moonrider18
11mo ago
less than half a million per year.
The fact that you're using this number as a measuring stick tells me that you probably earn vastly more money than I do.
TBQH the biggest issue in my dating history has been getting taken off the market for long periods by people who didn't really appreciate me because I thought I couldn't do any better.
Sorry to hear that you had that experience.
moonrider18
11mo ago
Complicated rules around creepiness are features, not bugs, designed to paralyze the unattractive or get them ostracized for daring to want sex or relationships.
For what it is worth, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
You don't see anything wrong with a system in which short men are ostracized for daring to want sex or relationships? Short people are people too, you know.
moonrider18
11mo ago
I probably went on dates with a couple hundred women and slept with about a hundred.
Your experience is vastly different from my own.
Dating can be extremely fun!! You should be excited to get out and do this.
It's hard to have fun on a date if nobody agrees to go on a date with me in the first place.
Location matters, a lot.
This may be a key problem for me. And unfortunately it wouldn't be easy for me to move.
Take 3 months and improve all the low hanging things you can about yourself. These are mostly physical. Lose weight if you’re even a little overweight. Go to the gym. Run, do cardio. Take care of your skin. Learn how to dress well. Get a good haircut. Switch to contacts if you have glasses. If you have bad teeth, get them fixed. Old me resented that I had to change something so shallow about myself, but I did it, and it vastly expanded my dating options and dating success.
Unfortunately, mental illness makes all of this more difficult than it would otherwise be. I tried getting contacts, for instance, but I found it psychologically impossible to actually stick the thing in my eye, even with a optometrist's assistant trying to help me.
Tinder sucks, bumble and hinge are good, and Raya is the best.
I'm told that Raya has a 1% acceptance rate. https://elitedatingmanagers.com/raya-app/
If you're on Raya, maybe that's because you're among the top 1% hottest (or most popular) men in the world, which probably explains why you've had so many partners.
Things get way easier with age. I was hooking up with way more hot 21 year olds when I was 30 than when I was 21.
This does not match my experience.
moonrider18
11mo ago
But key is not to look desparate,
I've often been desperate in life, not just regarding dating but regarding life in general. I've suffered a lot of abuse. A lot has gone wrong.
It's a scenario where the "rich" get richer, I suppose. How awful.
moonrider18
10mo ago
While not the first thing Hitler did, he was clear from the beginning that non-Germans would be stripped of their citizenship.
I don't care. There isn't some "killing your own people" escape clause that says it doesn't count if you announce in advance that you hate the people you're going to kill and you intend to strip of them of their rights first.
When I said "Germans" I did not mean "People recognized as German by Adolf Hitler's government." I meant "People who had established permanent residence in the territory of Germany, regardless of Adolf Hitler's personal opinions."
The German Jews, being a different race
In what way were they "a different race"? Do you have some actual science to back up that claim?
Like fathering 4 and killing 2 step children which he believed bullied his own children for years.
If you knew a man who had 4 biological children and two step-children and then he murdered the step-children, would you conclude "This man was a good father to his children"?
moonrider18
10mo ago
it was no military coup.
I didn't say it was a military coup. I said that he overthrew the democratically elected government.
I'll grant that that phrasing usually implies a military coup, but it was the best phrasing I could come up with for what actually happened.
First off, Hitler attempted a military coup in 1923 with the Beer Hall Putsch. Having failed at that, he then tried other tactics. In 1932 the Nazis won a plurality (but not a majority) in the legislature. Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933. Four weeks later came the Reichstag fire, which was plausibly a false flag operation by the Nazis and in any case the Nazis used it as a pretext to demand much greater power for themselves. The March 1933 election saw the Nazis intimidating voters en masse, so it can hardly be called a free election. Afterwards came the Enabling Act which gave Hitler dictatorial powers, after which time the Reichstag always approved everything Hitler did by unanimous consent. At that point democracy was dead and the common people had no legal method for removing leaders they disliked.
This process, wherein democracy was killed off and replaced by dictatorship, is what I meant by the phrase "overthrew the democratically elected government". In retrospect I should have said that he "ended democracy in Germany". That would have been clearer.
had the support of the majority of the people during his reign
Do you have evidence for this? I know he was popular enough to get plurality support in the Reichstag, but a plurality is not a majority. And however many people liked him in 1932, how did that sentiment change during the remainder of his time in office? It's easy to imagine a scenario where eventually a large majority of Germans resented Hitler or at least felt unsure about him, but they kept their thoughts to themselves because they were afraid of getting shot. How exactly can we measure the level of public support in a place without free elections or scientific opinion polls?
