faceh
18hr ago
The "simp" problem is hard to quantify.
I've come to believe that a lot of it isn't really Western Men obsessed with female validation. Thanks to the internet, its actually millions upon millions of third world males obsessed with bobs and vagene. But for the receiving woman... attention is attention. Money still spends.
I also note how many prominent 'male feminist' types keep getting outed as wanton sex pests and then devoured by the very mob they courted. We are selecting for guys who are able to avoid that trap.
Men really could use a better, coordinated method of keeping each other from pedestalizing women who don't give a crap about them, and, ideally, ostracizing the guys who defect hard and try to become good 'allies' as a means of gaining sexual access.
faceh
19hr ago
(Like - suppose I wanted to marry now, the last thing I want to do is to court some old fuck who's probably a backwards boomer opposite of me on politics and all that. I'd rather court the woman, notwithstanding all the woes of modern courting!)
Right, but at least you might expect that dad can be an ally in your quest to win his daughter if he decides you're worthy, he can scare off the other suitors and encourage/push the daughter to make her choice and stick with it.
I've had a bit of a history of pursuing fatherless women and the benefit of not having to earn the respect of a guy who considers his girl a princess is usually outweighed by her having zero discipline in her behavior and are very bad at interpreting male behavior correctly, so its like trying to domesticate a feral fox. You get bitten a lot in the process and they often slip away back into the forest anyway.
faceh
20hr ago
I still struggle a bit with the mechanics of it all.
The reason things that upset women are political nonstarters is because they will have a disproportionate freakout, they'll get on TV shows and cry (exploiting DEEP biological wiring), they'll march in the street and scream, they'll directly confront people (knowing they won't be physically assaulted!) and they'll, ultimately, show up at the polls and vote against whomever dared make the suggestion in the first place.
But on the flip side, all you need to do in response, as a male politician, is say "no, we're doing it anyway." The women have no recourse beyond more screaming. They don't enforce the laws, and they can't actually go on strike and bring society to a halt. I note that when Roe v. Wade was overturned there was a similar massive freakout... and a few places passed some new laws, but generally speaking things normalized pretty fast. Abortion remains THE primary voting issue for women, but that's all they can do is cast votes and scream. You can plug your ears.
So I suspect we're just waiting to achieve a critical mass of men who are capable of saying "no, we're doing it anyway."
Either because they're just that Chadly or because they've got absolutely nothing left to lose.
I don't mind RNG when
A) its the natural result of large scale processes that combine the effects of hundreds of different inputs...
and
B) There are clearly steps I can take to change my own odds or move to a different place in the gamespace where I think the odds are more favorable, and thus have some control of my fate.
The whole problem with apps is they're manipulating the RNG for their purposes, and in so doing skewing outcomes in a way that is REALLY bad for the players, and in a way that the players themselves are unable to influence.
Even in a Casino I can at least make the choice between playing Poker, Blackjack, Slots, or Roulette, with the varying influence of 'skill' on the outcomes that is available there, even knowing the house always wins.
faceh
20hr ago
I mean, one of the few situations where an average man will suddenly find himself on the receiving end of attention from multiple attractive women is going to a (decent) strip club. Where, of course, they are trained and optimized for getting you to pay as much money as quickly as possible.
So you figure out real quick that attractive women showing spontaneous interest are usually being put up to it by some other third party with other motivations.
And it is very hard to identify the rare case where the intentions are genuine, and the further along you go trying to figure it out, the more you're exposing yourself to whatever scam is being run.
One time I made a profile on a sugar-daddy website, and had the crazy experience of the hot women (well, assuming they were real) crowding into MY inbox. Including, through random utter chance, I girl I knew from high school.
Quite the clearpill for me.
faceh
20hr ago
This is maybe the worst factor.
If you approach (or are approached) in a public setting, you can expect a White Knight or bridge troll to intervene, at least passively, with the attempts you're making to advance things with your target. Suddenly you're having to put on a performance for a larger audience.
And sure if your charisma rolls are high enough maybe this isn't a failure condition
But its an added order of magnitude having to pass her shit-tests while there is a hostile-ish interloper you also have to pacify.
