Folamh3
User ID: 1175
Folamh3
8mo ago
Call this comic crude all you like but it hit the nail on the head:
Folamh3
8mo ago
Is it so completely out of the realm of possibility that a person can be slim and attractive without boring themselves half to death by doing braindead and repetitive busywork tasks constantly?
In my experience, yes. Although cycling via commuting is a good example of a form of exercise which does not fall under "busywork".
how ungainly it is to arrive at your destination sweaty
Ever heard of a shower? Most offices have them. Get up, put on your exercise gear, put your office clothes in your backpack, cycle into work, take a shower and put on your work clothes. You'll likely have cut a huge amount of time out of your commute, and the morning cycle is far more invigorating and refreshing than spending 30-60 minutes in a car or on public transport (and if you live in a warm climate, being stuck in a cramped bus or train during the morning rush hour will probably result in you getting hot and sweaty anyway).
Bikes are the perfect vehicle. A decent bike costs a few hundred bucks, max, and will last you for years. If cycling in a city, traffic won't impede your progress the way it would in a car or bus (or even a motorbike). Even an only moderately fit person can cover immense distances without exhausting themselves (I'm by no means an avid distance cyclist, but am confident I could cycle 100km tomorrow without any training and without exerting myself to any great degree). Calories are your fuel, so you aren't dependent on petrol/gas infrastructure. If so inclined, you can attach panniers or a trailer to your bike to allow you to bring possessions with you that are too big for a backpack. Certain kinds of bike can ride on effectively any terrain, so you aren't dependent on roads. Virtually all repairs and maintenance can be done by anyone after one day's training, unlike modern cars which are so complex that only specialists can repair them (at great expense to the owner). There's no additional cost in GHG emissions. Bicycles take up far less space than motor vehicles: there are bicycle parking centres in Amsterdam which can comfortably fit thousands of bicycles into a space which would accommodate a few hundred cars at most. They're vastly cheaper than cars (in addition to the smaller initial outlay noted above: almost all of the maintenance and upkeep can be done yourself with only one or two specialised tools, you don't need to buy petrol/gas, you don't need insurance). And best of all, the mere act of using one improves the health of the user along multiple metrics (heart rate, blood pressure, muscle mass, life expectancy etc.).
Your comment has inspired more contempt in me than any I've read on this site in months.
Folamh3
10mo ago
To the tune of "I Love Rock and Roll" by Joan Jett:
I love Uncle Ted
Put another bomb in the mailbox baby
Folamh3
22d ago
Update regarding the kerfuffle surrounding Biden declaring March 31st the Trans Day of Visibility. Zero Hedge reports that Biden himself has no recollection of doing so.
Folamh3
3mo ago
Also, if you enjoyed the post, please consider subscribing to my Substack: https://firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com/
Folamh3
5mo ago
Then there's all the people arguing for why no-fault divorce, and sometimes even the decline of marriage, have been vast positives for women, and therefore society, because they're no longer forced to "settle" as their grandmothers were.
I think it says a lot about you that you hear "settle" and immediately think "woman forced to stay in a marriage with an unattractive husband" as opposed to "women forced to stay in abusive marriage/marriage with a drunk/marriage with a deadbeat" etc.
The fact that women are more likely to come when having sex with an attractive man does not remotely imply that women in relationships with less attractive men are therefore miserable. Sexual satisfaction is but one component of many in what makes a relationship work. (Also, most unattractive men still have fingers and tongues.)
ScienceDirect: "Correlates of satisfaction in British marriages":
Nowhere in the excerpted passage is it mentioned that women married to less attractive men are miserable. The study found that husbands are more satisfied if their wives are more attractive than they are, which is a separate question.
Lucas et al. (2006) looked at heterosexual couple marriages in four different cultures, and found that in every culture, physically attractive people who married a person with approximately the same attractiveness level were more satisfied about their marriage than physically unattractive people, or couples that differed in attractiveness."
This does not imply that attractive women in marriages with less attractive men are miserable, only that they are less satisfied than attractive women in marriages with attractive men.
Lucas, Wendorf, Imamoglu, Shen, Parkhill, Weisfeld, & Weisfeld "Marital satisfaction in four cultures as a function of homogamy, male dominance and female attractiveness"
Nowhere in the excerpted passage is it mentioned that women married to less attractive men are miserable.
Psychology Today: "(4 Reasons Not to Settle in a Relationship)[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201404/4-reasons-not-settle-in-relationship]":
Again, you're conflating "an attractive woman marrying a less attractive man" with "settling". That's not what "settling" means. I imagine quite a lot of women would rather marry a plain-looking man who is caring, supportive and a good provider over an attractive man who cheats on her and can't hold down a steady job. Plenty of attractive women in relationships with attractive men are still settling.
Or in "How Couples Deal With the Loss of Physical Attraction"
This is just an opinion piece, I don't care.
