site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   2038 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 8, 2023

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.

A thought and question I've had bouncing around in my head that I don't expect a real answer to, or even a coherent framing, since its possible there are a few false premises at work here.

Is it possible that one side effect of the rise of Onlyfans/digital prostitution is that (many) men are noticing that (many) women know precisely what men want in a sexual partner and are willing to provide it... but only outside the context of a committed relationship.

Simply put, Onlyfans creates an extremely liquid marketplace for attractive women to produce smut content for a large audience. Content producers want to optimize to capture as many customers as possible. Something like 87% of the customers/users on OF are men. So competitive forces drive the (mostly females) creators to figure out exactly what men's sexual preferences are and provide content tailored to those preferences and produce it en masse.

So by sheer economic necessity, these women are demonstrating that they are willing to engage with men's deepest sexual desires in order to make a buck.

Imagine being a 20-something male in the current environment, being aware of the fact that you can go on OF and for the price of a cheeseburger find women who will perform almost any male sexual fantasy you could imagine. Then going on the dating market to find a woman who might be willing to indulge in fantasies with him (assume he's seeking an otherwise healthy, committed relationship).

If he goes into the dating marketplace and is open about his own personal sexual desires, he can be branded as a pervert or a sex pest because "women don't exist solely to please men" and/or "you can't reduce women to sex objects, even if they sexualize themselves." In some cases, they might just simply express ignorance of men's sexual preferences and act as though expecting sexual gratification from a partner is suspect!

But this would read as extremely bad faith given that, as above, women clearly can figure out what men want if they put in a modicum of effort, and WILL provide it when provided sufficient incentive.

Seems, to me, that seeing the difference between what women are willing to do for money and attention from thousands of onlookers online vs. how they can be unwilling to indulge their own partner's personal desires could lead to a feeling of resentment.

I would guess that Instagram/tiktok is doing the work of this implicitly for far more women than OF, because almost every young young woman is interacting with it and their attention economy is driven by men.

It both provides immediate feedback in the form of likes, comments, and trending but also allows rapid comparison with people meeting the desires of the faceless masses that set the algorithm.

Imagine being a 20-something male in the current environment, being aware of the fact that you can go on OF and for the price of a cheeseburger find women who will perform almost any male sexual fantasy you could imagine.

Well, not for the prize of a cheeseburger and not almost any fantasy by far. Unless you eat gold-plated cheeseburgers, I guess.

But I think you're right in general. OF performers are certainly learning what makes men tick. It's deeply amusing to watch various memes aimed at increasing engagement spread across the thotdom, bloom, wither and die, like pretending to be interested in "older men", average-sized cocks or the recent "what do you call a girl that does ?" aimed at boosting both positive and negative engagement.

I think the biggest discovery so far has been that a lot of men are looking for, uh, for the lack of a better name, transwomen. Not in the literal sense of female-presenting AMABs, but women that, while looking explicitly feminine, are otherwise a lot like men: much hornier than a modal woman, interested in male-coded hobbies, prefer shooting the shit to gossiping and don't make you play "guess the mood".

Honestly, none of this is really new by itself. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession, after all, and the top escorts have always been like that, providing what's now called GFE to senators and businessmen. What's revolutionary is the democratization of this experience. Now, for the price of a fancy cheeseburger, any loser can talk foreign policy with an half-naked attractive woman that is fluffing you for round two watch a half-naked attractive woman play Fortnite while talking how horny she is.

I think the biggest discovery so far has been that a lot of men are looking for, uh, for the lack of a better name, transwomen.

Femboys are probably closer to the mark. If only because fucking one is marginally less shameful than fucking a tranny to most men. But also because many trans throw themselves into liking stereotypically girly things to try and shore up their identities, instead of embracing being a bro like femboys are more likely to do.

I find it pretty funny that nobody else has apparently thought of the actual term, tomboys and have instead fallen into the age old argument of "which form of gay is less gay".

Well, I very deliberately didn't say "tomboys" because tomboys are not explicitly feminine. How do stereotypical sexual fantasies involving tomboys start? She's been the only girl you know that didn't have cooties, wearing stereotypical boyish clothes, cutting her hair short and liking stereotypical boyish activities. Then one summer she suddenly matures into a woman and her friends can no longer play with her because they lose the trail of thought every time they see her new assets that are irresistible despite her lack of effort to promote them.

