pay 20 Ukrainian surrogate mothers to deliver large family of children who will inhabit his remote compound in Nebraska?

But back to the topic again, there are no good options for infertile men who want to build relationship with younger and fertile childless woman or any woman who may decide she wants another child in the future.

Adopt a sibling's child?

This used to be common when people had large families (10+ kids) and when there were extra children lying around. The usual pattern was the youngest child, with perhaps a three or four-year age gap to the older ones. This child was often "gossiped" or given to another relative (often childless). It does not happen anymore. My parents considered this with my youngest sister.

One of my friends has decided to have children with the help of a sperm donor and I have taken more than a passing interest in her search. This is actually the 2nd woman in my broader group of acquaintances who have have decided to go it alone. They are both highly educated, but lack the physical attractiveness that would make it possible to lock down the type of man they have been interested in.

Sperm is cheap, but IVF is expensive. A single cycle can be $30,000. Maybe her insurance covers it (although I didn't think they usually did)? But you can pursue some good cosmetic procedures for $30,000. I always recommend Western Europe (eg. the UK), where private cosmetic surgery is 1/3-1/2 the cost of the US and near enough as good. There's no shame in correcting nature's mistakes, some would say doing so is a core function of civilization itself!

For $30,000-$50,000, your friend can probably become attractive. (Examples 1, 2, 3). If she's fat, skinniness can be bought by Ozempic, lipo or dieting (usually possible if someone is ambitious Type-A personality) provided there isn't too much loose skin from obesity (which can be removed if necessary). And the face can be changed pretty significantly now. A nose job, possibly a chin implant or jaw surgery, fat redistribution, fillers, facelift/necklift, submentoplasty etc. These can make a huge difference. Very, very few people who have money must today consign themself to unattractiveness. In my case I've had relatively limited cosmetic surgery but it still made a big difference for me.

I always find it quite sad when very ambitious Type A women seem to just settle with their looks even when single. If you're happily married and don't worry about your appearance, that's cool, but if you're single with money in the bank, the investment to get higher tier men is hugely warranted. And, of course, you don't miss out on coparenting, companionship, romantic love and all of the other stuff that many people find they like in marriage.

We are taking elite sperm here, like entirely clean bill of health for 2 generations back, model good looks, tall, athletic, pursuing an MD or PHD in STEM, comes from a family of inventors, grandparents who lived to the age of 100 etc. Imagine someone like the Swede in Philip Roths American Pastoral. You can get a vial of this sperm for 1000 USD, and why wouldnt you as a single woman?

You have to weigh this against the risks for her children of single motherhood (which aren't fully mitigated by class, wealth, parental background on both sides or any other factor yet discovered). These include substantially higher risks of mental illness, criminality (under all permutations of single motherhood), teenage pregnancy, divorce and relationship issues in adulthood, lower lifetime incomes and so on. Almost every negative outcome in life is correlated with being a child of a single mother, even if said mother is rich, intelligent and a good person. Even at Andover or Dalton, it's the kids of single mothers who still disproportionately act out.

Most importantly, single motherhood completely tanks your attractiveness to men at any stage of life (even older men, because if you're a 55 year old guy and divorced and looking for a new relationship, someone who has to look after her kids all the time is less able to do stuff). Sometimes it's inevitable (divorce because he cheated, widowhood), but if it's avoidable it should be avoided.

For $30,000-$50,000, your friend can probably become attractive.

Yeah, I'd agree...she could almost certainly become average if she was ambitious enough, unless she is straight up deformed or has been literally set on fire.

Hmm, if I have more money in the bank I'd go for plastic surgery myself. I don't like my nose or my chubby cheeks, and buccal fat removal works wonders for achieving that zen of having a skinny face even if you let the rest of you go.

I was mildly scared by complications like damage to the nearby nerves causing changes in taste or similar nuisances, but the incidence was like 1% when I checked.

Eh, I'll look into it if I end up single again.

For $30,000-$50,000, your friend can probably become attractive. (Examples 1, 2, 3).

Wow, they have surgery that can fix bad lighting now.

The difference in those three cases transparently isn't because of bad lighting.

Girl 3 does look unambiguously better after the surgery, I’ll give you that one (though even there the lighting change helps).