And wingmen seem to be a less common thing these days?
faceh
21hr ago
I remember being an awkward teenager and once asking a stunningly beautiful waitress for her number. She turned me down, saying something like "I have a boyfriend, but that took balls. Girls like that." It was an unambiguous but positive rejection, and didn't cost her anything.
Yeah. Tons of younger women seem to be unable to effectively flirt OR to effectively and gracefully reject an otherwise polite advance.
You can give men all the coaching you like, but if the women they're targeting either completely shut down/retreat... or get nasty in response, then they will RAPIDLY decide there's no point to it.
Doubly so if the reward for a 'successful' approach is just further humiliation on the actual date. And they know marriage and kids are probably not in the cards.
Yep.
This is why I keep throwing myself against the tide trying to point out how the problem is systemic and advice that focuses on what any individual man can do is going to fail for the vast majority of them, which will make them more angry.
Because the men need to cooperate and there's various interests who would feel extremely threatened if men started coordinating to advance their interests, so they expend substantial wealth and effort to disrupt any attempt at coordination.
And I'll also throw in that part of the reason is that women almost instinctively cooperate on the social level even if they are in breakneck competition with each other on the individual level. If they perceive a threat to the interests of the gender, they will very rapidly array as a unified front, and peck any defectors into line. It is uncanny to watch.
Hence social movements can spring up almost overnight to advocate for a women's social issue. Whereas any pressing male problem tends to be stifled for years for simply being unpopular to rally around.
Compare the funding that goes into curing Breast Cancer vs. Prostate Cancer, despite both having similar fatality rates.
faceh
21hr ago
Consider that these protestors were acting specifically in resistance to the current regime, though.
Practically, this makes them a much more useful tool.
Morally, well, its usually better to lend support to people who are actually asking for it and, in turn, have some capacity to act on their own once you give them that support.
Likewise with Venezuela, we have a friendly party to throw in with.
faceh
21hr ago
Do you think that the US military has magic AD protecting Trump that it has never deployed anywhere else in the world?
... I'm not counting something like this out entirely.
But I don't think any other country has a capability that they could deploy with any confidence that it would ensure Trump's demise, as long as he is serving in the Office of POTUS.
faceh
21hr ago
Yes and no.
Even moderately attractive women have a ton of options in front of them. They could go on a new casual date every single day if so inclined.
The stopping problem is basically the ENTIRETY of what they face. But most don't have anything resembling a strategy.
And the very fact that they have so many options inflates their self-perceived value, so they're immediate incentive is to keep going until their PERFECT candidate arrives.
But that perfect candidate is likely a dude who, himself, has many options. And so the market devolves into something like the Redpill model of women in active pursuit of those perfect candidates, and those perfect candidates able to passively select/exploit casual hookups almost at will.
For the guys who don't have options, there's not much to be done about their stopping problem, since they can't select from what they don't have.
I really think its just the gamified nature of the apps that makes it unworkable even for those with a good strategy as it mixes in people with very different expectations and backgrounds.
I think this prediction is fraught with the same issues any prognostication more than a couple years out is, thanks to the rapidly changing technological landscape.
But yeah, if we see economic downturn for [reasons] this likely reasserts the gender dynamics, of necessity, because we can't afford to elevate women into critical positions, and the labor men provide will be far more valuable in those conditions.
However, I largely reject people who say anything is 'politically impossible.' Not after what I've seen Trump do. Throwing in the towel without making some calculated efforts is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I do genuinely think that if there's a massive cultural shift and political power starts coalescing on the right, women will gravitate there naturally and discard previous beliefs pretty readily.
I offer the small, tiniest bit of evidence by pointing out two things:
-
The recent decline in young people identifying as LGBT. The increase in the first place was largely driven by women.
-
The accelerating disappearance of the body positivity movement thanks to weight loss drugs. Or at least the "healthy at any size" division. (also many of its proponents just... died).
Simply put, if it becomes 'high status' to be a married stay at home mom, expect women to fall into line rapidly. Whether it is technology or politics or something else that creates the change, that's our best chance at a 'soft' landing.
In my local area you have:
-
The nominally conservative country girl who loves church and outdoorsy stuff and the beach. But there's usually some tell on her profile that she's not REALLLY ready to settle down. Beach photos in a bikini often somewhere on the profile, and THAT'S usually how you find out if she's gone heavy on the tattoos or not. Photos of her wearing cowboy gear, hanging out with the girlies, and sometimes holding a fish.