The modal OF model is sexy and she knows it. She can stream on Twitch, but her hair will be coiffed, her make-up expertly done, her outfit carefully picked to draw attention to her femininity.

How do stereotypical sexual fantasies involving tomboys start? She's been the only girl you know that didn't have cooties, wearing stereotypical boyish clothes, cutting her hair short and liking stereotypical boyish activities. Then one summer she suddenly matures into a woman and her friends can no longer play with her because they lose the trail of thought every time they see her new assets that are irresistible despite her lack of effort to promote them.

I've never heard of this stereotype. Or, tbh, any stereotype about sexual fantasies involving tomboys. I don't really know any other people who are into tomboys, but I am someone who's into tomboys, and that stereotype is the opposite of what I would consider a satisfying sexual fantasy about a tomboy; the reason I'm attracted to a tomboy is that she has those boyish features, like short hair, small breasts (this is a preference I hold for non-tomboys as well), perhaps slightly muscular build, along with engaging in more masculine activities with her, such as sports or video games. I'd find the notion of a girly girl "maturing" into a tomboy-ish woman (though obviously that asset growth only goes one way, so it'd be just a matter of minimal growth rather than reduction) far more sexually appealing than the other way around.

The modal OF model is sexy and she knows it. She can stream on Twitch

Counterpoint: the most popular Vtuber (engaged in a stereotypically male activity: gaming) has a tomboy model. Short hair, wears stereotypical boyish clothes, flat chest, and a voice that's naturally lower on the register than Vtubers that lean harder into a more traditionally feminine appearance. Subscriber count is roughly double (2 million more) than the 2nd most popular English-speaking one (whose model has a significantly more "traditionally" female appearance/voice/mannerisms) who's been at it for the same amount of time.

How do stereotypical sexual fantasies involving tomboys start?

Usually it's on sight, but there's a difference between sexual fantasies for "tomboys that are broad-spectrum attractive" and then there's sexual fantasies for "how tomboys usually look".

because tomboys are not explicitly feminine

Implicitly feminine is still feminine; boyish girls (tomboys) and girlish boys (this is what "femboys" means) are quite different.

Then one summer she suddenly matures into a woman and her friends can no longer play with her because they lose the trail of thought every time they see her new assets that are irresistible despite her lack of effort to promote them.

I believe this "tomboy death" effect filters out traditionally-attractive women, leaving only the women who are unattractive in that pool. "Looks like an overgrown little girl" is sufficiently unattractive for a few reasons, and tomboy activities tend to be more difficult the larger one's chest becomes (and the sorer one will be the day after, increasing with age) anyway, so there's a bunch of cooling effects there.

Counterpoint: the most popular Vtuber (engaged in a stereotypically male activity: gaming) has a tomboy model.

Who, the slightly mentally challenged shark girl?

a

(Yes, that's the one. I'm pretty sure she out-earns even the more popular OF models despite never physically appearing on screen, and I assert that the immature/goofy tomboy character she uses is the main reason why. Even the animal she chose to use is associated far more with men anyway and I don't think that was coincidental either.

I guess you could say that most of those things are also highlighting femininity, but importantly, tomboyishness only highlights the parts of femininity that are common to both girls and women and tends to leave out the parts that separate the two.)

I guess we need to hash out the definition of a tomboy, because I've never considered her one. Of course, you're right that she's not flaunting her femininity, but she's not a sex worker either.

If only because fucking one is marginally less shameful than fucking a tranny to most men.

Huh? How? Why? Isn't it gayer to have sex with someone who identifies as a man?

Isn't it gayer to have sex with someone who identifies as a man?

The vast majority of human history says "no, because in that situation, only the bottom is 'gay'". Which makes intuitive sense provided you retain the traditional natural-order understanding that men seek to obtain sexual pleasure rather than being its source (and that men who exclusively prefer the latter job are malfunctioning to some degree; an assertion that is usually true, regardless of the other partner's genitals).

Gayness-as-in-bottom and effeminacy/submissiveness have always gone hand in hand; so has gayness-as-in-top and masculinity/domination (which is why ancient cultures were perfectly fine describing homosexual relationships and conquests of their champions and emperors- if it was embarrassing to the top, it wouldn't have persisted in most of the surviving sources).