In Hitlers' view all non-German people were non-people. Removing Jews, Poles, Blacks, etc was the way to save Germany.
I know that was Hitler's view. I was using the concept of "his people" along the traditional national lines, e.g. if Hitler is the leader of Germany, then the Germans are "his people".
OP was drawing a parallel to fatherhood. If a man fathers 6 children and kills two of them, we would not say he was a good father to his children. If that same man arbitrarily declared in advance that the children he decided to murder were "not my children" based on some weird new definition he just invented, I don't think we would adopt that definition when discussing the question "Was this man a good father to his children?". That was one of the points I was making. OP claims that Hitler acted in the interest of "his people", but OP is using Hitler's own arbitrary definition of who "his people" were, which helps OP to sidestep the horrors of the holocaust. (Though of course in practice murdering 6 million defenseless people for no reason is evil no matter what nationality they happen to have, so it's a moot point.)
Killing non-Germans in Germany was his entire mission, a mission that the vast majority of Germans believed in, supported and fought for.
Again, I'd like to know if you have evidence as to what Germans really thought as opposed to how they acted. A person who's afraid of getting shot will do all sorts of things he doesn't actually believe in.
You cannot say that killing Jews, which he considered "enemies of Germany", is killing his own people or children.
Why should we adopt a murderer's definition of who "his people" or "his children" were? Just because a murderer believes something doesn't make it true.
Suppose that a man named Bob murders five women, all of them prostitutes. Suppose that Bob declares that "prostitutes are non-human". In that case, would we go around telling each other, "You cannot say that that killing prostitutes, which Bob considered 'non-human', is killing humans"?
I profoundly disagree with your view of Hitler.
Let me shift gears now and talk about Hitler. There is no figure more reviled in our culture. He serves as our icon of utmost evil; of the worst aspects of human nature. To publicly question this in the slightest is to run a very real risk of losing everything and, in many Western countries, even runs up against laws that will land one in a jail cell.
Why?
He overthrew the democratically elected government of Germany and installed himself as dictator. He then used his newfound power to murder approximately 6 million defenseless people in the holocaust (mostly Jews, for whom he displayed a special hatred). He also caused the deaths of millions of other people by launching a war of aggression against his neighbors; I've seen estimates of 30-35 million people killed by the Nazis overall: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/non-jewish-victims-of-the-holocaust Hitler also committed other atrocities.
Is this not obvious to you?
One day a few months ago I, in the way of autists, asked myself what exactly was so unusual about Hitler that he should occupy the mythological position that he does.
If you check the historical record, you'll see that murdering 6 million people is a highly unusual thing to do.
One can of course enumerate a long list of terrible atrocities for which he was responsible.
So why are you confused by his vilification?
Only, as I went through them, I couldn’t help but notice that not only were they all basically par for the course for the Father, the would-be messiah of a people,
What part of being the messiah of a people involves murdering 6 million of your own people??
worse examples of each can be found [...] in the biographies of other leaders
That may be, but it doesn't matter much if Hitler is "the worst" vs. "one of the worst"
I cannot fathom how anyone sees this when they look at Hitler. Here was a man who sincerely held the best interests of his People in his heart.
He murdered 6 million of them. You might as well say that a man is a good father if he murders some number of his own children.
Countless of his countrymen, women and children, starved to death needlessly under spiteful, vindictive post-war Allied blockades.
My sources tell me that the blockade killed about 100,000 Germans in the postwar period, which is far less than 6 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany#cite_note-Blockade791-2 . This blockade ended in 1919, so it hardly explains Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s
And what chance had those children of decent lives even if they did survive to adulthood? They would end up de facto slaves, servants to the sneering foreigners who now controlled everything.
I dispute this characterization. Foreigners did not control everything in Germany. German reparations amounted to 2.4% of the national income and the reparations were cancelled in 1932. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations#End_of_German_reparations
Incidentally, the victims of the Holocaust were not foreigners. They were German.
This man was nobody. He was a failed art student. But he decided that he was not going to let that happen. He was going to save his people or die trying
What part of saving your people involves murdering 6 million of them?
in what sense was he not playing the highest, most honorable role for his people — that of a messiah? Was the alternative really any more moral?
I assure you that not murdering 6 million people would have been much more moral.
Are we clutching our pearls and sobbing because it was mean to kill political opponents when what he should have done was to suffer the children of his nation to starve to death in the streets while foreigners feasted in the beautiful homes built by his forefathers?
There are all sorts of ways to provide for a beleaguered people that don't involve murdering 6 million of them.
are we truly to believe that he did what he did simply because he enjoyed causing others pain? The man was a vegetarian for goodness’ sake!