-
The career-first lady, always has the professional outfits, usually has travel photos, usually subtly implies that she makes more than you. Usually in their mid-late twenties, these are good prospects but the question is always 'why hasn't someone snatched you up.' Gym selfies are the raciest thing they'll post. Rarely tatted up.
-
Nurses. Oh so many nurses. Usually the most direct about what they expect/look for, and almost always have some racy pics in clubwear, or bikini, or just something casually suggestive. The vague message seems to be "I'm hot and approachable but NOT. EASY." 80% of the time happily displaying tats.
Less common but comes up as well are the bartenders/service workers who are either the ones who are actually modest in their expectations or the least aware of relatively low status.
There's a deluge of single moms but I filter those.
I know it seems that im kind of unfairly targeting men here, but i see little alternative.
I've proposed literally just return to a status quo ante of circa 1993 with regard to education policy/funding.
I don't think you have to 'target' female sexuality. Literally just level the playing field and stop subsidizing degrees that don't pay well or boosting female employment in careers they aren't suited for. Let the market correct.
And you will then have, on the margins, more men with relatively high status and a bit more wealth, and more women who haven't had their standards raised arbitrarily whilst becoming less appealing as partners.
And we start to reduce the political polarization of women because it is 100% clear that the college education environment is driving the women to the left in droves. Fewer Gender Studies degrees would be an unalloyed improvement.
If nobody is willing to make a policy change that risks upsetting females, the current course will only correct when something breaks.
I bring this up mainly because The Gender Divide is extremely pronounced among younger generations. There's zero reason to think this moderates later.
As the Boomers shuffle off, there's going to be a crack in the dam that currently protects females from social restriction and cultural 'retaliation.'
What do you think happens if a generation where an actual majority of the men don't even believe in gender equality achieves political power?
Implement some solutions now to correct course, or I'm genuinely afraid for how the Zoomers will end up addressing this problem that, from their perspective, stole their future.
faceh
1d ago
What's your reason for assuming the interventions needed should target men and male behavior.
Is there something that men have started doing differently that we need to correct?
faceh
1d ago
Why'd we abduct Maduro?
Sure there were drug boats being sent over but Venezuela is even less a military threat than Iran.
The grand strategy seems to be isolating China from allies they can use to pester the U.S. or use as a staging point for their own operations.
I dunno, after managing to achieve voluntary accords with every single other regional power there, Iran is the singular inflamed festering boil that stands out as an obstacle to some semi-permanent peace. It likewise (as opposed to, say, North Korea) seems to have a significant portion of the population opposed to the current ruling party.
Generally I'm all for leaving them alone and caring primarily about domestic issues. But if a direct conflict with China is on the horizon, ensuring all the nations they could import energy from are either on our side or are sidelined entirely is just good game theory.
Its kind of maddening that optimizing for simply attracting women and having sex with them will, in extremis, tend to pull you further from your goal of getting that stable, devoted partner you can share a life with.
You'd think "Oh I'll just acquire as much female interest as possible and then winnow down my options and pick a good one."
But the factors that will lead you to encounter and appeal to the 'good ones' are some of the first ones you'd discard in the goal of finding ones willing to sleep with you quickly. You are filtering out the ones that would be best suited as life partners. So you suddenly find that 'winnowing down' a field of bad options just leaves you with bad options.
And having a mentality of "commitment bad" is core to being a player, so there's a direct paradox there. If you DO manage to attract a decent woman, your own internalized reluctance to commit will be a stumbling block for you.
But you still have to be good enough at the skills that make women attracted to get the one worth keeping, you just can't keep going down the tempting, easy path that this suggests.
faceh
1d ago
It was a terrible thing to notice that the mere act of swiping across 100 profiles makes me feel more indifference towards them all.
It isn't helped by the fact that most profiles converge on 1 of like 3 archetypes.
And then getting a handful of matches, engaging in the best playful banter you can manage, then having the interest peter out and then unmatch without a date and its clear that there's no point to investing feelings.
No individual connection has value at that point.
See, when you say it out loud like that it sounds genuinely psychopathic and someone looking at this from the outside would say that the ecosystem created by the apps needs to burn down entirely and the earth salted.