[Note that 'gayness' is not a very good word for this, but all the concepts for human sexuality have been so thoroughly Newspeak'd that the labels create the behaviors/identities rather than the other way around and I don't feel like unpacking this that thoroughly right now.]

Because "n-no he identifies as a woman so it's really straight!! Really!!" comes off as desperate cope, whereas "cute is cute, regardless of gender" is more "honest" and chadly.

It's like wearing a bad wig to cover MPB versus just shaving your head.

I'm sceptical of your interpretation. I expect the same dynamics are in play in OnlyFans as have been in play in more conventional pornography for decades. Look up some of the most famous porn stars on the IAFD and you will rarely find them routinely performing extreme sex acts (double penetration, watersports, gangbangs etc.). It's a two-tiered market, wherein the top earners have enough name recognition to demand a premium for performing relatively vanilla sex acts (which less famous performers would only receive a pittance for), while the less famous perfomers can only make ends meet by holding their nose and taking the marginally higher fees associated with performing more extreme, disgusting and/or painful sex acts. If you watch a vanilla boy-girl scene starring Tori Black, you're watching it to see Tori Black; if you really want to watch a watersports scene, you'll take what you can get, and the identity of the performer is almost beside the point.

I presume that pornography salaries follow a power law distribution: 1-5% of top performers are more famous and make more money than the bottom 95-99% of performers. OnlyFans income most certainly does. The top earners are usually people who were already famous prior to starting an OnlyFans account, including Bella Thorne, Cardi B, and (amusingly enough in light of the years she spent ostensibly trying to distance herself from her initial foray into pornography) Mia Khalifa. I've read somewhere that the mean monthly income for a content creator is something like $300 - according to this article, the median monthly income is $180.

Niche fetishes are, well, niche, and one man's yum is very much another man's yuck. If you're not a top earner, you can find some highly specific niche and absolutely dominate it (carving out a comfortable $30k/year by being "the piss girl" or something); but no top earner is going to jeopardise her income by performing a sex act that 10% of their fanbase will find extremely arousing and the remaining 90% will be indifferent to or outright disgusted by. This is bound to result in lowest-common-denominator dynamics, wherein the top earners (who are disproportionately visible on the platform) play it safe by performing vanilla sex acts that few users are likely to be actively turned off by.

Additionally, I don't think the kinds of men who spend hundreds or thousands subscribing to OnlyFans content creators are in any way representative of the general male population. I suspect that these men are "whales", both in the sales sense of the term and a much less nice sense of the term. A woman who looks at what kinds of sex acts/fantasies/costumes etc. are most popular on OnlyFans is getting a window in the sexual fantasies of an extremely selected group, not into the sexual fantasies of the average man. Incest-themed porn does nothing for me, but apparently I'm not representative of the average porn consumer.

The end result is that a woman (not a content creator) who goes on OnlyFans is probably seeing:

  • a handful of conventionally attractive women (who were already famous prior to joining OnlyFans) performing fairly vanilla sex acts, in which most of the appeal comes from the name recognition and appearance of the performer, rather than the specific sex act itself
  • a larger number (but still small in absolute terms) of conventionally attractive women unknown outside of OnlyFans performing slightly less vanilla sex acts, but still fairly tame
  • a large number of unattractive women performing either vanilla sex acts (and making no money from them because they can't compete with the conventionally attractive and/or already famous women performing similar acts for the same price) or more extreme/weird sex acts which may be extremely popular only among the highly selected OnlyFans community and not the population at large

"Men like watching hot girls take their clothes off and finger themselves" is hardly a penetrating insight into the male condition; nor is "a much small number of men like watching unattractive women urinate". I doubt that any woman's impression of what the average man likes in bed is significantly changed by browsing the front page of OnlyFans for an hour. Especially when, even prior to the founding of OnlyFans, the West was already a pornography-saturated culture - I imagine just about every sexually active 25-year-old woman in the West has had a sexual partner request to ejaculate on her face or sodomise her at least once.