Are you telling me that vegetarians cannot possibly enjoy causing others pain? Did it ever occur to you that someone might be cruel to Jews but kind to animals for some reason?
Now contrast this with Stalin (or Lenin) [...] our politicians can admire them openly
No they can't. Anyone who openly admires Stalin is roundly condemned for it. https://www.foxnews.com/us/professor-praises-stalin-great-leaders-20th-century
So on the subject of ‘my enemies’, let me tell you a few things I notice about them. [...] They really don’t like borders and seem to think that it’s their responsibility to feed and clothe the world
Skipping most of these items in the interest of time, I'm confused why you seem to think that wanting to feed and clothe the world is somehow problematic. You said you were a Christian earlier, and Christ placed a lot of emphasis on helping the poor (or at least that's what the Bible tells me)
My enemies do not feed their own children first. My enemies sell their children at the market and immediately donate the proceeds to the worst, most irredeemably valueless people they can find.
Are your enemies trafficking in child slavery? Who are these people? And who exactly are the "irredeemably valueless people" to whom they donate the proceeds? I am very confused by this.
The reason our society is so reflexively disgusted by Hitler is because we have mostly internalized the notion that our children should die that others might live, and the man with the tiny moustache represents the polar opposite of that.
Hitler did not save his people! He claimed to be doing that, but in reality he murdered 6 million of them and led the others into a disastrous war.
And considering how much of the United States budget is devoted to U.S. citizens as opposed to foreigners, I'd hardly say that our society (assuming you're American) has "internalized the notion that our children should die that others might live".
it seems to me that if I'm to be a Christian, this directly implies feeding my child to the dogs. And if I'm to do otherwise, this fully generalizes to Hitler. Either way I had better get serious about whatever it is I'm doing here.
Isn't there some moral framework that maximizes human happiness? Shouldn't you be on the lookout for some way to save everybody's children?
moonrider18
11mo ago
I'm sorry to hear about your father.
Thanks for your words of support.
you could consider something in the therapy line, counseling, or internal family systems
I've seen many therapists over the course of the last decade. I have Complex PTSD.
While negative situations in your early life can have negative knockon consequences, it is also true that making positive changes to your own life will have positive knock-on changes.
I've been through many negative events, both in my early life and in more recent years.
I'm trying to make positive changes, but it's a slow process.
moonrider18
11mo ago
It may seem like it doesn't matter but you're always going to be happier if you shift your beliefs to a positive view of events rather than a negative one.
Not true. In cases where events are actually negative, an accurately negative view is far better than an inaccurate positive view.
For instance, if I wake up to discover that my house is on fire, I'm going to be much happier in the long run if I think "MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE!" and evacuate, as opposed to shifting my beliefs to a positive viewpoint where I tell myself everything's fine and then I go back to bed and I get third degree burns.
I was raised in a culture of "pretend everything's fine". IT DID NOT GO WELL FOR ME.
moonrider18
11mo ago
Try The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi, followed by The Red Pill Handbook anthology.
I've heard that "Red Pill" men are men who don't care about women's feelings or rights. I've heard that "Red Pill" men view women as objects to be manipulated for the benefit of men, at least when it comes to sex/romance/dating.
Have I heard correctly? Is this what the Red Pill Handbook says? If not, could you summarize the book for me?
moonrider18
11mo ago
women are disposable playthings to me and I have absolutely no concern for their feelings at all beyond the instrumental requirements to get them to sleep with me.
That attitude is horrible, manipulative and sexist.
At a point you come to regard each one as an entertaining brain-teaser (how do I need to rotate this Rubix cube to get it into my bedroom?) rather than as a person to whom the Golden Rule applies.
It is a well-established fact that women are people. Treating people like objects is the essence of evil.
You've probably hurt a lot of women, and I think you're hurting yourself in the meantime. Stop.
moonrider18
10mo ago
What's your favourite German movie?
I liked Rescue Dawn, which was by a famous German director. The movie is English-language, but so is The Fifth Element.
As far as German-language films are concerned, Run Lola Run was memorable (and a bit strange).
You may be right that Germany is lagging behind other countries somewhat, but that's still a far cry from your claim that modern Germany never produces "anything that has human meaning or beauty,".
moonrider18
11mo ago
What's the greater evil: my psychopathy, or OP's incel-ism?
I am OP, and I'd rather suffer privately than cause a bunch of other innocent people to suffer for my sake. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Does it really matter that one uses evil means when the evil means exist only in my subjective qualia, not in the objective outside world?