Girl 2 looks fake. I suppose some men (and women) like this look, but most of the improvement is from makeup.

Girl 1 has me legitimately confused. I had originally thought the pic on the left was the “after” pic, because that pic is significantly more attractive than the right one. Apparently that’s the “before” pic? I know this one is heavily confounded by angle, lighting, and sunglasses, but what exactly changed for the better here?

For 1, in the picture on the left she has a fatter face, undefined jaw, undefined cheekbones and a double chin - even when she's looking straight ahead or up.

the investment to get higher tier men is hugely warranted

Who are going to want either women their own age (in their 30s) who have a lot of assets to offer - own business, wealthy family background, connections and networking, of their own social circle - or the hot young 22 year old who doesn't need plastic surgery.

Well-off but not rich average mid-30s woman is not going to hook that kind of high status, high attractiveness guy for marriage even with a boatload of plastic surgery.

if you're a 55 year old guy and divorced and looking for a new relationship

Will probably have a baby with the new squeeze, that's generally how it shakes out if they've left/been divorced from a wife and they already have kids. It's easier for a guy in that situation, since generally the ex-wife has custody. Single mothers, I agree, will be much less desirable; if the new woman wants kids, it's easier for him to knock her up than to deal with her kid(s) from a previous marriage/relationship. The whole thing around step-parents and prioritising your own biological offspring over those of a stranger.

There's always a question of what we mean when we say 'high status' or 'successful' or 'attractive'. Can a moderately successful 34 year old woman improve herself to the point where she can attract someone of broadly similar looks and status? Yeah, probably. In any case, in affluent PMC circles, cases of 40 year old guys - even wealthy and hot ones - marrying gorgeous 22 year old women are relatively uncommon. They occur, but they are not the norm.

Can a moderately successful 34 year old woman improve herself to the point where she can attract someone of broadly similar looks and status?

Shooting fish in a barrel in Silicon Valley. Plenty of fit multimillionaire virgins out there. Especially if she's not morbidly obese or a danger to herself or others.

If she's fat, skinniness can be bought by Ozempic, lipo or dieting (usually possible if someone is ambitious Type-A personality) provided there isn't too much loose skin from obesity (which can be removed if necessary).

Don't even need lipo. I personally got myself a flat stomach via many many cycles of fat freezing. It takes longer than lipo but absolutely works if you repeatedly hit the same area 3-4 times. Plus minimal pain and no scars.

How permanent is fat freezing? Is it like lipo where it just moves somewhere else?

How permanent is fat freezing?

It's permanent because you literally destroy the fat cells with cooling, and once the pop the cells don't return. My stomach is now permanently flat, even though I weigh a few kg more than I used to before the procedure.

Is it like lipo where it just moves somewhere else?

This is going to happen with every single fat cell removal procedure, our body has multiple set points it tries to mean revert to, so yes your weight or total amount of fat is unlikely to change. However you'll definitely look better as the amassed fat in one area will get distributed to all over your body, and you can target the exact areas you want to change your physique into an ideal shape (e.g. if you have too much fat around the chest but little around the stomach, get cycles done on your upper body, which will reduce its size to normal, and who cares if your stomach gets a little bigger as fat moves there because it was already below normal size, thus improving your physique taken as a whole).

Insemination with sperm does not typically require IVF, but a intrauterin insemination which is much cheaper.

I agree with your assessment of plastic surgery, and it can be very beneficial to many women. A typical nose job can do wonders on some ethnicities. Weight loss, even with the new wonder drugs takes time, and then you have to find and keep a man while approaching your late thirties.

But you have to remember that many women have unrealistic ideas about their own attractiveness. They can attract men, but not keep them. Their friends and family will tell them, they are "cute". Guys who dump them will tell them they were not ready for a relationship. No one IRL is going to sit down and say: "you would be such a catch with some fillers and a nosejob". Instead all they will hear is: " You are a catch, the right guy will turn up one day". I think by the time these women realize they can not compete for the men they want, they are quickly approaching a fertility cliff.

The risks from being raised by a single mother clearly cut through social class and education, and I agree that all else being equal it would be a poor decision. But all else is not equal here. You get to have a child that is likely more attractive and possibly more intelligent than if you have settled for a man that will have you. Surely the risk of criminality is lower in people who are both attractive and smart? If you believe personality traits like conscientiousness are heritable too, the tradeoff looks even better.