I mean, a woman can go on fiverr and for low single digit $ get an out-of-work actor to say any of a number of gratifying things that most men would consider to be degrading and untrue in a relationship context. "I am dirt, a loser, I am nothing without you, I will never find anyone as good as you." "Honey, I agree, your best friend is way smarter than me, I should do everything she says from here on out." "Go ahead and gain 1,000 pounds, don't shower or comb your hair, you'll still be the sexiest thing alive to me." "My mom is a raging bitch, she should never have said that to you." So I should be resentful if my IRL man won't say those things, as well? What some people are willing to anonymously playact for a few seconds to faceless strangers, is different from what the vast majority of human beings are willing to do in a full-time intimate relationship where they believe they're showing up as their authentic selves.

Also consider that in the case of OF, while your $30 is maybe the precipitating factor that gets that one girl to rub herself in poo or whatever, in real terms your cash is just the visible tip of a whole iceberg of motivating factors, starting with whatever early traumas she's racked up and running all the way through what that run of bad boyfriends did to her, the practical life circumstances that ruled out less humiliating lines of work, and the desensitizing/Stockholm effects of the OF experience itself. Take an average nice girlfriend with a great family and good career prospects, retroactively run her through enough childhood conditioning and subsequent psychic or economic immiseration, and I bet at least some of the time she'd emerge more docile to your sexual suggestions. Arguably OF's cut of the $30 is for letting you carve off a sliver of that past abuse for your own benefit, while pretending that .001% rounds down to zero.

I mean, a woman can go on fiverr and for low single digit $ get an out-of-work actor to say any of a number of gratifying things that most men would consider to be degrading and untrue in a relationship context. "I am dirt, a loser, I am nothing without you, I will never find anyone as good as you." "Honey, I agree, your best friend is way smarter than me, I should do everything she says from here on out." "Go ahead and gain 1,000 pounds, don't shower or comb your hair, you'll still be the sexiest thing alive to me." "My mom is a raging bitch, she should never have said that to you." So I should be resentful if my IRL man won't say those things, as well?

Women have used Replika, which does do a lot of things that women find gratifying, like validating her by willing to just sit there and listen instead of either dismissing the problem as inconsequential or immediately suggesting a solution, reminding her of her value without prompting and so on. And yes, men will be resentful if their women partners start comparing them with a chatbot:

"Why can't you always be there for me, like my AI friend Brayden?"

"Because one, I am an autonomous human being that needs time for himself too. Two, I don't just say the words you want to hear, but what I think is the best for you. And three, we're in a mutually beneficial relationship and not some sort of contract work."

It's more or less the same as asking your wife why she won't send you dirty sexts from the office bathroom while Ella Sparxxx does. Or why she won't stop telling you about her BFF Erica's latest breakup with another shithead even though you've already told her that Erica is a dumb bitch who is only attracted to shitheads and you don't care about her love life, while Ella Sparxxx knows you'd rather talk about Ancient Rome. Of course she will resent you saying these things.

Ages ago I was listening to some relationship advice podcast, and a GenX woman mentioned how when she was dating, women were facing the dilemma of when it's appropriate to sleep with the guy. Too early and you look slutty, too late you look disinterested, apparently the third date was the sweet spot. At the time I found it to be a reasonable compromise in a world where we cast off the shackles of religious sexual repression. A few years have passed, and apparently we are now asking if women not performing like professional prostitutes for their boyfriends could cause resentment.

In related news the Garden of Earthly Delights remains one of my favorite metaphors for life.

All I can say is, if you're right, that's yet another reason why OnlyFans must be destroyed.

Its far from the biggest problem I would attribute to OF, but that's why I'm asking the question, I'm not sure if I'm even onto something real.

I think I'm more gesturing at the fact that Onlyfans has made it clear that "performing like a professional prostitute" has a lower threshold than we might have imagined, prior. Any woman of slightly above-average looks and slightly-below average inhibitions can get set up and get multiple 'clients' in short order, and learn the game quickly.

So now you don't even have to advertise in seedy classified ads or walk the street to engage in the oldest profession.

If a guy doesn't want a woman that performs like a prostitute, he'll probably want one that is as close to virginal as possible, so at least he knows what she's been up to.

But expressing THAT desire will probably get him castigated as well.

So I think I see the dilemma as Women don't want to preserve their virginity as a way to increase their SMV, but they also seemingly don't want to use sexual experience to increase their SMV, and guys are noticing that they'll perform all sorts of degenerate sex acts for money but not for 'love.'