The objective outside world includes a number of women whom you have personally treated as disposable playthings. People get hurt when they're treated that way.
moonrider18
11mo ago
there are rapidly diminishing returns to more money for dating once you get past, say, 100k/year.
Again, vastly beyond my actual income.
men are attracted to the majority of fertile-age women. Women are only attracted to a small minority of men.
Is there evidence for this? I read an article that says men and women face similar disparities in the top X% of your gender getting a disproportionate amount of attention: https://qz.com/1051462/these-statistics-show-why-its-so-hard-to-be-an-average-man-on-dating-apps . For instance the top 1% of men get 16.4% of the likes from women, while the top 1% of women get 11.2% of the likes from men. So it's worse for men, but not a huge difference really
Men are primarily attracted to youth, beauty, fertility, purity, and nurturing. Women are primarily attracted to height, status, power, money, violence, sexual experience, and dark triad traits.
Is there evidence for this? Some sort of survey or something? (Also, how do we separate nature from nurture?)
Women often follow a dual-mating strategy of sleeping with high-value men in their sexual prime, then settling down with a reliable provider in their later years.
How is "high-value" measured in this case? You said earlier that women are primarily attracted to "height, status, power, money, violence, sexual experience, and dark triad traits." Are you saying that women value these traits in their sexual prime, but cease valuing these traits when they get older?
This is called Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks. You want to be the Alpha Fucks, or at least avoid being the Beta Bucks.
What's wrong with settling down with a reliable partner?
never commit to a woman over 25, never commit to a woman with children
Why not? What would happen if I did that?
pretend you have more sexual experience than you do, project confidence, never appear needy or desperate, etc.
Has it occurred to you that lying might have negative consequences? If I'm actually feeling needy or desperate for whatever reason, isn't it better to seek out people (romantically or otherwise) who can deal with the emotions I actually have, instead of wearing a mask all my life?
Personally I have a long history of being smothered by masks.
moonrider18
11mo ago
Negging is mostly dead. Too many loser dudes who think it is just insulting women.
Isn't it? What is negging, if not a stealth insult designed to make the woman lean on you to boost her injured self-esteem?
Tell stories about how well you are doing on the app, how women are crazy about you in funny ways
So...I should just lie to everybody?
moonrider18
11mo ago
What would flatter one girl would get another to want to call the cops.
You can see how Loss Aversion might lead me to avoid talking to women at all. =(
In my opinion it's a good thing to go on dates even with women you're not super attracted to, because the cost of one evening and paying for dinner is small compared the experience gained at socializing and the potential opportunity to unexpectedly connect.
First I need to find someone who's willing to go on a date with me.
Like every profile, in my experience it does not actually lower your elo, and takes much less time and energy than trying to determine whether you're attracted to someone who 99% will not match you anyway.
Does this mean I should just click "like" on hundreds of profiles? (Here I was being respectful and actually reading each profile and thinking about it first.)
Ask for their social media at the first good opportunity
What social media things are most popular these days? (I've heard tell that Facebook is dying and I'm behind the times.)
moonrider18
11mo ago
An hour a week on the dating apps should be sufficient to get a date per week.
How many profiles would you expect a guy to contact within that hour?
moonrider18
10mo ago
What's the evidence that women are hurt by his nonchalantness?
"Nonchalantness" is selling it short. Butlerian describes his attitude as psychopathy. That's literally the word he used. He also used the word "evil" and the phrase "women are disposable playthings to me and I have absolutely no concern for their feelings at all beyond the instrumental requirements to get them to sleep with me"
I would have thought that the destructive nature of this approach would be self-evident.
If you'd like proof, though, here's a paper about psychopathy in romantic relationships: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306624X211049187
And here's a few personal testimonials:
https://www.readunwritten.com/2017/01/26/im-tired-guys-wanting-not-wanting-date/
https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1467tq1/the_goddamn_audacity_of_men/
Less anxiety in the world is better
Psychopathy often causes abundant anxiety in its victims.
moonrider18
11mo ago
Your odds of hurting women by talking to them are very, very low.
That's good to hear.
Occasional rejection is something every man has to face
"Occasional" rejection would be wonderful. I get rejected at least 95% of the time. I haven't had a date in years.
Most women are attracted to confident dominant ambitious high status men.
So basically, most women are not attracted to me. Drat.
You should aim to act like a tribal chieftain who believes he was predestined for greatness by the gods.
Are you saying that I should lie?
moonrider18
11mo ago
Thanks for the info
moonrider18
11mo ago
However, some of those points might be better characterised as black-pilled nowadays. Also—soft, euphemistic blue-pill language is somehow leaking through: e.g., “sleeping with”.