And while I agree with your last point, I think these women are at a stage in their lives where they have given up on finding a man. Female sexual drive also falls off a cliff around this age, so the thought of living the rest of their life without a man might not be so daunting any more.

No one IRL is going to sit down and say: "you would be such a catch with some fillers and a nosejob".

That is why there's a niche for people who are very kind and very caring...and who are also blunt AF and have no filter. I've known people like that - who'd say 'well yeah, that really fucking shows the fat on your stomach' without even a tiny bit of malice. They were very polarizing people, but not unpopular: they were as caring as they were tactless.

But you have to remember that many women have unrealistic ideas about their own attractiveness. They can attract men, but not keep them. Their friends and family will tell them, they are "cute". Guys who dump them will tell them they were not ready for a relationship. No one IRL is going to sit down and say: "you would be such a catch with some fillers and a nosejob". Instead all they will hear is: " You are a catch, the right guy will turn up one day". I think by the time these women realize they can not compete for the men they want, they are quickly approaching a fertility cliff.

I know it's a common thing in online spaces like this to claim that Western women have overinflated ideas of their own attractiveness, but I haven't found that to be the case. I think most women could (and do) very well rank themselves against other women relatively accurately, somewhat adjusted for male vs female preferences (eg. women prioritize skinniness and face, men often prioritize waist-hip ratio and slim-but-with-curves).

A woman with an ugly nose or weak chin or whatever knows exactly what is wrong with her, she likely already tailors her makeup, selfie angles, poses/positions in group photographs etc. based on it. It doesn't take a genius (for men or women) to look at the kind of person you want to be with, and then to look at the kind of person they tend to marry or have LTRs with, and then to compare yourself to that person.

Point taken, and I think you are right about the average women. But again, these are not average women, but women who are still single at 35. In my experience they come in 3 groups:

  1. Hideously ugly/morbidly obese
  2. OK looking, but go for men who are out of their league.
  3. Dont mind being lonely, and are therefore not willing to lower their standards to match with a man who will have them.

My friends are a mix of 2. and 3. I think for nr 2 there is a psychological mechanism that keeps people from seing their own shortcomings. For what its worth, I think men who are single at 35-40 also fit into these categories, but with slightly different cutoffs. The typical example would perhaps a short immigrant male with an advanced STEM degree who cant understand why white girls are not attracted to him, because in his mind having a good degree and a well paying job is the pinnacle of male achievement. In the same vein, my friend is an avid runner, but objectively she lacks raw femininity and with skin that has aged quite poorly due to sun damage. She cant see this, because in her mind being a skinny female runner makes a woman very attractive.

The typical example would perhaps a short immigrant male with an advanced STEM degree who cant understand why white girls are not attracted to him

That guy...well. Very few American-born women would be attracted to him. Even if he's a second-generation guy, if he's been raised middle-class? He's got to deal with a lot of things before he can start looking for a partner. First of all, he's going to have been told all his life that dating and relationships are live options for him and of course he's going to find a partner. When he starts looking, or even openly expressing interest in sex or relationships, in high school or college, he might be told that this isn't happening for him, and he might find people that are uncomfortable with him being anything other than a celibate monk who's far more interested in computer science than women. He's been raised middle class, and probably hasn't had to deal with any real struggles or face any real hardship. He's not at all accustomed to accepting that he's often going to be in situations where all of his options suck and he is choosing the least-bad option, not the best. By the time that fully sinks in, he's either resigned himself to loneliness or is too old, inexperienced, and afraid to attract anyone. At least, anyone that can hold a job and isn't a danger to herself or others.

As for morbid obesity...morbidly obese women can definitely get guys, even rather well-put-together and conscientious guys, if they're willing to go for shorter dudes. You can be 5'5" and 300 pounds and have a boyfriend or husband with a body like a Greek god if you're OK with him being 5'4".

If you don't mind being lonely, you should also not mind not becoming a mother.

That is, uh, not how things work. Like it or not, people want kids because they want them, loneliness has nothing to do with it. It’s biological, not psychological.

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