OnlyFans Delenda Est.

Most women are not professional consorts, and are not treating a personal relationship as they would a job, nor do they wish to. If a relationship feels like a slog where they have to do things they don't like just because the man likes it, and he's not reciprocating with something unusual she likes, especially early on, why would they proceed? There are some sugar daddy relationships, and they probably feature some aspects of sex work as work, but that is not the norm, and is usually low status for the woman. It's not so much that it's bad and wrong to be upfront about enjoying something women rarely enjoy, it's just that they'll expect to not enjoy intimacy, and discontinue the relationship before becoming too emotionally invested.

Do you expect you're talking about the same women? The women I know best wouldn't dream of setting up an OF account. I am sure they have their secret garden like all women, the face they don't show me and would never show me, but I am not sure the OF types are the same girls one might be approaching at, say, Starbucks. Of course you could argue you're talking about some sort of female psychology here, but that seems like women assuming all men are subscribers to OF or are dangerous potential rapists. This is only true in the least charitable view.

Also I am not sure it's either realistic or ideal (despite the modern idea of writing up a dating profile) to be "open about preferences" from the get-go (primarily because I think these preferences should be a natural growth based on shared experience of one another, and not, say, what one learns one gets off to via watching porn).

Many women are students of male weakness, yes. For various reasons. But I'd argue against anyone who suggests all men want one type of inamorata, actually. There are commonalities, probably, among men, but I mean camgirl and porn sites all have the Category button for a reason. If what you mean is "All men want to see your tits" then you're probably right. Past that it's vague. But presumably for most the draw of such sites is the same as the draw of the waterlogged magazine cache in the woods for boys of my era--the erotic forbidden. There have been Playboy centerfolds for a long time. That doesn't mean that's everyone's ideal (thus you get sexless wonders asking on reddit and elsewhere "Would U date an Onlyfans girl?") Regardless of the answers, the fact that this is a question that gets asked suggests these girls and women who put themselves in that marketplace are not the norm, despite how it seems.

I will offer that I think the normalization to some degree of this sort of virtual prostitution is very troubling and I can't imagine it sending us anywhere good. An equivalent would be normalization of, say, fighting and violence for men. We all have that side in us, buried to some degree. Make it acceptable and people suppress it less. There probably is a zone where girls who never would have imagined themselves dancing naked to shitty music in video are doing so because as you say, easy money and some degree of anonymity.

The women I know best wouldn't dream of setting up an OF account.

How do you know this?

Would you expect them to admit it if they did?

Regardless of the answers, the fact that this is a question that gets asked suggests these girls and women who put themselves in that marketplace are not the norm, despite how it seems.

I'm really no longer sure what "the norm" is, other than all indications are that its trending towards running an Onlyfans being a relatively acceptable practice.

And more to the point, it means any female who wants to figure out how to satisfy male sexual preferences need only check into what some of the top content producers are putting out.

Women now have no real excuse for being unaware of men's sexual preferences.

And guys now get the impression that females are willing to satisfy those preferences even if they claim to find them disgusting and crude.

An equivalent would be normalization of, say, fighting and violence for men.

AH, but I don't think that is equivalent.

Sexuality is often idealized as something to be shared with solely your committed partner, and seeking sexual gratification outside the relationship is considered adulterous.

Hence why having a sexually explicit OF might be a violation of that relationship.

I don't think a man's capacity for violence is something that has the same level of "sacredness" where he is expected to express it solely to his partner.

Although I see your point that we have a social interest in restraining the male tendency to violence.

I'm really no longer sure what "the norm" is, other than all indications are that its trending towards running an Onlyfans being a relatively acceptable practice.

I think you may be falling for the availability heuristic, and your language is a bit weaselly. According to this source, there are a mere 2.1 million content creators on OnlyFans (and I imagine that includes numerous dormant accounts, or accounts which were set up but then the owner chickened out before actually posting so much as a single suggestive still photo). There's no doubt that that's dramatically higher than previous generations of pornographic performers (the IAFD, a database of more traditional pornographic films and performers, only lists 218,000 performers in the entire database), but there are 3.9 2.2 billion [thanks for the correction /u/orthoxerox] Millennial or Gen Z women in the world. The overwhelming majority of women of any age are not involved in the sex industry in any capacity, including OnlyFans.