Are there pills of many different colors? Can someone give me a glossary?
moonrider18
11mo ago
Negging is supposed to be a negative compliment
"Negative compliment" sounds like a fancy term for "insult".
they're very on alert for insults, they read as low value today.
Was there a time when insults were considered high value? Were woman walking around thinking "God, I just wish someone would insult me already!"?
(I'm new, so I'm not sure if this is Culture War.)
Does anyone have any modern dating advice?
I'm interested in finding out what are the "real" rules that people operate under when it comes to dating, which might be different from the rules they ought to have or the rules they claim to have or the rules that they believe that they have (but subconsciously they use different rules). And of course the word "people" is very broad and presumably various subgroups operate in different ways, so I'd be happy for clarification on that point too. (And then of course individuals differ from the norms of the subgroups they belong to). Ideally I'd like to see some objective evidence, but personal experiences/impressions still count for something.
I identify with the difficulties in Scott's classic posts "Untitled" and "Radicalizing the Romanceless". Generally I'm paranoid about approaching women, because I feel like maybe they think I'm a creep and they're just too polite to say so. My biggest concern isn't that they dislike me per se; it's that maybe I've hurt the woman without realizing it. I'm very sensitive about that.
I've done dating sites and speed dating but I can't seem to find any connections. I should note that I have low self-esteem, so rejection is hard on me, which in turn makes it difficult to put myself out there. (Here's a question: How much time per week does the average single straight guy spend on dating sites etc., assuming he's actively looking for a date?)
I'm not a misogynistic incel, but whenever I talk about my dating woes a good portion of people feel the need to tell me "Don't be an incel!" when I haven't said or done anything remotely misogynistic. I figure the Motte is probably a good place to find people who understand my perspective.
I've been looking for dating advice recently, but everything seems contradictory. You're supposed to treat all people equally regardless of gender (which is great!), but at the same time you're supposed to conform to gender stereotypes and you should expect that most women will do the same. People tell me it sucks and it's not fair, but I'm the man and that means I have to initiate contact and get rejected a lot. They also tell me to be persistent but in the same breath they tell me not to be too persistent and it's not clear where to draw the line.
They tell me to be authentic but they also tell me to "fake it till you make it" and act like I'm a cool guy who dates people all the time. They tell me to express my feelings but they also tell me that "women can smell fear" so I should act confident even if I don't feel confident. They tell me to be honest but I've also had a (female) therapist suggest that I should tell some white lies to make myself more attractive. This woman gave a TED talk about her wonderful relationship with her husband (who sadly passed away) and she admits that the relationship began with lies: He falsely claimed to be a Fullbright Scholar to get her attention. Months later she found out the truth, but she was only angry for a short time. Ultimately, his lie made their whole relationship possible!
People tell me that women like it when you express interest in them, but also they think it's creepy. People tell me I must never express interest in a girl at her place of work, but the only relationship I had in the last 10 years began with that exact scenario, and the girl was flattered! (We eventually broke up, and since then I've also approached a few female coworkers at my own workplace, without success.) People tell me that if I show interest in a girl early on then I'm "too easy" and there's no "intrigue", so the appropriate thing is to give little hints about my feelings so she can pursue me. (In which case, apparently I'm taking the female role and she's taking the male role? I'm not offended by that; I'm just confused.)
People say that they met the love of their life on a dating app, but they also say that dating apps are trash and nobody likes them. (But even though everybody hates dating apps, apparently nobody can think of anything better to do.) People tell me it's ok to wear t-shits with the name of my favorite show or whatever (it displays my personality), but also I should never do that and the only way to be attractive is to wear solid colors with the occasional stripe.
One commenter on the Motte wrote "running a 'playing hard to get' game on a woman seems suboptimal. If you are looking for someone with whom you are authentically drawn to/compatible with, why set up these hoops or create a culture of deception within the relationship?", but in the next breath that same person wrote "it is also a risk to be overly eager. It's unattractive". But if I'm very attracted and I act like I'm only mildly attracted, doesn't that create a culture of deception within the relationship??
Long story short, I'm lost.
(And it surely doesn't help that I've got a long history of mental illness and isolation and thus I missed out on a lot of opportunities for social learning.)
I am actually bi, but in practice it's rare for a guy to get my attention, so I'm mostly concerned about how to approach women.
"Radicalizing" was written in 2014, and the advice at the bottom leads me to essays from 2001. It occurs to me that this might be woefully out of date.
Does anyone have any modern advice for me?
More options
Context Copy link