From the Stanford Graduate School of Business via newswise.com "No-fault Divorce Laws May Have Improved Women's Well-being":
Again, you haven't come close to demonstrating that attractive women in marriages to unattractive men are more prone to suicide. There are hundreds of better reasons a woman might divorce her husband (abusive, drunk, deadbeat, philandering etc.).
Which numbered step is unclear? Where do you "lose the thread," as it were?
You've demonstrated that some rather weak and equivocal evidence exists for step 1, but are treating step 1 as if it was axiomatic and basing the subsequent steps on that.
Ireland is an Anglophone nation as English is the primary language (and most people don't have a second language). Unlike India and South Africa, Ireland isn't part of the Commonwealth.
The violence was also (sort of) real
Uh-huh. Bonus points for the top comment making the exact same GTA comparison I did.
Even Die Hard felt more grounded and believable than this. McClane is a bloody battered wreck by the end of his ordeal, while D-FENS hasn't a scratch on him until he actually gets brought down. And McClane is a cop who deals with hardened criminals every day, while D-FENS is an office drone who's never seen combat, and yet effortlessly mows down Compton gangbangers without a second's hesitation. Whatever Falling Down is, it's not "realistic". I don't even think it was really trying to be.
Have you ever seen the movie Gung Ho?
No I haven't. Does it have a similar plot?
Folamh3
23d ago
Would it be rape to have sex with someone who was asleep? Comatose? Sedated? I think almost everyone would say yes.
Folamh3
5mo ago
I think that being in a physically abusive relationship is a good deal worse than being with an autistic guy that genuinely tries hard to be a good dude and is functional enough to hold a decent job.
Earlier you said:
I'm willing to entertain the at-best-counterintuitive position that a relationship with an awkward autist trying reasonably hard to be kind can be worse than a relationship with your typical, garden variety shithead that gambles money away, has a booze problem, or is physically abusive.
Which one is it? Is it worse for a woman to be in a relationship with a guy who beats her up, or a nice guy who treats her right, but is socially awkward and not much to look at?
Asking someone to voluntarily choose to suffer for you benefit is hypocritical and entitled if you are not willing to similarly voluntarily choose to undergo comparable suffering.
As mentioned by someone else in this thread, there's a big difference between "voluntarily choosing to undergo comparable suffering" and "voluntarily choosing to undergo comparable suffering in a way that will actually benefit someone else".
Let's say you* are in a relationship with a woman who's more attractive than you. You've determined that she sacrificed something by getting into a relationship with you rather than someone more conventionally attractive, and want her to know that you appreciate this sacrifice.
A normal person would demonstrate his appreciation for his girlfriend's sacrifice by making a sacrifice of his own which benefits his girlfriend: taking her out for a nice meal, buying her a thoughtful gift, offering to look after the kids so she can enjoy a night out with her girlfriends etc.. This is such an ordinary part of the dynamics of any healthy relationship that it hardly even needs mentioning.
An insane person would demonstrate his appreciation by taking a hammer from his toolbox, smashing all of the fingers on his left hand to bits, then waving his irreparably maimed hand in front of his terrified girlfriend while screaming at her "LOOK I KNOW BEING IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH ME CAUSES YOU TO SUFFER SO I MADE MYSELF SUFFER JUST AS MUCH SO NOW I'M NOT A HYPOCRITE PLEASE LOVE ME"
No prizes for guessing which one your hike to Alaska more closely resembles. Going on a hike to Alaska technically demonstrates a willingness to undergo suffering comparable in degree to the amount you think you're inflicting on some woman by asking her to be your girlfriend. But she doesn't benefit from this trek in any way, so why should she care? Willingly suffering so that others might benefit is noble and admirable; willingly suffering in a way which benefits no one is meaningless. If you don't understand why I'm baffled as to how you think anyone would be impressed by the nobility of your pointless trek to Alaska, ask yourself whether there's anything intrinsically noble or admirable about a lunatic smashing his hand with a hammer. God may be impressed by self-flagellation for its own sake, but we mere mortals tend to find it pointless, masturbatory and a waste of time and resources.
Imagine Dave is dating Alice, who was previously in a relationship with Bob. Dave gets into an argument with Alice and accuses her of not caring about his feelings. Alice says it's not true and starts listing off all of the sacrifices she's made. Only she's listing off the sacrifices she made for Bob's benefit, not Dave's. No one would be persuaded that the sacrifices Alice made for Bob's benefit demonstrate how much she cares for and appreciates Dave. No woman will be persuaded that your trek to Alaska (carried out before you even met her) demonstrates how much you appreciate the sacrifice she made by getting into a relationship with you.
*Or @SkookumTree, if we're still maintaining this charade.
I think the absurdity of your chain of "reasoning" is derived partly from the hidden assumption that only women in relationships with unattractive men suffer, whereas women in relationships with hypermasculine Chads are walking around in a state of uninterrupted and unqualified ecstasy 24/7.
