site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2692 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for April 5, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Years ago I saw the trailer for an indie comedy film wherein two straight men pretend to be gay in order to get women into bed. Their reasoning is that if they present themselves as gay, women will let their guard down around them. Then they can announce "oh my God, I'm so attracted to you, I've never been attracted to a woman before", and the woman in question will be so flattered that she'll go to bed with the guy.

Is it reasonable of me to assume that any straight man who describes himself as "demisexual" is pulling exactly the same kind of long con, but more subtle?

I'm not in the habit of assuming the worst intentions in anyone who doesn't think like me. Some men also fake being progressive to pull alt girls, doesn't mean there aren't genuine ones.

That is to say, I don't need to "get to know her in order to be attracted", personally. If someone comes here and says he does, will you disbelieve him?

I'm thinking of one specific guy I know, who describes himself as "demisexual" and yet admits to watching porn. Not an OnlyFans girl with whom he has the plausible deniability of claiming that he knows her intimately (or the character she's playing) - just regular ol' XVideos.

If you need to get to know someone before you feel sexually attracted to them - how can you jerk off to porn? I don't get it.

I can't speak for demisexuals, but there is a definite cleavage (ummm... maybe not the best term to use in this context) between reality and fantasy. Fantasy/seeing hot movie stars/pin-ups/porn is "yeah, this gets my motor running". Reality is "I like her/him but would I sleep with them if I got the chance? No/I'd need to be friendly or emotionally attracted first".

Jerking off to porn involves nobody but yourself. A real human being in the same space is a different matter. Some guys and gals might be "If this person I just met five minutes ago invited me to Netflix and chill*, I'd be up for it immediately" but some might be "I need to get to know them first".

*Seemingly this is the new "come in for coffee", which is one of the things that amused/aggravated me about Elevatorgate. Back in "this is not America" small town Ireland of my teen years, hearing this on TV shows, I assumed this just meant "We've been on a date, I like you, I'm inviting you in for coffee so we can talk and get to know each other better". Then I was later informed that don't be silly, this is an invitation to have sex, nobody expects it to mean 'we'll just have coffee' if it's offered and if you accept, then you're consenting to have sex. Then later again, with Elevatorgate, I was told that the guy only meant 'come back to my room and have coffee', who would imagine that it was a euphemism for 'have sex with me'?

Argh. No wonder I'm glad to be asexual.

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