site banner

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
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/?

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.

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).