EDIT: And that's not even to mention the fact that that figure of 2.1 million content creators includes content creators who don't create pornographic content, like fitness instructors or similar.

but there are 3.9 billion Millennial or Gen Z women in the world. The overwhelming majority of women of any age are not involved in the sex industry in any capacity, including OnlyFans.

Isn't this the number of women and men? Otherwise other generations would all have to fit into the remaining 0.2 billion.

Correct, will amend.

I have no idea what the argument you’re making is, that women should act like whores for their partners because they can Google the porn that OnlyFans creators make?

I'm exploring a question "whether the fact that women act like whores on OF for random strangers could lead to men resenting the fact that they won't do so in the context of a relationship."

I don't think there's any "should" about it.

Males have a lot of sexual preferences that they are, generally, told are disgusting, base, or socially unacceptable.

The signal that OF seems to be sending is that, for a relative pittance, women will absolutely engage in the most disgusting, base, or socially unacceptable behaviors that men want.

And OF is blurring the line between what is 'real life' and what is 'fantasy' with regards to sexual behavior. Indeed, a huge part of the "appeal" of OF is that women market themselves as just ordinary girls who just happen to like all the sexual behaviors men prefer and have as high a desire for sex as men do.

So men might be reading the signal, then contrasting it to their own experience in the dating market, and feeling as though women are intentionally withholding sexual behaviors from men that they would willingly engage in for paying online voyeurs.

How do you know this?

Would you expect them to admit it if they did?

We never know anyone completely, I suppose, so in the sense that anyone is capable of anything, sure, they might conceivably, in the wrong circumstances, get naked on a webcam for rent money. But shame, modesty, fear of public discovery, to say nothing of just lack of interest in debasing oneself in that way for strangers--I can say with relative certainty the women I'm thinking of wouldn't go there. Now there are some I know who would, and have, and another set who might without surprising me.

Also I'm not sure women have ever been unaware of the more base aspects of male lust. Are you suggesting Onlyfans has now pulled back the previously hidden veil on male raunchiness?

Are you suggesting Onlyfans has now pulled back the previously hidden veil on male raunchiness?

I'm suggesting that 'before' only professional prostitutes (often working at the direction of a male pimp) or porn stars (often working at the direction of a male producer/director) would have much reason to actually cater to men's sexual fantasies. And those behaviors were generally relegated to the seedy fringes of society and it was understood that "proper ladies" were expected to be less open to such base behaviors, so it was never asked of them.

There was absolutely no pressure to normalize those sexual behaviors, and women who wanted to learn about the 'crazier' things men desired would have to go and consult with actual prostitutes and porn stars. And for obvious reasons nobody would expect them to do that.

There's now a direct economic incentive for comparatively ordinary women to be aware of and cater to men's desires, and further to exhibit their willingness to engage in those behaviors to a large audience of mostly men.

And men are, thus, getting the signal that it is fine to ask women to do these things, and women are aware of what men actually want, sexually, without having to be prompted. The women are figuring it out on their own so as to better cater to their customers.

So this seems like it significantly shifts the norms of male expectations around sexual behavior, which will probably have other impacts if those expectations are thwarted in their actual experience.

There's now a direct economic incentive for comparatively ordinary women to be aware of and cater to men's desires [...] And men are, thus, getting the signal that it is fine to ask women to do these things

True, but...

women know precisely what men want in a sexual partner and are willing to provide it... but only outside the context of a committed relationship.

...your mistake is conflating the narrow context of participating on OnlyFans with the far broader context of "outside a committed relationship". Any OnlyFans user who is confused about this will likely find it clarified the first time he tries to transfer his experience to Tinder where, instead of having his requests to see a pretty girl's bumhole happily accommodated (for a price), he will be blocked and reported. At that point the man's expectations should be suitably recalibrated.

There's probably a parallel miscalibration where some men will treat OnlyFans performers as if they were actually on Tinder by trying to force the interaction into the frame of an intimate relationship. The difference is that the OF performers are incentivised to play along to keep the simpbucks rolling in. That seems like a bigger risk of distorting men's impressions about what is normal.

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