"I go the casino once every 6 months, play the slots for 10 minutes, and if I don't hit a jackpot such that a boyfriend pops out, I just leave."
This would be an unhealthy way to engage with virtually any hobby, but triply so when it comes to finding a partner.
Or maybe its more closely modeled as "opening up the fridge and browsing for food, leave if nothing appeals, then repeat until you're hungry enough to accept a particular option."
but why do it in the first place?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
Look, even as someone skeptical of Israel's influence on American politics, the Iranian government is NOT some innocent widdle victim in this little drama.
And its worth mentioning that our relationship with the current government of Iran STARTED by them taking a bunch of our diplomats hostage for over a year.
As far as I know Israel was not involved in that.
This is not a state that we could happily co-exist with. Even Kim Jong Un was willing to shake Trump's hand, at least. The stick was the only way this was ever going to go with the Ayatollah, in my estimation.
In this particular matter, U.S. and Israeli motives and goals are in very close alignment. And the Israelis are clearly putting some skin in the game. Its their cities that are getting bombarded, I've seen videos of that I'm pretty sure aren't AI.
If the ultimate position represented here is "I want to see Israel get its shit pushed in even if that means Iran gets a nuke and consolidates its grip in the region" then fine, just say that.
If you think Israel is capable of kneecapping Iran unilaterally, then I'm not sure why U.S. intervention would piss you off... provided little American blood or treasure is spilt in the process.
Or if your position is that Israel would happily false flag an Iranian attack on U.S. troops to get the U.S. involved, then SAY THAT. I just want the logic explained so I can assess.
That's what I'm saying. If Iran wouldn't retaliate against U.S. assets, but Israel will happily fire on our boys whilst claiming it was Iranian missiles, THAT is a stronger argument.
faceh
2d ago
Walk me through the logic?
Would Israel not have struck Iran if the U.S. weren't involved?
If Israel struck Iran would Iran NOT have launched attacks that put U.S. personnel at risk?
And if Iran did strike U.S. bases or personnel, would the U.S. not have taken that as an act of war and retaliated?
If the fact is that Israel was going to strike, Iran would retaliate, and THEN the U.S. would retaliate as a matter of course... then yes, the inevitable conclusion is that a pre-emptive strike in cooperation with Israel is preferable all around.
I don't think making the game-theoretically sound action is the same as being the other party's bitch.
Or in other words, if Israel went in alone and lit the candle, and Iran dropped ordinance on Americans, would you be blaming that on Israel or Iran right now?
Would you be against the U.S. taking further action?
Or is your contention that Israel would have withheld their actions if they didn't have U.S. backing guaranteed?
I agree.
Some of my favorite series of all time basically just advance the plot in interesting directions, let the characters have meaningful development, and then, (key point) put those characters in situations that actually, believably challenge them.
The Bourne Trilogy (I generally don't acknowledge anything that came after) was incredibly tight on scripting, never let the scope grow too big. Add likeable characters here and there, and then ratchet up the tension on them.
There's a point there, but the whole issue is that women aren't accepting such correction or coaching.
Men hear the coaching, many will attempt to apply it, and after they put in the work they may even notice improvement but, I'd suggest, rarely do the rewards scale with the effort required. This becomes disheartening. If they complain, the only advice is 'man up and try hard.' Over and over again.
Women, by and large, will interpret attempts to coach or correct them as a critique, will often react badly to this critique, reject it outright, and go to their girl's groupchat or post a tiktok to complain about people trying to 'control women's behavior' and they'll immediately have their opinion confirmed and validated by other women (and the male orbiters) and watch a dozen other videos which claim she's empowered for standing her ground.
They're much more ensconced in a media environment that coddles their emotions and confirms their biases overall.
So attempting to do one on one uplifting of individual women when there's an entire Billion-dollar multimedia edifice screaming the opposite in their ear will probably be ineffective in most cases.
It could still be worth doing, but can we at least be honest about the source of the issue?
I daresay one major reason so many feel completely comfortable heaping shame and pressure on men but leave women's behavior alone is the tacit admission that women won't accept influence or advice from someone they do not respect, and so they wouldn't listen at all (or would attack the person).
More options
Context Copy link