This is nonsense, as should be obvious to anyone who's interacted with another human being at some point in their lives. Everyone in a relationship will hurt the other person in the relationship at some point, in ways overt (domestic abuse, cheating, being a deadbeat) or subtle (passive-aggression, neglectfulness, forgetting birthdays). Even in a healthy relationship devoid of abuse, petty squabbling and so on, every relationship entails sacrifices, compromises, opportunity costs and accommodations which could be characterised as "suffering" e.g. passing up on your dream job in London because your spouse and family live in Berlin; you might not enjoy dinner with the in-laws but you go because it keeps herself happy etc.. The idea that you can enter into a relationship with someone and everything in your life becomes better and they never cause you any amount of hurt or pain (even indirectly) and you never have to make any sacrifices or change your lifestyle for the benefit of the relationship - this is a childish adolescent fantasy. No mature adult person going on a date will "pitch" themselves as "if you get into a relationship with me, you will never experience upset or suffering and will instead be swimming in a lake of good vibes only in perpetuity" - they will instead say "I have a great deal to offer, and getting into a relationship with me will have a net-positive impact on your life - but both of us are only human and are bound to cause each other trouble and upset from time to time". To quote Bob Marley: "The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for." Please tell me you don't actually believe that every woman with a physically attractive boyfriend or husband has never been upset or hurt by something he did. No relationship - none - longer than six months old meets this description.
So it's trivially true that "being in a relationship with a man she finds unattractive causes a woman suffering." - being in a relationship with anyone (attractive, unattractive, male, female, tall, short, fit, fat) will cause a woman some nonzero amount of suffering. What I think you really mean is that the amount of suffering visited upon a woman in a relationship with an unattractive men is net-negative: that the life of every woman in a relationship with an unattractive man is strictly worse than it would have been if she had stayed single. I don't think you or Skookum (assuming you aren't a Skookum sock-puppet) have anything near the kind of data to justify such a hyperbolic claim: the idea that "every woman in a relationship with an unattractive man (in the entire world throughout human history) would have been happier on net had she remained single" is just such an alien proposition to me that contradicts everything I know about the world. It's more bonkers than astrology and Scientology combined.
Let's zoom in from "the entirety of the female sex throughout history in every country in the world" to "you and Skookum". Maybe you both believe that you're so ugly that you can be reasonably confident that any woman who enters into a relationship with one of you would see her quality of life decline precipitously as a result. I'm assuming neither of you would cop to being the kind of men who would beat their girlfriends, or insult and belittle them, or cheat on them, or gamble all their money away. So you're essentially claiming that you're so ugly that the magnitude of your ugliness completely negates whatever positive impact you might have on a prospective girlfriend's life through your other positive qualities. "Yes I provide for her, yes I listen to her, yes I'm emotionally nurturing, yes I satisfy her in bed, yes she finds me funny, yes I get along well with her friends and family, yes I would never insult her - but none of that matters because I'm just ever so hideous, and how could a woman ever love a man who looks like THIS?!!"
With all due respect, chill the fuck out. I am quite confident you are not the fucking Phantom of the Opera. We both know that if you DM'd me a selfie, I would be looking at a picture of a perfectly average dude in his twenties - not strikingly handsome by any means, but far from hideous. You won't do this, because you've built up this cosmic self-pitying self-absorbed tower of a belief system - in which you are forever doomed to be miserable and inflict misery on others because you drew the short straw in the genetic lottery through no fault of your own - and if someone were to say to you "dude, relax, you look fine" you'd be forced to confront the fact that this elaborate edifice you've constructed was based on faulty assumptions - namely:
- that every woman in a relationship with a less than maximally attractive man is miserable and
- that you are so uniquely hideous that you could never hope to meet a woman for whom being in a relationship with you would represent a net positive impact on her life).
All that being said, I imagine that many women in a relationship with you would be unhappy. Not because you're ugly (as I said, I very much doubt that you're anything like as ugly as you think you are), but because it doesn't sound like much fun being in a relationship with a self-pitying narcissist who's unable to take his girlfriend at her word that she sincerely enjoys his company for its own sake (while acknowledging that he's not a 10), and who cannot be dissuaded from believing that she only entered into a relationship with him out of some misguided sense of pity. You don't need to hike to Alaska for two months to fix this problem (in fact doing so will do nothing to address it) - you need to talk to a therapist and get out of your own head.
Folamh3
9mo ago
See my reply to your comment: https://www.themotte.org/post/550/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/113438?context=8#context
Folamh3
1yr ago
I agree that this is a bit of a fudge, but I was trying to keep the article simple and accessible by not introducing bimodal distributions. We can imagine "gender" as a bipolar trait, where "male" is north and "female" is south, even if the reality is quite different. It's a toy model designed to illustrate how the concept of "non-binary" may have arisen from confused thinking about the gender concept.
Folamh3
1yr ago
With you on points #1 and #2. You lost me on point #3. I don't believe that every neuroscientific study published in 2022 is automatically garbage, even if many (or most) of them are.
Also, if you enjoyed the post, please consider subscribing to my Substack: https://firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com/
More options
Context Copy link